Re: The Time Deniers

2005-07-28 Thread Russell Standish
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:53:01AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 06-juil.-05, ? 07:16, Russell Standish a ?crit : My reading of Bruno's work is that time is implicitly assumed as part of computationalism (I know Bruno sometimes does not quite agree, but there you have it). Thinking

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-24 Thread Russell Standish
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 02:30:47PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Are there reason to believe that (physical, or local) time could have a scale invariant fractal dimension (between 1 and 2, bigger?) ? Does it make sense ? I don't know if this is relevant, but Laurent Nottale published a

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-21 Thread George Levy
Hal Finney wrote: Physicist Max Tegmark has an interesting discussion on the physics of a universe with more than one time dimension at http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.html , specifically http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf . Wouldn't it be true that in the

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-21 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 21-juil.-05, à 08:33, George Levy a écrit : Hal Finney wrote: Physicist Max Tegmark has an interesting discussion on the physics of a universe with more than one time dimension at http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.html , specifically

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-21 Thread Hal Finney
George Levy writes: Hal Finney wrote: http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.html , specifically http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf . Wouldn't it be true that in the manyworld, every quantum branchings that is decoupled from other quantum branchings would in effect

RE: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-19 Thread chris peck
; Chris. :) From: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com CC: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 09:54:55 -0400 Dear Chris, I hope to be able to convince you that the ideas that you

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-19 Thread Stephen Paul King
and not a book that was written in the beginning. Kindest regards, Stephen - Original Message - From: chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 3:05 PM Subject: RE: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

RE: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-19 Thread Jesse Mazer
chris peck wrote: Thats why I make an appeal to something more intuitive. The A List as concieved by McTaggart may lead to incoherence, but nevertheless, we are embedded in the present. To meddle with its order is to conjure up paradox. Reality can not be like that. But are you just

RE: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-19 Thread Hal Finney
Physicist Max Tegmark has an interesting discussion on the physics of a universe with more than one time dimension at http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.html , specifically http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf . In the excerpts below, n is the number of space dimensions and

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-18 Thread chris peck
in temporally perpendicular directions? Regards Chris. From: James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:11:01 -0700 Interleaving: chris peck wrote: Hi James; Yes, you are definitely

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-18 Thread Stephen Paul King
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension snip But then, in what way is time asymmetric to space? You have no answer to that. There may be operational reasons why time travel is or is not possible - I don't have any comments on the conjecture of time travel - my only stance

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-18 Thread James N Rose
chris peck wrote: [c^2] is exactly an expression of the presence of 2 temporal dimensions orthogonally configured, computing against a sheet region not a linear one. [Rose(c)1995]. What then would it mean for two events to occur in temporally perpendicular directions? similar to what it

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-17 Thread James N Rose
Interleaving: chris peck wrote: Hi James; Yes, you are definitely a conventional thinker Chris. I’m not sure what this line of argument has to do with the price of peas, but as I have said, it wouldn’t be troubling to me to be considered conventional. However, I do think you are being

Re: The Time Deniers

2005-07-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 15-juil.-05, à 04:15, Hal Finney a écrit : Surely Chaitin's algorithmic information theory would not work; inputting a zero length program into a typical UTM would not produce the set of all infinite length bitstrings; in fact, I don't see how a TM could even create such an output from

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-15 Thread chris peck
@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:35:01 -0700 Yes, you are definitely a conventional thinker Chris. The challenging point of view I express goes beyond the obvious qualia -differences- of space relative to time, and instead

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-14 Thread James N Rose
@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 06:56:28 -0700 Chris, You unfortunatly are making the same fatal-flaw mistake that all conventional thinkers -even the outside the box inventive ones- continue to make: you cannot identify

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-14 Thread Russell Standish
No, because I wasn't talking about artificially imposed orderings. One can always define a strict ordering by means of something like x y iff Re(x) Re(y) or Re(x)=Re(y) and Im(x)Im(y) However, the usual meaning of xy for x,y \in C is undefined, except for x,y real. I think the previous

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-14 Thread Russell Standish
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 01:01:29PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote: Esteemed Prof. Standish, You're sounding German here: Sehr Geherte Herr Professor Standish. Its how they broke the enigma code, you know! At least I'm not the Very Estimated Professor Standish. Thank you for that

Re: The Time Deniers

2005-07-14 Thread Russell Standish
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 04:20:27PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote: Right, that is one of the big selling points of the Tegmark and Schmidhuber concept, that the Big Bang apparently can be described in very low-information terms. Tegmark even has a paper arguing that it took zero information to

