On 22 Jan 2002, at 23:28, H J Ruhl wrote:
> > >
> > > I do not see that at all. Why does it need a history? All it needs
is
> > the
> > > capability of finding a next state.
> >
> >It doesn't need the capacity to find the next state. If it has that
> >capacity, then the history is computable.
>
> I said "capability of finding a next state". I did not indicate how it
> found such a next state. It could for example do so at random.
>
An universe can be an oriented graph of states.
Each state has no, one or more next states. It also has no, one or more
previous states.
This universe may be computable. To compute it doesn't means you start from
an unique initial state and you go from it to the only next one and so on.
If there is conscious beings in this universe. They will perceive the time
flowing as they go from a state to a next one, and again. But from a third
person point of view, this univers is a static (and so deterministic)
mathematical object.
When for a given state there is more than one next state, it is for the
concious being as if random rule their future. They may think their
universe is not deterministic, except for those who has an Everett-like
theory.
When there is no next state, it's the end of times.
This kind of universes doesn't have an history, but many histories. Each
way in the oriented graph is an history. Even loops are possible. Many
different histories can lead to a given state.
If our universe is this kind of graph, the big-bang may not start from an
inital "eden" state (which has no previous state) but from a set of states
that can loop. After the big-bang I suppose there is no loop.
Matthieu.
--
http://matthieu.walraet.free.fr
Received on Wed Jan 23 2002 - 14:18:06 PST