4 ms·
> If we find a completely different way of computing it that doesn't map to a CA, we'll know it's false. This is wrong. You would have to additionally prove th
by schwurb 7y ago
> If we find a completely different way of computing it that doesn't map to a CA, we'll know it's false.
This is wrong. You would have to additionally prove that the other thing is the only alternative.
Also, CA is not testable in the sense that the theory of relativity is testable. The latter makes measurable predictions that can be satisfied, the former does not. I can imagine any model - unicorns and fairies included - and say that is behaves like the universe. The only way to falsify my claim is to empirically contradict one of my claims. NKS does not put forth such claims. Not the kind you would build a new CERN for.
- tlb 7y agoA CA model of physics would certainly make measurable predictions, probably including some surprising ones that would suggest experiments to confirm them.
- schwurb 7y agoWhere do you take your certainess from? If even Stephen Wolfram could not produce such predictions, then I doubt anyone else could. In all likelyhood, it is just not a good physical model.
- api 7y ago> This is wrong. You would have to additionally prove that the other thing is the only alternative. A CA theory of physics would just be math, right? Wouldn't it end up being isomorphic with some mathematical representation, albeit perhaps easier to understand or evaluate in its CA form?
- tlb 7y agoCurrently, we only know continuous mathematical models of physics. A CA model would be discrete, so not isomorphic to anything we know.
- api 7y agoWhat if it's discrete but effectively matches what we know in that current mathematical methods correctly approximate it in their respective contexts and resolutions? I mean in the same sense that Newtonian physics approximates Einsteinian physics at low speeds and distances.