On 22 Jul 2009, at 14:12, Torgny Tholerus wrote: >> >> >> The most general form of existence is: All mathematical possible >> universes exist. Our universe is one of those mathematical >> possible >> existing universes. >> >> >> This is non sense. Proof: see UDA. Or interrupt me when you have an >> objection in the current explanation. I have explained this many >> times, but the notion of universe or mathematical universe just makes >> no sense. The notion of "our universe" is too far ambiguous for just >> making even non sense. > > What do you think about the GoL-universes? You can look at some of > those at http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/ . If you have an initial > condition and you have an unlimited board, then you can compute what > will happen in the future in that universe.
What is an unlimited board for an ultrafinitist. (Ok, that was perhaps easy). > These universes are > universes with a two-dimensional space and a one-dimensional time. > These GoL-universes are mathematial universes. They have an initial > condition and a mathematical rule that defines how that universe will > look like in the next moment, and the next next moment, and so on. > > Does this make sense for you? Those are not universes, but computational histories. Assuming comp there is a first person indeterminacy, which makes "physical appearances" or "physical universe" emerging from the infinity of such computational and universal computation. I suggest you read the UDA papers. I guess you were not yet on the list when I explained why "Wolfram" sort of computational physics, based on cellular automata, does not work. And quantum mechanics confirms this by giving indirect but strong evidences on the existence of many statistically interfering computations. The question about the existence of a mathematical structure describing the physical appearance is open, but we know already it is not a structure such that it makes sense to say "I belong to it", even if it makes sense to say "he" belongs to it. But "he", from his first person point of view belongs to an infinity of such history (or comp is false, which is the case normally for an ultrafinitist). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
