Concerning Conway's game of life, it is a game, not real life. And it is deterministic. Even if we don't have an algorithm to predict its evolution, numerical tools can simulate it, the limit being only the computing time. Then real life, especially human life, adds a factor: the non respect of rules. We are indeed not obliged to respect the laws of nature. Of course we are subject to it, but we transcend it thanks to our conscience. If our own evolution was subject to Conway's game of life, we can anticipate evolution in the short or medium term, and decide to change the pattern if we do not like it, it is enough to be always a few steps ahead of Nature. Anticipation adds a feedback factor, allowing a predictable future state to be prevented. This is already common practice (which can lead to instability problems but that is another debate). But I don't see any connection with the subject: "Bias or propaganda against the free energy community". There will always be errors in science, logically undecidable concepts too, science always incomplete too. The only question to ask is: is it the best solution? To claim that this is not an ideal solution is a truism. To claim that because this solution is not ideal, it should be rejected, is the "perfect solution fallacy", thus a logical error. When you don't have anything better to propose, it is better to stick to science. The "free energy community" would do better to point out its own mistakes, which it never does, and which prevents it from making any progress, without any need to invoke conspiracy theories against it or the imperfections of others.
---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
|