[MURG] Real / Not real world?

[Randal A. Koene]

Hi John,

Thanks, that clarified a lot. Now, your argument is that a superfast brain
would process all the available information very rapidly and then run out
of stuff to do. I think that argument is based on a limited view of VR.
You are assuming that what goes on in VR depends on external input, i.e.
that it is not a self-sufficient system. Yet a community of uploads
existing in the same VR could well experience entire lives there with all
the intellectual stimulation that their interactions produce. Just to look
at it from a philosophical flip-side for a moment: Who can guarantee
you that you are not living inside someone's VR right now? I don't
actually advocate such a philosophical view, but it serves the point with
regard to the separation between interaction with the "outside" and
experiences generated "within".

Cheers,
       Randal

On Wed, 26 May 2004, John Latimer wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MURG mailing list
> MURG at minduploading.org
> http://minduploading.org/mailman/listinfo/murg
>