Return Home
It is currently Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:52 am

All times are UTC-06:00

Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:59 am 
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 2:24 am
Posts: 60
Location: Palma de Mallorca

I am currently in the process of gathering all kinds of information about the idea that our universe is just a virtual reality.
Doing this is a result of listening to Tom's lecture in Malaga. While it didn't strike me as that important when I was reading MBT, because it seemed to me to be just one detail of many in understanding MBT, I think now that any chance to gain ground in mainstream science will be through the idea of digital physics / virtual reality.

Look for example at three decades of consciousness- and PSI-research at a renowned university like Princeton (PEAR Labs). Despite the many results, the simple idea of researching paranormal things like telepathy or telekinesis is still ridiculed by the majority of the scientists. Dean Radin and others filled books with a truck load of experiments done under proper scientific protocol and still nobody cares. I liked Tom's explanation of the PSI uncertainty principle very much, which is another reason for me, that changing the way western societies will view the world will hardly be accomplished through any more research or experiments in the consciousness area. You just won't convince the majority with any kind of experiments based on things that can only be experienced on a personal (subjective) basis.

So I think (accompanied by a strong gut feeling) that, if through the acceptance of the idea of this being a virtual reality physicists can accomplish better and easier results and create better models, this might be the potential break through.
Right now physicists have to cling to all kinds of beliefs and weird theories like a Big Bang creating a whole universe without any cause and out of sheer nothingness to explain how our world came into existence. Or that there is an infinite amount of parallel universes just to explain some weird effects observed in quantum mechanics. Or that strings combined with a 10- or 11-dimensional universe are the way how electrons and quarks are existing in our reality.

Those are all nice theories so far, but without any verifiability through experiments. And to me they are making a somewhat desperate appearance by trying to explain our world with a model that seems to be more complicated than the reality itself. That reminds me of the complex models in medieval times, when they were trying to explain the movement of the sun, the planets and the stars in an earth-centric model. :-)
You somehow got results in perceived accordance with reality, but gosh, the complexity of the model and the objects paths was just weird.

Ok, I am digressing here, sorry. I just wanted to provide a background for my question.

Now in Einstein's special relativity the speed of light is a constant (c) limited to 300.000 km/sec. And according to him time and space are inseparable and thus create together a four dimensional continuum called space-time.
And there is his famous twin-brother Gedanken-experiment to explain the phenomena of time dilation, where one brother stays on earth while the other travels in a space-ship with near lightspeed for some time and then comes back. And while the brother on earth is now maybe 30 years older, the other in the space ship has only aged a few months. The reason being, that when you reach velocities close to the speed of light, time starts moving slower for you. Of course the person itself won't notice it, because everything feels normal, but for a person seeing for example the watch from the outside, the hands on the watch would move slower. Experiments with planes and atomic clocks also have confirmed Einsteins Theory.
So far so good.

I can easily follow the thought, that in a 3D space with an absolute speed limit like "c" you can't move into all three directions with full speed. Either you go for example upwards with 300.000 km/sec, but then there is no speed left for going left or right or into the third dimension anymore. Or you move into any of the other directions but thus reduce your speed in the upward direction accordingly. Assuming time is just the 4th dimension, it makes absolute sense that by moving full speed through the other 3 dimensions there is thus no speed left for moving through the 4th dimension so therefore time comes to a halt for the object (or person). Again so far so good.

In a physical 4D universe I can understand why this makes sense. You have an absolute speed limit and can only distribute (or spend) it over the 4 Dimensions so that the total velocity never goes beyond the limit.

But we are talking about a virtual reality (VR) here. So the simulation is incremented at one delta-t at a time, which means all the objects and their necessary updates are also calculated every delta-t, right? So when I am just sitting in my chair, time is for me passing by normally and at the same speed as for my imagined twin-brother sitting next to me and thus I am also aging as defined by the rule-set of the VR.

