[MURG] Real / Not real world?

[John Latimer]

Hey there,

Sorry for the confusion.

I was addressing the issue of the passage of time in
reality versus the accelerated passage of time in
virtual reality.

My reference to the speed of light is that the passage
of time is based on the speed of light as a constant
and LIFE is a function of the passage of time and the
amount of interactions that take place per unit of
time.

This is how I connected the speed of life being tied
in with the speed of light.

Trying not to get too far from the subject, let me say
that I believe that life and time exist on a "carrier
wave" of twice the speed of light.  Allowing for the
Nyquist limit, this causes time and life to no longer
be samplable above the speed of light.

Some ideas that are not quite firmed up yet:

I= Intensity, interaction, information = experience

C= Constant, carrier, continuity = Speed of light and
time

L= Speed of life

L= 2I/C

Back to the subject, ACCELERATED time reference in VR
will run short of "content" very quickly unless info
is compressed from other sources to keep up with the
accelerated time refference.  The Point that I was
countering was the possibillity of having 3000 years
of VR time pass within the scope of one day of real
time.  Informatiion, interactions, intensity and the
things that we could call experiences would run short
in short order and the subject in VR would spend most
of that 3000 years simply bored. And then along comes
the next 24 hours in real time... {:-D-<--<





--- "Randal A. Koene" <rak at minduploading.org> wrote:
> Hi John,
> 
> I think I'm not correctly parsing your email
> somehow. Can you explain to
> me how "all perception is at the speed of light"
> (sic)? Attempting to
> understand what you are saying, I think of a
> comparison between for
> instance the rate of depletion/regeneration of
> photoreceptors in the human
> eye and the shutter rate of a high speed camera.
> Those two are clearly not
> the same, and neither is either one of them taking
> pictures at the "speed
> of light" (whatever that means). As perception must
> certainly begin with
> sensory input, it would seem that such is
> constrained to rates that have
> very little to do with the speed of light. (And how
> are speed/rate
> related in this context?) It seems that you could
> vastly increase the
> visual processing rate beyond that of humans before
> bumping into any
> physical constraints. Please explain your argument!
> 
> Thanks,
>        Randal
> 


=====


John A. Latimer



The Hologenic Man