Quentin Anciaux skrev: >> I claim that "our universe" is the result of a finite set of rules. Just >> as a GoL-universe is the result of a finite set of rules, so is our universe >> the result of a set of rules. But these rules are more complicated than the >> GoL-rules... >> > What are your "proofs" or set of evidences that our universe as it is > is 1) resulting from a finite set of rules 2) by 1) computable. > There are two "proofs":
A) Everything is finite. So our universe must be the result from a finite set of rules. B) Occams razor. Because we can explain everything in our universe from this finite set of rules, we don't need anything more complicated. > If 2) is true what difference do you make between functionnaly > equivalent model of your set of rules ? is it the same universe ? > Our universe has nothing to do with different models of our universe. A model is more like a picture of our universe. You can make a model of a GoL-universe with red balls, or you can make a model with black dots, but still there will hold the same relations in both these models. It is the relations that are the important things. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