And the formula that Tom uses in his lectures and that explains why c has to be a constant is this:
So we are limited in the speed of moving an object from place A to place B because the simulation is limited by the delta-t increments to update the respective position within the virtual 3D space. I get the mathematics so far.

Now here comes my question and maybe it's completely stupid and I am overlooking something totally simple:
But why can't the simulation, when an object is moving at full speed through the virtual 3D space, still update the time-increments for that object at the regular intervals as it would do for an object not moving at all?

It shouldn't be a question of the necessary computing-power. Just because TBC has to constantly update the position of the object in the 3D-grid because the object is moving with lightspeed can't be the reason why TBC stops to also constantly update the timing-process (e.g. aging for a person or counting the digits on the clock) of that object.

Please be reminded that I am not talking about a purely physical universe. I am talking about a VR. For a VR incrementing the time-frame for an object should be possible independently of its speed. Actually it should be even easier, because the VR algorithm wouldn't need to check the current speed of movement for that object every time before it decides if it should invoke the "time-increment"-subroutine for that thing or skip it this time (which it should do every 2nd time for an object at 50% of the speed of light).

Anybody capable of showing me at which point I took the wrong turn? I greatly appreciate any attempt. Please don't be shy to use mathematical formulas if necessary to show me my mistake. I am far from being a pro in that field, but didn't do too bad following the subject at school and don't run away screaming just because someone uses some Infinitesimal calculus in his explanation.

Thank you in advance,


c_equals_time.jpg [ 9.95 KiB | Viewed 3882 times ]

Always expect the unexpected...
PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:27 am 
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 2:24 am
Posts: 60
Location: Palma de Mallorca
Wow, one week passed, 44 people seemed to have at least browsed through my post until now, but nobody has answered it yet. :-(

Was my question so stupid, that everybody is too polite to point out my mistake?
Or did the mathematical formula, which I included in my post, make everybody stop reading any further to the point where my actual question started? :-)

Joking aside, I am honestly surprised that I got a lot of great answers to my other posts in this forum thus far, but this one is still left unanswered. Kind of leaves me stuck in my argument for a virtual reality, that I wanted to present to some of my sceptical friends.

But as long as I am not capable of answering such a basic question that has the potential to contradict the notion of a virtual reality, I don't feel good presenting the idea to them just yet.

Pondering the ostensible paradox by myself, I have developed a crude theory why bringing the time to a standstill might also be a strong requirement for a VR. But I am not quite satisfied with it and would prefer someone else's input.


Always expect the unexpected...

PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:41 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 11788
Location: Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia

I was hoping that someone would step up and do this for me. Your problem seems to be in your understanding of the way that time comes about. Time is not a calculated thing. The displacement of an 'object' from cell to cell of the 3D model grid must be calculated, dependent upon its speed of motion. Diagonal motion results from a combination of motions from cell to cell to approximate the exact direction involved. The delta x as distance increments is so small that the irregularity is un noticeable. As far as that goes, we do not know the precise topology and geometry of the 'grid'.

The time is not calculated but is rather the fixed difference between model cycle to model cycle within TBC. The rate at which the whole model is refreshed. That is a very fast rate, just as the Plank distance is very small. Unmeasurably small and fast to PMR science. Also keep in mind that from within the VR model, delta t is fixed while outside the model, the VR, there may be in fact be a varying number of substrate cycles required within TBC to complete the 'node' calculations but we would never notice as we are on the inside. Apply this to your questions and if this does not resolve your issues, please restate your question in light of this information so I can understand you better.

To say it another way, it is not a matter of calculating in 4 dimensions, 3 distance and 1 time. The time dimension is fixed and automatic.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 04, 2011 11:41 am 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:05 pm
Posts: 1211
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Hi Tronar, your question is a most excellent one!

