Bruno,
You speak of "God." Could you define what you, as a logician, mean?
Thanks,
Norman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An informal, but (hopefully) rigorous and complete, argument showing that
physics is derivable from comp. That argument is not constructive. Its e
asyness comes from the fact that it does not really explained how to make
the derivation. The second part is a translation of that argument in the
language of the "universal machine itself". This, by the constraints of
theoretical ccomputer science, makes the proof constructive, so that it
gives the complete derivation of physics from computer science. Of course
God is a little malicious, apparently, and we are led to hard intractable
purely mathematical questions. You are welcome, Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Fri Aug 12 2005 - 14:50:07 PDT