Re: Computational irreducibility and the simulability of worlds

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 19:59:50 -0400

Hi Stephen:

What I am basically saying is that you can not define a thing without
simultaneously defining another thing that consists of all that is "left
over" in the ensemble of building blocks. I suspect that usually the "left
over" thing is of little practical use.

However, this duality also applies to the "Nothing" and its left over which
is the "Everything". A look at this pair allows the derivation that the
boundary between them [the definition pair] can be represented as a
"normal" real and can not be a constant if zero info is to be maintained.

Thus, given the dynamic, this boundary's representation as I said in the
last post can be modeled as the output of a computer with an infinite
number of asynchronous multiprocessors. A cellular automaton with
asynchronous cells. Universes are interpretations of this output.

Sort of a left wing proof that we are "in" a massive computer.

The Hintikka material you pointed me to is far too imbedded in mathematical
language symbols for me to understand.

Yours

Hal




At 12:03 AM 4/13/2004, you wrote:
>Dear Hal,
>
> I will have to think about this for a while. Very interesting. Meanwhile
>I ask that you take a look at the game theoretic semantic idea by Hintikka.
>
>Kindest regards,
>
>Stephen
Received on Wed Apr 14 2004 - 20:04:59 PDT