I made a somewhat simillar thread almost two years ago, when I was new to MBT. You might find it useful: Deriving the speed of light by the virtual model (MBT)

"But why can't the simulation, when an object is moving at full speed through the virtual 3D space, still update the time-increments for that object at the regular intervals as it would do for an object not moving at all?" While I think Brian answers (my quotes) it very well in the thread I linked, one could answer in another way.

It's how the rule-set evolved. My speculation: Through experimentation it was found that the new type of VR, the PMR's would be most stable and useful if given some constraints. It was seen that without a fixed maximum rate of information transfer, the integrity of the VR would become too inconsistent, which was contrary to the original purpose of the VR. Besides, it was found the it was the optimal method in controlling the computer processing, there is no reason to waste power/information when not needed.

I found some good stuff:

Tom: There is clock time in the computer room where the computer resides that hosts the VR; and there is VR time within the VR --the VR advancing one time step every time the data is refreshed with another iteration of the time loop. To the characters in the VR, it makes no difference how much computer room clock time (CRCt) goes by for each Increment of VR time (VRt). One can have a million VRt time increments go by in one second of CRCt, or one can have a million CRCt seconds go by just to calculate one increment of VRt in the simulation. The characters in the VR wouldn't notice any difference -- they simply advance one time step each cycle and have no sense of the passage of CRCt. Each cycle through the time loop would seem to be identical to every other. For the VR inhabitants, time does not exist between VRt increments. Thus, though VRt increments (cycles) may be non uniform in duration from the perspective of CRCt, they appear as constant time increments in units of "number of cycles" from the perspective of VRt. Each pass through the time loop, or data refresh time, defines one unit of VRt called a quantum of VRt, which, from the perspective of the VR, is a constant increment of time.

To make it simpler, let's say this VR is a two dimensional world on a monitor screen (like most computer games). In this VR, the fastest that a one pixel dot can move across the screen with continuous (no hopping about is allowed) motion is 1 pixel every VRt increment. That is true no matter how much or how little CRCt goes by between each VRt increment. Thus in VR land, the maximum speed that information can travel is 1 pixel per VRt increment and that is always a constant in VR land however erratic the VRt increments seem to be from the perspective of CRCt. (This is perfectly analogous to how the speed of light must move at one quanta of PMR volume per PMR DELTA-t in a uniform, isotropic space-time so that we have an apparently continuous, functionally consistent space to have our PMR experience in.)

Now, imagine that the people in the computer room have certain tasks to perform to get the VR ready to implement each increment of VRt. They would need to have shorter time increments creating the passage of their CRCt (a smaller quantum of computer room time) than the VRt increment (VR quantum of time) so that they would have available CRCt cycles to get things done to get ready for the next VRt increment.

Do you now see why the speed of light, from a perspective within PMR, must be a constant? It matters not how time varies in CRCt or how the size of consecutive VRt increments may vary from the perspective of CRCt . Also the quanta of volume in the VR must be a constant or space would be inconsistent -- i.e., non - homogeneous and non-isotropic -- a violation of our rule set.

Then c = the speed of light = the cubed root of the constant PMR VR volume quantum divided by the PMR VR constant time quantum (each time the data gets refreshed (recalculated) counts as exactly one unit or quanta of VR time. C is a constant from the perspective of PMR because it is computed by dividing two quantities that are also constants from the perspective of PMR. C is a constant equal to the max information transfer rate of one volume quanta per calculation cycle.

Is this clear now?

vzam: Thank you for the full explanation, Tom. It's the perspective thing that confused me - as you show, from within PMR c seems constant. Andrew Thomas was talking from the CRCt perspective.

He suggested "jumping around" rendering on the screen might be allowed, and I thought he meant that we wouldn't necessarily notice the jumping around (cheating on the normal rules?) if the jumping could be veiled from us -the clocks could perhaps all be moved on and we'd never know we lost an hour. Not sure what the point would be though, except to bypass something unwanted. (This also brings to mind UFO alien abduction stories where time is lost; or people claiming that somehow they avoided an inevitable accident and found themselves still alive on the other side of the road or further down the highway a few moments later.)

