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
>> GoL-rules...
>>
> 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":

##
Advertising

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.
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---