Re: The Time Deniers

2005-07-14 Thread Hal Finney
Russell Standish writes: On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 04:20:27PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote: =20 Right, that is one of the big selling points of the Tegmark and Schmidhuber concept, that the Big Bang apparently can be described in very low-information terms. Tegmark even has a paper arguing that

Re: The Time Deniers

2005-07-14 Thread Russell Standish
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 07:15:02PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote: Do you really think there is such a thing as a zero information object? If so, why do you have to say what it is? :-) Is this just an informal concept or is there some formalization of it? Surely Chaitin's algorithmic

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-13 Thread Russell Standish
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:54:55AM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote: How familiar are you with the details of quantum mechanics? Did you happen to know that the notion of an observable in QM has a complex value and that a real value only obtains after the multiplication of an observable

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 13-juil.-05, à 06:02, Russell Standish a écrit : Complex numbers indeed do not have an ordering (being basically points on a plane) So you pretend the axiom of choice is false. It is easy to build an ordering of the complex numbers through it. There is no ordering *which satisfies

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-13 Thread James N Rose
Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com CC: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:11:55 -0700 chris peck wrote: Hi Stephen; I suppose we can think of time as a dimension. However

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-13 Thread Stephen Paul King
PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 12:02 AM Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:54:55AM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote: How familiar are you with the details of quantum mechanics? Did you happen to know that the notion

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-13 Thread chris peck
in nature rather than just experience. Regards Chris. From: James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com CC: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:11:55 -0700 chris peck wrote

RE: The Time Deniers

2005-07-13 Thread Jesse Mazer
Hal Finney wrote: Jesse Mazer writes: Hal Finney wrote: I imagine that multiple universes could exist, a la Schmidhuber's ensemble or Tegmark's level 4 multiverse. Time does not play a special role in the descriptions of these universes. Doesn't Schmidhuber consider only universes that

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-13 Thread Jesse Mazer
chris peck wrote: Im fairly sure you are attacking a straw man. We can just say that 'now' races towards the future rather than the opposite without us exerting any effort, whilst 'here' doesnt really move at all. Especially for a rock. At least the a priori notions of each spatial dimension

RE: The Time Deniers

2005-07-13 Thread Hal Finney
True, it isn't always necessary to compute things in the same order--if you're simulating a system that obeys time-symmetric laws you can always reverse all the time-dependent quantities (like the momentum of each particle) in the final state and use that as an initial state for a new

RE: The Time Deniers

2005-07-13 Thread Jesse Mazer
Hal Finney wrote: True, it isn't always necessary to compute things in the same order--if you're simulating a system that obeys time-symmetric laws you can always reverse all the time-dependent quantities (like the momentum of each particle) in the final state and use that as an initial

RE: The Time Deniers

2005-07-13 Thread Hal Finney
Jesse Mazer writes: I've sometimes thought that if uploads are ever created, and can be run in a simulation with time-reversible fundamental laws, it would be very interesting to take a snapshot at the end of a simulation and do the trick of reversing everything, but with a tiny

RE: The Time Deniers

2005-07-12 Thread Lee Corbin
Hal Finney writes Lee Corbin writes: Hal Finney writes Can we imagine a universe like ours, which follows exactly the same natural laws, but where time doesn't really exist (in some sense), where there is no actual causality? You yourself have already provided the key example in

The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-12 Thread Stephen Paul King
chris peck" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: everything-list@eskimo.comSent: Monday, July 11, 2005 9:48 AMSubject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a "dimension" Hi Stephen; I suppose we can think of time as a dimension. However, there are provisos.[

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-12 Thread daddycaylor
[SPK] Oh no, I am not a time denier. I am arguing that Change, no, Becoming, is a Fundamental aspect of Existence and not Static Being. ...Try this idea: We do NOT exist in a single space-time manifold. That structure is a collective illusion - but still a reality- that results from the

RE: The Time Deniers

2005-07-12 Thread Hal Finney
no difference between these views. This thread talks about time deniers and I might be one, but from my perspective it seems that many people are time mystics. They see a special role for time that goes beyond its mere presence as part of the laws of physics of a universe. I imagine that multiple

RE: The Time Deniers

2005-07-12 Thread Jesse Mazer
Hal Finney wrote: I imagine that multiple universes could exist, a la Schmidhuber's ensemble or Tegmark's level 4 multiverse. Time does not play a special role in the descriptions of these universes. Doesn't Schmidhuber consider only universes that are the results of computations? Can't we