Tom: The perception of space and time (the generation of our shared multiplayer PMR reality) provided by our rule-set is of a continuous, homogeneous, uniform isotropic time and space. This is required to produce consistency of experience so that action, interaction, and feedback are all tightly coupled and make rational sense within an apparent objective causality. To optimize learning potential requires consistency. Consistency allows choices and their results to be causally connected. Exceptions (e.g., jumping around) are permitted but they are individual and purposeful (not random) as allowed by the psi uncertainty principle. Exceptions do not represent random system hiccups -- they are specific to one or a small group IUOCs -- and have little to no affect on the whole (on IUOCs in general or on the shared perception of a consistent causality based reality).
Claudio: It appears to be that TBC chose a certain value of c for our PMR VR. By having c in our PMR the speed of light value we know can the speed of the VR be changed by just lowering the PMR delta t (VRt)? If this is done, then is this a way to speed up evolution for PMR players?

If VRt is not manipulated, are there more efficient PMRs that have a higher value of c, so that it can speed up the evolution of the players?

Tom: Yes, the value of c was specifically chosen by TBC. When setting up a virtual reality, the very first, most fundamental thing that needs to be decided is what is the resolution of the rendering going to be and how often must the data describing the VR be refreshed. The first determines the amount of data that is required to generate the VR (the memory requirement), the second, how often that data must be updated (the throughput or computer speed requirement). The resolution is determined by specifying the size of a PMR quantum of volume [a 3D version of defining the number of pixels per square inch on a display screen (2D), or the number of dots per inch on a printer (1D)]. The refresh rate is determined by specifying the size of a PMR quantum of time (like defining the number of seconds consumed per computational cycle -- one over the CPU operational frequency -- required to process a particular problem within a given amount of time). As stated above, the size of a quantum of PMR volume and a quantum of PMR time must both be constant in order to produce a consistent reality frame suitable for optimal consciousness evolution. As stated earlier in words, c= [(volume quantum)^1/3]/time quantum.

Thus c, the speed of light in PMR, is a constant that is specified in order to constrain the demands placed upon the virtual reality rendering engine (VRRE) to something that is easily supportable by the available computational resources within the larger consciousness system.

Changing the size of a VRt increment (a larger or smaller amount of CRCt) matters only to those in the computer room. The people in the VR measure time by the number of cycles that have passed -- each completed cycle is one unit of their time and every unit appears to be the exact same -- one cycle equal one unit, or one increment, of VRt -- define that unit as a second or a nano-nano second or whatever. Time in the VR is produced by counting cycles. The length of those cycles as measured in the computer room has nothing to do with time in the VR. The amount of CRCt that passes during one increment of VRt is important only to those in the computer room (how much CRCt do they need to accomplish what is required of them between VR cycles).
The thread is awesome, the pages before what I quoted derives and explains why QM is necessary in a VR. You probably want to read that too.
How does calculating probabilities save computation cycles?

This is also useful: Technical Resources?
MBT does indeed predict the results of special relativity. General relativity is based on special relativity:
When PMR particles reach the speed of light, the fabric of PMR reality is rendered unworkable/illogical -- time appears to stand still in the gap between time increments as the subroutine tries to generate new information faster than it is being updated by its NPMR outer loop. Those inside the subroutine (an inner loop) cannot generate change (create new data) at a higher frequency than the outer loop that drives the inner loop. As the passage of time slows to zero, singularities are created that imply infinite mass and zero length. These are the defining attributes of what is known as special relativity. Relativity is generated from the assumption/discovery that there is no fundamental 3D inertial frame. That all inertial frames are equivalent -- i.e., they are simply relative to each other -- a function of the perception of the observer.

