User Portlet User Portlet

Discussions
Thank you for the second reference. It was helpful, but unfortunately it left me disappointed. The first two examples in the reference are just regular constructions of the double slit experiment in Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms and have...
I would like to add to this thread mentioning that Gorard does similar imbedding in his paper on [quantum mechanics][1], where the definition of branch-like or entanglement-like separation depends on the particular way one imbeds the multiway system...
I am not particularly knowledgeable in this part of the Wolfram Model, but I had some ideas which may help define light-like, space-like and time-like events, while avoiding any imbedding (I suspect some of them may be already be present in Gorard's...
>I would prefer to use the word "framework" rather than "notation" What is "framework"? By "translating into Wolfram's notation", I meant just enriching words and notations of Wolfram Models to include definitions from ZX calculus. >I agree...
>Just to clarify that my quotation "Nevertheless, any Polish space is the continuous image of the Baire space." is not contradicted by your observation that "not every Polish space can be mapped continuously onto the Baire space". You are...
So... they are working on a different definition of causal invariance, which does not imply termination? In my post though the system is not terminating, and the causal graphs are isomorphic in an "asymptotic" sense already (I could force-terminated...
I agree, there are issues with the requirement of achronicity. Gorard does not use it anywhere in the paper and his foliations in Figures 20, 21, 27 do not respect achronicity of the updates within layers (some nodes are causally related within...
Seth relies on electromagnetism in his derivation. Right in the sentence before your quote (from the Seth's paper), Seth uses Coulomb interaction law between electrons. If he picked other carriers for information (say, neutrons), the constant would...
> we can say the same for Flat Earth theory: it works great in everyday life, but it was a scientific mistake. > I think you are misusing the words. We don't call theories a "mistake". Theories can be "wrong", if their predictions contradict...
Ok, yes, very good. If we have at least two rules, then the reverse rules do not have to be causally invariant. I also came up with a single rule example: Consider the rule AB->AA. It is causally invariant for all starting states (can prove). If we...