John M wrote: > > Dear Georges, > to your series of questions I would like to add one as first: > "What do you call universe?"
I would naively answer: the universe in which I live according to the current intuition I have of it. I am not sure this makes sense and I also understand that others may have different intuitions of it. Maybe a bit more formally I would refer to "the smallest independent piece that does include myself" (in case there is anything else and hoping that we can get a common intuition of that; dependence is relative to space-time continuity, particle interaction and this kind of things). > as long as we do not make this identification, it is futile to > speculate about "its" computability/computed sate. Maybe this is an opportunity to clarify the concept and to see up to which point it is shared among us. I am not sure we can easily go much farther than intuition we have of it and to isolate the possible differences we have. > I see not too much value in assuming infinite memories > and infinite time of computation, that may lead to a game > of words, calling "computation" the object to be computed. Maybe I was just not clear enough. I was just thinking of the possibility to simulate the universe at any level of accuracy. However small but non zero the accuracy, there would exist a simulation of finite but possibly very large size and time that meets it. Infinite memory and running time would be necessary only to run an infinite sequence of simulations with an accuracy going asymtotically close to zero. > Is 'Multiverse' part of your universe, or vice versa? I am not sure I understand the concept(s) of multiverse enough to make a reasonable answer to this question. For what I understand of it (them), it is (they are) not consistent with the view I have of causality (which is more related to the fact that the universe is "more ordered on one side that on the other" than to dominos pushing each other). Regards. Georges Quénot.