RE: The Time Deniers

2005-07-12 Thread Hal Finney
Jesse Mazer writes: Hal Finney wrote: I imagine that multiple universes could exist, a la Schmidhuber's ensemble or Tegmark's level 4 multiverse. Time does not play a special role in the descriptions of these universes. Doesn't Schmidhuber consider only universes that are the results of

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-12 Thread Stephen Paul King
of being. I don't have a mental picture of what this statement means. Kindest regards, Stephen - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 12:25 PM Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-12 Thread daddycaylor
[SPK] Oh no, I am not a time denier. I am arguing that Change, no, Becoming, is a Fundamental aspect of Existence and not Static Being. ...Try this idea: We do NOT exist in a single space-time manifold. That structure is a collective illusion - but still a reality- that results from the

RE: The Time Deniers

2005-07-11 Thread Lee Corbin
Stathis writes I wasn't very clear in my last post. What I meant was this: (a) A conscious program written in C is compiled on a computer. The C instructions are converted into binary code, and when this code is run, the program is self-aware. (b) The same conscious program is written

RE: The Time Deniers

2005-07-11 Thread Lee Corbin
Jesse writes So again, is it enough to look at the natural laws of our universe in order to decide whether the consciousnesses within it are real? Or do we need more? Can we imagine a universe like ours, which follows exactly the same natural laws, but where time doesn't really exist (in

Re: The Time Deniers

2005-07-11 Thread Eugen Leitl
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 03:48:48PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: (c) A random string of binary code is run on a computer. There exists a programming language which, when a program is written in this language so that it is the same program as in (a) and (b), then compiled, the binary

RE: The Time Deniers

2005-07-11 Thread Hal Finney
Stathis Papaioannou writes: (c) A random string of binary code is run on a computer. There exists a programming language which, when a program is written in this language so that it is the same program as in (a) and (b), then compiled, the binary code so produced is the same as this random

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-11 Thread chris peck
PROTECTED] To: chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 11:26:45 -0400 Dear Chris, Thank you for this post! Interleaving... - Original Message - From: chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED

The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-11 Thread James N Rose
chris peck wrote: Hi Stephen; I suppose we can think of time as a dimension. However, there are provisos. Time is not like x, y, or z in so far as we have no ability to freely navigate the axis in any direction we choose. We are embedded in time and it moves onwards in a single direction

RE: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-11 Thread chris peck
. Regards Chris. From: James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com CC: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:11:55 -0700 chris peck wrote: Hi Stephen; I suppose we can think of time

RE: The Time Deniers

2005-07-10 Thread Hal Finney
Again travel has forced me to take an absence from this list for a while, but I think I will be home for several weeks so hopefully I will be able to catch up at last. One question I would ask with regard to the role of time is, is there something about time (and perhaps causality) that goes over

RE: The Time Deniers

2005-07-10 Thread Lee Corbin
Hal Finney writes Can we imagine a universe like ours, which follows exactly the same natural laws, but where time doesn't really exist (in some sense), where there is no actual causality? You yourself have already provided the key example in imagining a two dimensional CA where the second

RE: The Time Deniers

2005-07-10 Thread Jesse Mazer
Hal Finney wrote: So again, is it enough to look at the natural laws of our universe in order to decide whether the consciousnesses within it are real? Or do we need more? Can we imagine a universe like ours, which follows exactly the same natural laws, but where time doesn't really exist

RE: The Time Deniers

2005-07-10 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
-aware, then by definition *it* knows. --Stathis Papaioannou From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: RE: The Time Deniers Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 15:42:49 -0700 Stathis writes Lee Corbin writes: But it is *precisely* that I cannot

RE: The Time Deniers

2005-07-09 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Jesse Mazer wrote: You might say that in the last example the states were causally connected, while in the first they were not. But why should that make any difference, especially to a solipsist? If one believes in psychophysical laws (to use Chalmers' term) relating 3rd-person patterns of

Rép : The Time Deniers

2005-07-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 06-juil.-05, à 07:16, Russell Standish a écrit : My reading of Bruno's work is that time is implicitly assumed as part of computationalism (I know Bruno sometimes does not quite agree, but there you have it). Thinking again on why you keep saying this, I can imagine, giving the

Re: The Time Deniers

2005-07-09 Thread Stephen Paul King
/pratt95rational.html Kindest regards, Stephen - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Everything-List List everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 12:44 PM Subject: Rép : The Time Deniers The same can be said with Stephen dualism. If it is not a dualism

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-08 Thread chris peck
everything-list@eskimo.com Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 13:37:05 -0400 Hi Pete, - Original Message - From: Pete Carlton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Everything-List everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 1:12 PM

