From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Nov 30 2002 - 00:13:51 MST
Mitchell Porter wrote:
>
> Suppose fundamental physics turned out to be described by the
> Game of Life. What would that mean? It would mean that the universe
> was made of two-state entities which are causally coupled to each
> other in a certain way. If someone wanted to say that such a
> universe was "made of finite-state machines", each running the
> basic state-transition law as their "program" - I would find that
> a lot more reasonable. But the idea that the universe is made of
> software that has no hardware... it's like Pythagoras, "all is
> number".
Who says there is no hardware? The universe we know could
easily be a simulation/VR in a very advanced hardware system
outside (obviously) the program/simulation that we are
semi-autonomous agents within. Perhaps you are getting hung up
I think on the use of "universe" in its two primary meanings as
either "all that is" or "this bubble of more or less contiguous
space-time we inhabit". We cannot meaningfully say that the
latter is the former except as a bald assertion.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:41 MDT