Dear Matthieu:

At 1/23/02, you wrote: >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. While I allow that a universe can have more than one possible previous state or no previous state [when in the initial state] - in fact my model insists on it - I do not allow that there is more than one actual previous state for a particular universe. >This universe may be computable. I allow that the current state of a universe contains the information necessary to list all the possible future and prior states but not to determine the actual prior and future states. This information is useless because to use it internally is itself a change of state. Further I do not agree that there is any external point of view or any observer with any point of view at all for that matter. That would just be excess entities [i.e. too complex a theory] >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. The point I am exploring in these posts is that if one can associate a particular history with a particular universe [its current state defines a universe - see below] then that history must be computable or one could not make the association. In this case Juergen seems to make such an association and so the paper seems to assume that which was to be demonstrated. If the initial state of a universe is sufficient to establish it as a universe then it is not necessary for a universe to have a history. Each state of a universe can be an initial state in the sense that new information is introduced from an outside source at each transition. An evolving universe needs one extra property: the "capability of finding a next state". This can be random choice or partly random choice but my model does not admit a choice via rules with no random content. >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. Not at all IMO. I can not demonstrate that my universe had a prior state. What may seem to be my history is just the current state of a part of a sub system of a universe. >But from a third >person point of view, this univers is a static (and so deterministic) >mathematical object. Again I see "observation" of any sort as an unnecessary complication of a TOE. >When for a given state there is more than one next state, it is for the >concious being as if random rule their future. Again IMO observers are not necessary or even possible for that matter. My model does insist that for currently finite universes there will always be more than one possible next state but only one actual next state. >They may think their >universe is not deterministic, except for those who has an Everett-like >theory. Multiple actually realized future states as opposed to multiple possible future states is also unnecessarily complex. >When there is no next state, it's the end of times. There is indeed the possibility of no actual next state, but IMO there is always multiple possible next states for currently finite universes. >This kind of universes doesn't have an history, but many histories. As I said my model insists that there are multiple possible prior and next states for finite universes but only one actual prior state and only one actually realized next state. >Each >way in the oriented graph is an history. I will suppose you mean over possible prior states. In my view each state has only one actual prior state but many possible prior states and the current state only has the information that could list the full set of possible prior states but there is never any information re the determination of the actual prior state. > Even loops are possible. Yes this could happen for universes with rules of evolution that have a high random or "do not care" content. > Many >different histories can lead to a given state. IMO - as I have said - for any particular universe any state has multiple possible immediately prior states but only one actual prior 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. I see this as too complex. My generating mechanism is very simple. Hal