On 17.07.2012 09:54 Bruno Marchal said the following:

On 16 Jul 2012, at 21:05, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

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.

Like arithmetic, the game of life is Turing universal. So you can
program deep blue in the Game of life.


My question was a bit of different nature. I understand that one could use the Game of Life as programming environment. That is fine. Now with this environment we implement two Deep Blues and let them play with each other in chess. So there are are changing patterns in the Game of Life that we interpret as two Deep Blues playing chess with each other.

My question would be what is the meaning of this event. What does it mean that two Deep Blues are playing chess with each other in?

Is this the same when two people are playing chess with each other?


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to