5 ms·
Graph grammars are Turing complete so I don't see why they couldn't express the fundamental theory of physics, but it seems like a weird way of going about the
by aaron-santos 7y ago
Graph grammars are Turing complete so I don't see why they couldn't express the fundamental theory of physics, but it seems like a weird way of going about the problem.
- sriram_malhar 7y agoA turing machine cannot produce randomness, non-determinism.
- jdjrirkfkfk 7y agoWe dont know if physical randomness truly is so. It could be pseudo random with a seed (superdeterminism)
- gexaha 7y agohow about Conway-Kochen's Free Will Theorem? is it compatible with superdeterminism?
- wolfgke 7y agoIf you are interested in such topics, read 't Hooft, Gerard: The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-41285-6 https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-41285-6 Reference number 23.
- skosch 7y agoYes. Superdeterminism does away with the observer as a separate thing, so the question of free will doesn't even come up. Everything is just one evolving system.
- kleer001 7y agoNo, but it can produce something that's unpredictable from the original code. And that's spitting distance from random.
- jfkebwjsbx 7y agoWell, you can give it as many bits of randomness as you need as input (the tape).