I read this. There is nothing that could indicate that those cellular automata match any physics, besides author saying so. There is only some diagrams and a lot of statements like:
> "d" represents the big bang singularity, which creates alot of (but not all?) matter. So this variation has inflation as a pocketed expansion of matterfilled space. (& "b" & "b1234" make alot more sense in this context.)"
There is nothing that would explain how "d" represents the bing bang, matter or dimensions. I think this is rambling of someone who read too much Wolfram works. It looks very impressive, like TempleOS.
It does match. & that it can match is what matters. It shows how the salient aspects of our universe or models of physics might arise from simple rules.
No, it doesn't show how and you didn't show how it matches. I've read from your other comments that you are big fan of "internal meanings". We humans use language to communicate ideas so that we can connect your internal meanings to everyone's internal meanings, but you didn't present any meaningful connection between those DFA and real physical processes, or at least any connection that someone interested in this topic could see. I understand what you write in the article, but I can't see any match between those DFA's and physics. Make any sensible example and then we can talk.
I was interested to read this but .... Can't make the text bigger because it doesn't wrap properly, and the image doesn't scroll with the text.
I read this. There is nothing that could indicate that those cellular automata match any physics, besides author saying so. There is only some diagrams and a lot of statements like:
> "d" represents the big bang singularity, which creates alot of (but not all?) matter. So this variation has inflation as a pocketed expansion of matterfilled space. (& "b" & "b1234" make alot more sense in this context.)"
There is nothing that would explain how "d" represents the bing bang, matter or dimensions. I think this is rambling of someone who read too much Wolfram works. It looks very impressive, like TempleOS.
It does match. & that it can match is what matters. It shows how the salient aspects of our universe or models of physics might arise from simple rules.
No, it doesn't show how and you didn't show how it matches. I've read from your other comments that you are big fan of "internal meanings". We humans use language to communicate ideas so that we can connect your internal meanings to everyone's internal meanings, but you didn't present any meaningful connection between those DFA and real physical processes, or at least any connection that someone interested in this topic could see. I understand what you write in the article, but I can't see any match between those DFA's and physics. Make any sensible example and then we can talk.
Sorry. You can read it on mobile if you pinch the screen.
I think we're all on the same page, but just to make sure: the patterns are the hexagrams of the Yijing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexagram_(I_Ching)
Are we getting a new standard, now that the Timecube website is gone?
I've never seen someone write "&" as a total replacement for "and". I don't like the way it makes me feel.
I saw it on HN before (and did not like that, either), while now noticed it in another submission by the same user, on a similar topic. [0]
Apart from that, as mentioned in another comment here, the article's content seems no less strange than the style.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30358271
Yeah, that was mystical mumbojumbo. Ignore that. I was going through a phase after writing a poem.
&y'du think so?
Prompt?
surely if this was AI generated there would be better sentence structure and punctuation?