Yes, that was an idea I remember having come up in discussions with both Tommaso Bolognesi and Stephen Wolfram: one local read/write head, vs. many local ones, vs. one global operator. To make a difference, it appears the many must be asynchronous, based on their intrinsic state?
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No, cause and effect appear on the level of modeling the universe as separate systems passing information to each other. They are a feature of description.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
We can already deduce that spacetime cannot be fundamental, i.e. it does not exist. You are referring to an outer substrate, but we need something like this anyway. And no, I have no idea how we bridge the semantic distance to the void.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As soon as you accept non-locality (spatially distant locations sharing state), we know that space cannot be the fundamental substrate.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Spacetime makes sense only as the topologically flat substrate of information flow. If some information is stored outside of a particular spatial location, or teleports around, the model breaks down.
-
Where does information go when it dies? If it’s leaking into nothingness, how much can nothingness absorb before it become somethingness. Just maybe the notion of a “state” is a red herring.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.