[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
> On Nov 28, 9:56 pm, Torgny Tholerus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You only need models of cellular automata. If you have a model and
>> rules for that model, then one event will follow after another event,
>> according to the rules. And after that event will follow another more
>> event, and so on unlimited. The events will follow after eachother even
>> if you will not have any implementation of this model. Any physics is
>> not needed. You don't need any geometric properties.
>> In this model you may have a person called Torgny writing a message on a
>> google group, and that event may be followed by a person called Marc
>> writing a reply to this message. And you don't need any implementation
>> of that model.
> A whole lot of unproven assumptions in there. For starters, we don't
> even know that the physical world can be modelled solely in terms of
> cellular automata at all.
Why can't our universe be modelled by a cellular automata? Our universe
is very complicated, but why can't it be modelled by a very complicated
automata? An automata where you have models for protons and electrons
and photons and all other elementary particles, that obey the same laws
as the particles in our universe?
> Digital physics just seems to be the latest
> 'trendy' thing, but actual evidence is thin on the ground.
> Mathematics is much richer than just discrete math. Discrete math
> deals only with finite collections, and as such is just a special case
> of algebra.
Isn't it enough with this special case? You can do a lot with finite
collections. There is not any need for anything more.
> Algebraic relations extend beyond computational models.
> Finally, the introduction of complex analysis, infinite sets and
> category theory extends mathematics even further, beyond even
> algebraic relations. So you see that cellular automata are only a
> small part of mathematics as a whole. There is no reason for thinking
> for that space is discrete and in fact physics as it stands deals in
> continuous differential equations, not cellular automata.
The reason why physics deals in continuous differential equations is
that they are a very good approximation to a world where the distance
between the space points and the time points are very, very small. And
if you read a book in Quantum Field Theory, they often start from a
discrete model, and then take the limit when the distances go to zero.
> Further, the essential point I was making is that an informational
> model of something is not neccesserily the same as the thing itself.
> An informational model of a person called Marc would capture only my
> mind, not my body. The information has to be super-imposed upon the
> physical, or embodied in the physical world.
If the model models every atom in your body, then that model will
describe your body. That model will describe how the atoms in your body
react with eachother, and they will describe all your actions.
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