On 22 Jan 2002, at 23:28, H J Ruhl wrote: > > > > > > I do not see that at all. Why does it need a history? All it needs is > > the > > > capability of finding a next state. > > > >It doesn't need the capacity to find the next state. If it has that > >capacity, then the history is computable. > > I said "capability of finding a next state". I did not indicate how it > found such a next state. It could for example do so at random. >

An universe can be an oriented graph of states. Each state has no, one or more next states. It also has no, one or more previous states. This universe may be computable. To compute it doesn't means you start from an unique initial state and you go from it to the only next one and so on. If there is conscious beings in this universe. They will perceive the time flowing as they go from a state to a next one, and again. But from a third person point of view, this univers is a static (and so deterministic) mathematical object. When for a given state there is more than one next state, it is for the concious being as if random rule their future. They may think their universe is not deterministic, except for those who has an Everett-like theory. When there is no next state, it's the end of times. This kind of universes doesn't have an history, but many histories. Each way in the oriented graph is an history. Even loops are possible. Many different histories can lead to a given state. If our universe is this kind of graph, the big-bang may not start from an inital "eden" state (which has no previous state) but from a set of states that can loop. After the big-bang I suppose there is no loop. Matthieu. -- http://matthieu.walraet.free.fr