This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
But, first and foremost, the story of the Second Law is the story of a great intellectual achievement of the mid-19th century. But in other ways it’s also a cautionary tale, of how the forces of “conventional wisdom” can blind people to unanswered questions and—over a surprisingly long time—inhibit the development of new ideas.
In other words, we’re concerned more with what computational results are obtained, with what computational resources, rather than on the details of the program constructed to achieve this. And we can trace the argument for this to the Principle of Computational Equivalence. A very important claim about the ruliad is that it’s unique.
And in what follows we’ll see the great power that arises from using this to combine the achievements and intuitions of physics and mathematics—and how this lets us think about new “general laws of mathematics”, and view the ultimate foundations of mathematics in a different light. and zero arguments: α[ ]. ✕.
In early 1984 I visited MIT to use the machine to try to do what amounted to naturalscience, systematically studying 2D cellular automata. I think Yves Pomeau already had a theoretical argument for this, but as far as I was concerned, it was (at least at first) just a “next thing to try”.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 28,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content