Epstein Secrets

it is possible that the Church Turing thesis is also a =hysical law, i.e. it is impossible to build physical computer that can =alculate more than a Turing machine. However, that conflicts with the =raditional intuitions of most of physics: that the universe is =eometric, i.e. hypercomputational. The fa

iption ultimately =elies on computational languages and tools. Contrary to what Penrose =opes, our mathematical creativity seems to rely entirely on Turing =omputable functionality. This does not mean that such a =etacomputational operator as he intuits does not exist, but it means =hat we probably cann

distorted. As a result, the =bserver will always have the impression to travel exactly in the middle =f its light cone. This model seems to recover Lorentz invariance, but =ith a slight catch: it seems to me that while speed of light is =onstant and there is no preferred frame of reference wrt accelerat

nk I can see how we get Lorentz invariance in a =iscrete universe, too. I am wary of continuous time, because it is =ypercomputational; it requires Turing machines that run to infinity in = single step, which means that the gods have to buy infinitely more =xpensive computers when they build their univ

EFTA_R1_01682697 EFTA02536613 Most models of foundational physics operate with a continuous temporal =imension, but I think I can see how we get Lorentz invariance in a =iscrete universe, too. I am wary of continuous time, because it is =ypercomputational; it requires Turing machines that run to infi

it is possible that the Church Turing thesis is also a =hysical law, i.e. it is impossible to build physical computer that can =alculate more than a Turing machine. However, that conflicts with the =raditional intuitions of most of physics: that the universe is =eometric, i.e. hypercomputational. The fa

distorted. As a result, the =bserver will always have the impression to travel exactly in the middle =f its light cone. This model seems to recover Lorentz invariance, but =ith a slight catch: it seems to me that while speed of light is =onstant and there is no preferred frame of reference wrt accelerat

it is possible that the Church Turing thesis is also a =hysical law, i.e. it is impossible to build physical computer that can =alculate more than a Turing machine. However, that conflicts with the =raditional intuitions of most of physics: that the universe is =eometric, i.e. hypercomputational. The fa

distorted. As a result, the =bserver will always have the impression to travel exactly in the middle =f its light cone. This model seems to recover Lorentz invariance, but =ith a slight catch: it seems to me that while speed of light is =onstant and there is no preferred frame of reference wrt accelerat

it is possible that the Church Turing thesis is also = physical law, i.e. it is impossible to build physical computer that =an calculate more than a Turing machine. However, that conflicts with =he traditional intuitions of most of physics: that the universe is =eometric, i.e. hypercomputational. The fa

distorted. As a result, the =bserver will always have the impression to travel exactly in the middle =f its light cone. This model seems to recover Lorentz invariance, but =ith a slight catch: it seems to me that while speed of light is =onstant and there is no preferred frame of reference wrt accelerat

it is possible that the Church Turing thesis is also a =hysical law, i.e. it is impossible to build physical computer that can =alculate more than a Turing machine. However, that conflicts with the =raditional intuitions of most of physics: that the universe is =eometric, i.e. hypercomputational. The fa

distorted. As a result, the =bserver will always have the impression to travel exactly in the middle =f its light cone. This model seems to recover Lorentz invariance, but =ith a slight catch: it seems to me that while speed of light is =onstant and there is no preferred frame of reference wrt accelerat