Essay Abstract
Introducing the notion that the fundamental quantum of time arises from the absolute period of the execution cycle in pairs of mutually supportive (simulating) computations.
Author Bio
Rowan GRIGG is a computing systems engineer with a keen interest in elemental questions. He lives in Canberra, Australia.
What about 'spooky' action at a distance?
If it were possible to visualize these devices, then it might be as a sequence of digits running along a tape that has been looped back on itself with a half twist, to form a single surface - the familiar Möbius strip. Because the machines are merely simulating each other, and then simulating some simple aspect of the physical world, they require only a short length of tape, as distinct from the infinitely long tape required in Turing's original proposal to compute every decidable statement.
Pursuing the analogy of the Möbius strip, two devices would divide the surface in half down its centre; four devices would divide it into quarters, and so on. As the number of devices grows, there is no limit to the longitudinal division of the surface to accommodate them, for in actuality they are not numbers written on a tape, they are dimensionless digits.
These devices do not occupy space. Rather, each device is actually simulating a quantum of space (a Planck volume), and doing so at a regular frequency. Despite the large number of these devices, and hence the vast expanse of space and quantity of matter that they present, every one of them actually resides at a singularity, a dimensionless mathematical reality that precedes the creation of a distended universe. It is for this reason that even the most separated quanta of our Universe (in simulated physical terms such as space and the transmission of light and gravity through it), can communicate with each other instantaneously (within a clock cycle). They do so directly across the 'surface' of the singularity.
Is this a description or a recipe of something? There is about four maybe even five big ideas going on, and likewise with the terms for example nested reality, and contingent, so it's a series of hypotheses that care just vaguely proposed.
There is a basic logical mistake here just like Russell's paradox. It also implies that one can know and also be ignorant at the same time.
Regarding the "What about 'spooky' action at a distance?" comment, you might perhaps find the work on Bell-EPR by Hans De Raedt's group of interest. eg: arXiv:0712.3693v1 [quant-ph], "Event-by-event simulation of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiments"; click on his name on the arXiv page for a list of more recent publications, but I haven't kept up-to-date on the evolution of his group's thinking. His group has published numerous papers on this approach, and the attitude they adopt is an interesting finesse of usual criticisms of model building, but it should be approached critically.
