Hi, I apologize if I misunderstood your differents posts here as I'm not an 
english native but I find very insulting your way to "discuss" with people...

Either you have an argument to the YD hypothesis, either you haven't... stop 
turning around the hole...

Le Vendredi 19 Août 2005 16:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
> Hi Hal,
>   From what you say below I am not able to determine whether your model
> is identical or
>   distinct from Bruno's in the only point that I am interested in so let
> me ask you:
>   Is your model falsified if YD is false or can you still "dance" if
> that is the case?
>   I am asking because unfalsifiable models turn out to be a lot less
> interesting than
>  falsifiable ones as I am sure you understand....
>  Best regards,
>  Godfrey Kurtz
>  (New Brunswick, NJ)
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Hal Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  To: everything-list@eskimo.com
>  Sent: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:34:48 -0400
>  Subject: Re: subjective reality
>   With regard to YD I have proposed in other posts that our universe
> consists of a set of discrete points that are when in their neutral
> locations arranged on a face centered cubic grid. Each point is
> confined to a region of discrete locations that surround its neutral
> location in the grid. I like this grid because its symmetries appear to
> allow a set of first order oscillations of the points within their
> regions in a unit cell consisting of 12 points around one with all
> triples being on straight lines that pass through the central point to
> represent the basic particles of the Standard Model. I call such
> oscillations a [small] dance. A [small] dance can move through the grid
> but individual points can not. Larger dances (such as a SAS) consist of
> semi "stable" associations of nearby [small] dances.
>   The entire grid [universe] changes state when a point in a region
> asynchronously polls its 12 neighbors and assumes a new location in its
> region based on the results. It is a type of Cellular Automaton [CA].
>   At this level TD seems straight forward since there is no change at
> all.
>   The approach is compatible with CT since some CA are capable of
> universal computation and the universe it models can contain SAS [the
> "done effectively" part] since large dances can be self interactive.
>   The other things that are in my model which is derived from my "is"
> "is not" definitional approach is that the imbedding system:
>   1) Is one in which all possible states of all universes preexist
> [multi world and the model's link to AR],
>   2) Is randomly dynamic in terms of which states have instantations of
> reality [noise in the flow of reality] (a nice explanation of the
> accelerating expansion of our universe [additional points as part of
> the noise] recently observed),
>   3) In the dynamic, adjacent states can have instantations of reality
> that overlap [the flow of consciousness].
>  In the end then I must say that it seems my model contains comp.
>   I indicated to Bruno some time ago that I thought we were to some
> degree convergent.
>  Hal Ruhl
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
> industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

Reply via email to