You speak of "God."  Could you define what you, as a logician, mean? 
An informal, but (hopefully) rigorous and complete, argument showing that 
physics is derivable from comp. That argument is not constructive. Its e 
asyness comes from the fact that it does not really explained how to make 
the derivation. The second part is a translation of that argument in the 
language of  the "universal machine itself". This, by the constraints of 
theoretical ccomputer science, makes the proof constructive, so that it 
gives the complete derivation of physics from computer science. Of course 
God is a little malicious, apparently, and we are led to hard intractable 
purely mathematical questions.  You are welcome, Bruno 

Reply via email to