Originally Posted by

**Marty Wollner**
This doesn’t try to mimic everyone's observations, like most universe simulations do.... this provides ROOT CAUSALITY on the most fundamental levels of arithmetic, geometry and other exchanges of numbers. These numbers represent a "common currency" of exchange between heat, radiation, motion, geometric shape, mass, gravity, and "orderliness".

The system PRE-ASSUMES that finite limitations are an implicit part of the actual implementation... that not only is the universe:

1. Composed of a finite number of particles.

2. Contained within a finite space.

3. Of a non-eternal age (at least since the last big bang),

THAT IT ALSO:

4. Works in discrete space (a finite-size digitized grid of INTEGER numbers is the set of all locations).

5. Works in discrete time (in a series of sequential steps I call "ticks of time").

Note that the first 3 of these were only proven true within my own lifetime. I’m claiming that the other 2 are true as well, as is the direction the general scientific consensus is heading more and more by the day.

In trying to create a virtual reality within these simple 2 additional constraints (both of which, by the way, are unavoidable in any computer simulation, actually in any REALISTIC implementation), I believe that I have made some important discoveries on how the speed of light might be implemented in our own Universe. I was able to seperate the relative value of these currencies from the resolution the system is run in (similar to the way chemists have been doing it with atomic numbers and mass).

Being my first post on this forum, I will wait for a reply before I go on and on and on. I have put > 4 man-years of work into this effort, and I have a lot to show anyone interseted, all prepared for immediate review. Thanks for your time.

Marty

Oh my. Four years of work? Oh my.

First, see the tag line below. We make observations, then develop a theory based on those observations, then use the theory to make predictions, then evaluate the results. Then back to the start. You have deliberately ignored the observation part. You have a theory in search of supporting observations. The cart is before the horse. It will quickly run off the road.

Secondly, as others have pointed out, none of your first three assumptions is true. Number four is meaningless, since points are by definition dimensionless and therefore cannot fill space. Between any two points, INTEGER or otherwise, there are an infinite number of other points. As for number five, IIRC, time appears to flow continuously even below the Planck interval.

So, aside from all the underlying assumptions being incorrect, you have an interesting idea, treating the universe as a sort of 3-D version of John Conway’s game of Life. On a very small scale, ignoring random quantum events, it might work. Your thoughts on this?

Regards. John M.

I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

"Mainstream isn’t a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik