Dear Hal, >We have had a number of discussions both on the list and off and I >missed them while you were gone.
Thanks. (but I was not really gone, you can always ask). >I basically think we are not worlds apart. I will think about a questionnaire for measuring how apart we are. Some times I feel you close unfortunately when you give details I am rarely able to follow you. >I see a cellular automaton with a large set [lookup table] of rules >[sort of a machine if you will] that lie below physics as we >perceive it. Have you ear about last Wolfram book? He tries to explain everything with cellular automata. Although I believe such approach has some interest in physics, I don't believe it can help for a derivation of a TOE because such approach dismisse the 1/3 distinction. > >What I have tried to do is keep zero information in the ensemble >while finding ways in which the cellular automaton comes about, how >a particular one has an isomorphic link to a part of the underlying >dynamic of the Everything from which it is in turn emergent, and how >this dynamic - the lowest layer - insists that the automaton change >state to maintain the isomorphic link or perish, and how this >underlying dynamic effects the true noise content of the cellular >automaton. Perhaps. It is not yet clear what are your basic postulates. Bruno
