quote:
quote:
Rei: You know, I personally don't care what Conway himself had to say about the issue.
/*DNAunion*/ Well of course you dont, because what Conway the inventor of the game of life said matches what I said.
/*Pretentious Code Brackets*/ Conway only examined the tiniest subset of cellular automata. Many of his own predictions about even his own automata were incorrect, such as that there would be no infinitely expansive patterns. What you're doing is like referencing the Wright brothers in a discussion on how to build a Saturn 5 rocket.
quote:
quote:
Rei: I seriously recommend that you try plugging in random rulesets from generalized automata before you make this claim.
/*DNAunion*/ I already supported the few claims I made about the game of life the one example that you offered. The way I see it, I'm done.
/*Pretentious Code Brackets*/ I show you several dozen links that show that you're factually incorrect, and you say "I'm done"? What sort of "debate" is this? Of course, it's about what I should expect from someone who says
/*DNAunion*/ I addressed what I cared to..
quote:
You are dragging the discussion off onto a tangent and there is no requirement for me to follow along on a leash.
We're talking about whether life can exist in alternative universes, even if very different, by examining what is happening at the low level and whether it shows the potential for the requisites of life (ability to store state information, organized rules but with ample entropy to allow random arrangements, etc). It's
your choice if, in a discussion on alternative universes, if you refuse to address alternative universes.
P.S. - why on Earth do you keep splitting up your replies into multiple posts? I keep having to try to piece them back together to stop you from derailing this conversation.
P.P.S. - why did you avoid my post about the chemistry of silicon?
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-05-2003]
™ Version 4.2
