>>11567694Oh neat, read that part just now, it's not exactly what I was asking for but it's much more interesting. In the end it was more about "moving through initial states space" than "moving through ruleset space", but you could see the "ruleset A to determine initial state then ruleset B for the rest of the model" bit as a very specific an limited case of the second one I guess, where there you only change the ruleset once.
I however am not sure if I understand what I read correctly, the part about Universe description.
Is he talking about the Universe as the entire graph?
>The universe is effectively using all possible rules. But as entities embedded in the universe, we’re picking a particular foliation (or sequence of reference frames) to make sense of what’s happening. And that choice of foliation corresponds to a description language which gives us our particular way of describing the universe.For some time I've been having fun thinking about (for science fiction generating purposes) something along the lines "we live in a 'slice' of the entire Universe, moving in a given direction through a multidimensional time" a multidimensional time in which any direction taken leads to a "continuous" timeline, which would be equivalent to having a different set of laws of physics, just like we could potentially imagine a set of laws of physics which would correspond for us to "time going backward", going in the opposite direction in a multidimensional time. Each direction would have its own set of laws of physics, but all of them would make sense together and be the result of just one set in multidimensional time.
The text I quoted made me think of that for a discrete universe, it looks vaguely similar, but I may actually just not understand what I read and loosely linked the ideas together.