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-08 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Chris, Thank you for this post! Interleaving... - Original Message - From: chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 7:34 AM Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension Hi Stephen; I

RE: The Time Deniers

2005-07-08 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
Lee Corbin writes: But it is *precisely* that I cannot imagine how this stack of Life gels could possibly be thinking or be conscious that forces me to admit that something like time must play a role. Here is why: let's suppose that your stack of Life boards does represent each generation of

Re: The Time Deniers

2005-07-08 Thread Hal Ruhl
). John Mikes - Original Message - From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 3:31 PM Subject: Re: The Time Deniers Hi Stephen: At 03:03 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote: Dear Hal, Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming

Re: The Time Deniers

2005-07-08 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Hal, Please forgive my delay in replying. - Original Message - From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 3:31 PM Subject: Re: The Time Deniers Hi Stephen: At 03:03 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote: Dear Hal, Which is primitive

RE: The Time Deniers

2005-07-08 Thread Lee Corbin
(which might be a giant lookup table, mapping [anything] - [line of code]) is generally taken as being self-evidently absurd. Not sure I understand. Since you are talking about a *process*, then for my money we're already half-way there! (I.e., the Time Deniers have not struck.) Suppose that we

Re: The Time Deniers

2005-07-08 Thread Hal Ruhl
. - Original Message - From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 3:31 PM Subject: Re: The Time Deniers Hi Stephen: At 03:03 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote: Dear Hal, Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming? Stephen Let me try

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-07 Thread Pete Carlton
On Jul 6, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:PC:But isn't the use of time as the dimension along which things vary  (or are 'processed') a somewhat arbitrary choice?[SPK]   Please notice that the identification of "time" with a "dimension" involves the identification with each moment in

Re: The Time Deniers

2005-07-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
gives a very appropriate name to all the sponsors of these ideas, from Bruno and Russell, all the way to Julian Barbour: the time- deniers. I hate it when someone introduces a new term I don't understand. What, pray, are time deniers? Is it related at all to the material jeans are made out

Re: The Time Deniers

2005-07-07 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Lee: At 09:47 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote: snip Where I join you (in failing to understand) is what happens as the OM becomes of zero length. I did not say *the limit as it becomes zero*, I said zero. It's almost as though some people take this as license to suppose that time is not a

Re: The Time Deniers

2005-07-07 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear Hal, Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming? Stephen - Original Message - From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 2:57 PM Subject: Re: The Time Deniers Hi Lee: At 09:47 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote: snip

Re: The Time Deniers

2005-07-07 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Stephen: At 03:03 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote: Dear Hal, Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming? Stephen Let me try it this way: 1) All possible states preexist [Existence]. 2) The system has a random dynamic [the Nothing is incomplete in the All/Nothing system and must

Re: The Time Deniers

2005-07-07 Thread jamikes
@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 3:31 PM Subject: Re: The Time Deniers Hi Stephen: At 03:03 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote: Dear Hal, Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming? Stephen Let me try it this way: 1) All possible states preexist [Existence]. 2) The system

RE: The Time Deniers

2005-07-06 Thread Lee Corbin
it). Sorry. Now, I mean by Time Deniers those who (for example Julian Barbour) believe that time doesn't really exist, but can be reduced to configuration spaces or bit strings, or perhaps other things. The essential ingredient---I'm guessing here---is that time is *not* an independent quantity, not really

Re: The Time Deniers

2005-07-06 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Lee, To split a hair... ;-) - Original Message - From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 9:47 PM Subject: The Time Deniers snip I am still at the point where I cannot quite imagine how a huge nest of bit strings (say all

Re: The Time Deniers

2005-07-06 Thread Pete Carlton
On Jul 6, 2005, at 9:08 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: There is a huge difference in kind between existing and emulating. Existing is atemporal by definition since existence can not depend on any other property. Emulations involve some notion of a process and such are temporal. The

Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension

2005-07-06 Thread Stephen Paul King
Hi Pete, - Original Message - From: Pete Carlton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Everything-List everything-list@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 1:12 PM Subject: Re: The Time Deniers On Jul 6, 2005, at 9:08 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: There is a huge difference in kind

RE: The Time Deniers

2005-07-06 Thread Lee Corbin
Pete writes But isn't the use of time as the dimension along which things vary (or are 'processed') a somewhat arbitrary choice? I've wrote to the list before about a Game of Life simulation in which, instead of running the states of the automaton forward in time, erasing the