On 15.07.2012 16:50 Bruno Marchal said the following:
On 14 Jul 2012, at 18:21, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
but it looks like that your motive is also close to the Game of
Life. What difference do you see in this respect?
With comp, after UDA, and supposing it is 100% valid, the choice of
the universal system for the ontology is arbitrary. The laws of
physics and the laws of mind are independent of it. So it is better
to use one which is far from looking physical so that when we derive
physics we diminish the possible confusions of level. The game of
life already used a two dimensional grid, and has a notion of
"physical" interaction build it, so I prefer to use the numbers. But
the GOL is quite OK in principle.
That is my problem. I do not understand how it would be possible to play
chess in the Game of Life.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at