Quentin Anciaux skrev:
>> I claim that "our universe" is the result of a finite set of rules. Just
>> as a GoL-universe is the result of a finite set of rules, so is our universe
>> the result of a set of rules. But these rules are more complicated than the
> What are your "proofs" or set of evidences that our universe as it is
> is 1) resulting from a finite set of rules 2) by 1) computable.
There are two "proofs":
A) Everything is finite. So our universe must be the result from a
finite set of rules.
B) Occams razor. Because we can explain everything in our universe
from this finite set of rules, we don't need anything more complicated.
> If 2) is true what difference do you make between functionnaly
> equivalent model of your set of rules ? is it the same universe ?
Our universe has nothing to do with different models of our universe. A
model is more like a picture of our universe. You can make a model of a
GoL-universe with red balls, or you can make a model with black dots,
but still there will hold the same relations in both these models. It
is the relations that are the important things.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at