4 ms·

> but it must be fixed. If it was not fixed, then there would be a more fundamental level that governs how evolve() itself evolves. Nice hypotheses. How would

• danbruc 5y ago
  Does it actually need checking, isn't it a tautology? Either the value of a variable is fixed or there must be some function [1] that describes the evolution of the value of the variable? And this either has to end at some level with a fixed value or you have to have some infinite decent where there is always another level below, something I glossed over as an option in the original comment. [1] This makes no assumptions whether you can know or compute or whatever this function, just that there exists some function from one state to the next.
  • Tistron 5y ago
    In my mind, the fact that you could find functions describing all past states doesn't necessarily imply that there's a function, in some ontic sense, that produces or predicts future states. Saying that implies a preexisting belief in determinism, and this perspective seems to rather imply learning and/or exploring.
    • Dudeman112 5y ago
      If we went from a non deterministic belief from the beginning, it would change from a function that predicts future states to a probability distribution function. Which would still be learning and/or exploring. I'm not particularly agreeing or disagreeing with anything, mind you. Just that the universe being probabilistic wouldn't change the argument
• hprotagonist 5y ago
  > Nice hypotheses. How would you go testing it to check its validity? That’s more of an axiom.