3 ms·

1) But we don't have arbitrary amounts of paper or time. 2,3) Your structure is 2+1D, which is a kind of 3D. Comments about 3D objects were talking about space

1) But we don't have arbitrary amounts of paper or time. 2,3) Your structure is 2+1D, which is a kind of 3D. Comments about 3D objects were talking about spacetime regions, not space region. 2b) Do you want locality? I'm not convinced spatial locality is how our universe operates. Also, non-locality in Minecraft interacting with the update engine is what caused a lot of seemingly non-deterministic effects. I guess it makes simulating easier, though. 4) Asteroids is a torus, just a flat torus. I had actually assumed that's what you meant in the first place. (Also, you left out hyperbolic spaces.)

goldenkey 10y ago
We don't but neither do universal simulations. Maybe I should have said finite-state turing machines. With a vast enough universe, the finite # of states won't matter much when it comes to producing life. What fraction of the information in the universe are our bodies, or if you go down further to simpler smaller species, the fraction gets smaller. It's tiny. 2) Yes, basically a flat torus. Not the most beautiful topology. 3) Yes, I think locality is the right approach at least for starting out. This project is iterative so nothing is set in stone. Thank you for the questions and comments. I guess I left quite a bit out. And right now, I'm in the middle of a lot of design decisions regarding fusion and decay. It's not easy to build a universe, even a simple one.