The next step up in understanding -- the next level of relativity (which includes consciousness) assumes/discovers that there is no fundamental reality frame. That all reality frames are equivalent -- i.e., they are simply relative to each other -- a function of the perception of the observer. Physical and nonphysical realities are not fundamental -- they are equivalent and appear to be Physical or nonphysical due to the perspective of the observer.
from Physics and metaphysics
Tom: So a guy traveling near the speed of light goes through 10^+44 DELTA-t every second. Time dilation and length contraction are the logical consequence of light speed being invariant under the motion of its source. In other words, time and space are functions of each other in space-time -- they are not independent -- When things move fast, relative to each other that interdependency shows itself as relativistic effects. It is a matter of perception in PMR according to the rule-set. The data stream we get follows the rule-set. TBC has no issues
Moving information in Consciousness - Incompatibilities?

That the speed of light is invariant under the motion of its source and that particles exists as a probability distribution only makes sense from a VR perspective, it is actually logical derived from first principles. In the current and outdated paradigm, there is no answer to why this is. This is an important aspect when you present the idea to your friends :)

PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:26 am 

Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:14 am
Posts: 1
Dear Sir,

I apologize for using your topic to post something which may not be related but your question fascinated me. I stumble upon your question by googling a thought that blow my mind and wanted to see if someone has ever researched on the subject.

I was always fascinated by the principals of general and special relativity but limitations on my educations could never allowed me to fully understand the paradoxes that are attributed to time dilation effects and more specifically the twin paradox, i found many explanations but never one to satisfy me.

Recently i acquired a VR set which stimulated my thinking and allowed me to look at things differently.

The twins paradox could be perfectly explained if all of us experience the world through VR sets that have specific limitations. Lets assume our VR sets have tiny pixels, so tiny that our sensors cannot detect. These pixels are lighten (open) in essence creating what we consider light/wave or matter. For any moving object or wave a pixel is lighten when simultaneously the pixel that was lighten previously goes dark. If there is a limitation of reaction of the pixels then 2 different VR users may experience different results depending on their relative speed to the moving object or wave. For a stationary VR user if an object is passing in front of him with the speed of light for example 1) the pixels that lighten have a limitation (which can be lower than the speed of light) while 2)the pixels that go dark have a limited reaction time in going dark (should be less than speed of light) thus creating an elongated shape for the object.

A VR user that moves with the same speed relative to the moving object will have the same pixel lighten to his VR set constantly and no lenght dilation effects.

The first user cannot experience objects moving faster than the speed the pixels lighten unless 1) his internal clock in this VR world is tampered or 2) his VR set is skipping pixels therefore making the quality of the object less reliable if the objects move away from him (objects would look ghost like/ thinner). The second user can experience the object as stationary so no need for 1 or 2 above happening.

If you had these 2 users on the same VR environment experiencing this moving object without wanting to compromise quality of the object for both you would have to go with option number 1 above if the object is moving away from the observer and you can use option number 2 if the object is moving towards the observer without compromising the quality of the object/image, in fact when you use number 2 you can even tamper his clock to counteract any deviations created from possible uses of number 1 option before without again compromising the quality of the object image.

If the two users compare their real 4 dimensional clocks they are wearing in their hands they will always show the same time. If they could see eachother VR clocks however it will read different time when they are far away.

Lets assume that they can see eachothers VR clocks only when they are in proximity to eachother in this VR world.

For getting to close proximity the moving observer (moving together with the object) needs to move on a closed loop or cirlce in relation to the stationary observer. With the proper mix of 1 and 2 above, when the 2 VR users have the ability to observe eachothers clocks then it will also read the same time. Same applies for the moving observer observing the stationary one. Paradox solved

I would like to have the scientific and mathematical background to try to figure out in such a possibility what should be the lenght of the pixel as well as trying to calculate the maximum reaction time for the pixels to lighten and go dark, unfortunately i cannot. If you find it intriguing and you have the mathematical background i think it deserves to give it a shot.

Sorry if i am out of topic but i wanted to share.

Thank you

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC-06:00

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited