Like, I don’t see a reason to reinvent the wheel with a new program when another one exists that just has to be automated. FFMPEG, oh gosh on my old lap top I had a few dozen workhorse batch files I made to do whatever transformations to video I felt like. I loved breaking apart video, doing stuff and putting them back together in different ways.
I keep myself on the fence on whether or not the universe is indeed computational in that way. Ultimately it’s likely I believe it and yet, my skeptic is strong because of the “it’s too good to be true – be careful” caution flag I have internally about things when I really like them.
it compels me to continue investigating all other possibilities in the meanwhile
\in this area myself. I think possibly continuous is the myth, requiring a even “smearing” of reality when it seems to be made of bumpy parts, even they’re “bumpy waves” – not smooth — stronger and weaker wave fronts will interact with each other..
i mean, how can we ever get to a infinitessimel?
I go back and forth on the continuous/discrete thing. I believe they’re ultimately equivalent to each other though. One of my few mathematical successes was going through mathematical morphology, which is used in medical science, and trying to understand it. Once I learned it was a poset, I could then understand EVERY poset by thinking how it would be if it was done in mathematical morphology on an image let’s say.
There’s far more dimensions within. Just look how complicated the human nervous system and body is compared to a planet or even a sun. Turbulence is hard to model properly and yet there’s more turbulence in our bodies than in a star in variety, making the star a much much bigger but conceptually simpler object than the body.
heat death of the universe? Well, there will likely be some critical point beyond which we simply won’t be able to exist, which is likely long before the heat death.
our informational complexity wouldn’t be sustainable beyond a certain point