As a quick contribution to the discussion:
1) What do we mean by the state of a universe?
I mean a fixed configuration.
2) What do we mean by the transition to the next state?
I mean a new fixed configuration is realized.
Successive fixed configurations are not joined by a continuum of
intervening configurations rather the process is "quantified".
Since there is no "motion" Relativity is easy.
3) What do we mean by computational?
I mean that there is no input from an external random oracle.
Pseudo random number generators are not external random oracles but are
4) In this scheme any "contemplation" is itself a succession of states of a
5) I do not see universes as "splitting" by going to more than one next
state. This is not necessary to explain anything as far as I can see.
6) Universes that are in receipt of true noise as part of a state to state
transition are in effect destroyed on some scale in the sense the new state
can not fully determine the prior state.
7) annotation of my earlier post:
I see either a global computational arrival at a next state from the
current state [type 1 universe or internal rules that are computational] or
a transition to a next state that is at least partially the result of
information received from an external random oracle [type 2 universe or
internal rules that allow input from the external oracle].
I see both of these types of universes as essential in the ensemble [zero
information requires no selected type - you can not have just type 1 or
just type 2 universes] and also that they both randomly convert into their
opposite type. [type 2 can have a dose of true noise that converts them to
type 1, and the need to avoid selection as an information generator
requires that type 1 universes are also subject to true noise event though
their internal rules are computational. Such a dose of true noise can
change them into type 2.]
Neither type seems to support the idea of decision dependent arrivals at a
next state. Further any illusion of a selection of a next state to be
transitioned to [or any kind of hypothetical grasp of more than one future
*] is already part of the next state or succession of states* which must
have been either computationally or noisily arrived at.
*A given universe is in only one fixed configuration state - which actually
defines that universe - and then it is in the next fixed configuration or
it is partially destroyed by the transition. I currently see no way that a
fixed configuration can incorporate what I see as a a non fixed
configuration - the grasp of two alternate futures.