Our discussion began with a search for an entity--the simplest entity--to emulate a universe. So how do oyts stack up?

An oyt itself is simple enough. The GRS of an oyt space can be simple, but can also be quite intricate. So the search for simplicity has moved from the realm of structure to the realm of behavior. It may be that very simple rules can emulate a universe, but that is not yet known.

Oyt spaces are a form of finite state machine. Most such require a pre-existing arena in which the action occurs. A Turing machine has a tape. Conway's Game of Life an infinite chessboard. And so on. Presupposing an arena is a bit drastic for emulating a universe. Where did the arena come from? Oyts solve this problem by being able to create space and change its structure. Space can even curve.

How about the speed of light as a limit? On the physics side, this limit can arise in oyts by a limit on mass and energy. Mass may arise as number of oyt connections to be revised.

local action (speed limit)

emulation at a low level

ratio of computation time in the model to distance in the real space should be bounded
   a) this discards models that use a one-D tape
   b) this demands that it be possible to alter the geometry in order to match the modification of space induced by gravity

energy

    the propensitY for GRS action

    amplitude of E/M fields; this implies a feedback from aspects of the space to behavior of the GRS. or more simply, some feedback from E/M to other parts of GRS

each operation requires a deduction from amplitude

absolute zero is where nothing happens

but heat is always trying to equalize

so a vacuum is needed to prevent cold things from heating up

and also hot things from coooling down

to model heat energy, transfer from E/M needs to depend on size of E/M

   if amplitude difference is greater, there is more energy available

   this argues for a diference that depends on "scanner" nodes that are atop the amplitude pile (as opposed to the notion that addition happens at the bottom ???

   scanner always atop the smaller?

   but timing based on distance between tops means

       slower where diference is greater (just backwards)

all this energy stuff goes to examples page

what about inertia???

    is the inertia of an object a consequence of the inertia of its constituents?

    is there inertia implicit in space warp

    or in the disturbance of E/M

a) amplitude of e/m is local energy

b) connections to space are mass

warped space-time -- gravity

chirality

tetrahedreal tesselation of space

problem of pi

the oyts mechanism has promise of offering suggestive explanations for what is going on. In the Physics Examples section I'll show how oyts can offer compelling demonstrations of what it means to have multiple dimensions, warped space, inflationary universes, electromagnetic fields, wave-particle duality, and other physics concepts

There is a sense in which a collection of oyts can feel like a space to a creature made up of the oyts and residing among them. In order for it to move, the oyts have to change. New connections made and old ones broken. New oyts created and old ones disconnected. These activities are not instantaneous. So to the creature it takes time to move. And therefore it feels to the creature as if moving through a space.

It has been popular in physics to demand that a new theory lead to "testable hypotheses." Famously, Einstein's general theory of relativity was tested by photgraphing the stars behind the sun during an eclipse. They were seen to be displaced from their position when not beyond the sun. Displaced, in fact, by an amount that could best be explained if Einstein were correct. Such a test, however, need not be the only hallmark of an improved theory. Indeed, the switch from earth-cntric to solar-centric planetary orbits did not make new predictions. What it did do was to vastly simplify the equations needed to predict the positions of planets. At the same time, a new mathematical tool--the calculus--was an important tool in taking advantage of the new understanding of the solar system.

Above it has been shown that oyts can represent the physical universe. It seems possible that some set of oyts rules can be shown to predict the same physical values as are observed in particle interactions. To do so requires solving two enormous problems:
- Find a set of oyts rules that properly mimics elementary particles.
- Find a means to compute observable values from the oyts rules.
The second task is that of finding emergent properties. Indeed, this is the new mathematics that will be needed if automata are to mimic the physical universe.