deletions | additions       diff --git a/untitled.tex b/untitled.tex  index ab2042e..dfd7ba6 100644  --- a/untitled.tex  +++ b/untitled.tex 
...
\section{Introduction}  A Christian believes that God created the Universe, but there are many people that think that there is no Creator, implying that the Universe is not created. I think it's worth thinking about what that means and I will try to make a prediction from the fact that there is no Creator.We will work with many kinds of universes, and I'm going to call them \textbf{possible universes}.\footnote{If there is no Creator, I can't help but think that there should be many independent universes, since whatever reason our Universe has for existing, it's very likely that it applies to other universes too. If there is no reason for the existence of our Universe, then the other universes also don't need any reason for existing and they simply exist. Still, the argument I'm trying to make also works when our Universe is the only one that exists.}  First of all, let's see if we can say something about a created universe. For a Christian, it should be an universe in which rational beings (humans) can live. These rational beings would be able to study and understand the Universe. In general, however, it depends on who created it. It's likely that it would be optimized for some purpose, but I can't say more without knowing more about what its creator intended.  If our Universe wasn't created, then it should be a random one. I'm going to argue that we can say some interesting things about a random universe.  First, let us note that there may be other universes than ours. Even if there aren't other universes, then ours could have been different. Let us call these other universes \textbf{possible universes}.\footnote{If there is no Creator, I can't help but think that there should be many independent universes, since whatever reason our Universe has for existing, it's very likely that it applies to other universes too. If there is no reason for the existence of our Universe, then the other universes also don't need any reason for existing and they simply exist. Still, the argument I'm trying to make also works when our Universe is the only one that exists.}  Let us define some terms for the reminder of this document.  If a statement $S$ is true in a possible universe $U$ then we say that $S$ is a \textbf{property} of $U$.  A \textbf{universe description} $D$ is a set of noncontradictory mathematical axioms that describe the "laws of the universe". I will call each of the mathematical models in which these axioms are true a possible universe for the description $D$ and $D$ is a description for each of this possible universes. Note that a universe will have many possible descriptions and a description may describe multiple universes.  One could argue that a mathematical definition of the laws of a possible universe is too limiting and that there may be possible universes without this kind of description. That could be, and we could replace "mathematical axioms" with "natural language sentences" without changing much of what follows, except for making the argument somehow more complicated. Still, even "natural language sentences" could be too limiting, but the argument below works even in this case, as long as our universe has a mathematical description of its laws.  znzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz  Is there anything that we could say about an uncreated universe? Psychologically it's hard to move away from what we know about this world, many people would answer something similar to "It would be very similar to our Universe". However, it is clear that this view is rather limited and, with some effort, one could imagine universes which have nothing in common with ours. To avoid being blinded by what we currently know, let's try to imagine that we are rational beings that, somehow, don't have any knowledge about any universe and that can't observe anything around them and let's think about how an universe could be like. We may think that an universe could be something completely opaque to rationality, that we couldn't describe any laws that govern it and, in general, that we could say only trivial things about it (e.g. "It's an universe", "I don't understand it").   Although this may be reasonable, it may be more useful to think about universes which we can understand rationally. I would say that one can understand an universe in a rational way if and only if that universe can be modelled mathematically. I think that the reverse is also true, if something can be modelled mathematically, it could be an universe. If this seems too outrageous, you should know that this document works mostly with more plausible universes. However, I don't see a good reason to be outraged by having, say, $\intregi_2$ as a possible universe. 
...
For each type, the set of axioms that describe it and its wave functions should be finite. For each two types, the set of axioms that describe the interactions between the two types should be finite. We can have an infinite set of types. We will assume that the set of types is at most countable, but we could also work without this assumption. We will also assume that the full set of axioms is not contradictory.  \end {definitie}  Pentru If one finds fully mathematical descriptions to be limiting, we could start our descriptions with simple concepts that an average human would understand and build using that as  a nu fi limitați de descrieri complet matematice, am putea face aceste descrieri pornind de la concepte simple, să zicem concepte pe care le poate înțelege un om obișnuit fără facultate, ajungând la idei oricât de complexe. Evident, o astfel de descriere ar putea include o definiție axiomatică a unor ramuri ale matematicii, foundation. Of course, such  a mulțimi numerelor reale, etc. Însă aceste descrieri nu ar aduce nimic nou în construcția de mai jos, lipsind-o în schimb de precizie. description could include axiomatic definitions of, say, various branches of mathematics. However, I think that these descriptions would not change the validity of the constructions below, but would still make everything less precise.  O altă problemă este că într-un astfel de univers ar putea exista lucruri imposibil de descris. În particular, un creștin crede că așa ceva există, deși e posibil să existe în afara As hinted above, another issue is that  a ceea ce majoritatea oamenilor consideră a fi universul curent. Însă nu cred că aceasta schimbă concluziile finale. possible universe may contain things which are impossible to describe. As an example, most Christians believe that something indescribable exists, although it may exist outside of our Universe. Still, that would not change anything in the reminder of the document.  \begin{definitie}  Un univers posibil care corespune unei descrieri A \textbf{possible universe} for a given description  $D$ date este dat de o mulțime de funcții de undă pentru fiecare is a set of pairs of wave functions and types for each  moment din timp, care funcții respectă regulile de interacțiune date (pentru simplitatea prezentării vom ignora faptul că momentele din timp pentru poziții diferite din spațiu nu sunt neapărat total ordonate). in time. These wave functions conform to the interaction rules between the types found in $D$. To keep the reminder of the document simple we will ignore that time instances for different places in space may not be totally ordered.  \end{definitie}  \begin{definitie}  Two entity types are connected if their objects may interact.  Două tipuri de entități sunt \textbf{conectate} dacă interacționează între ele.  % Este rezonabil să cer ca oricare două tipuri de entități să fie conectate (direct sau indirect), vezi mai jos o afirmație care spune că probabilitatea de a nu fi conectate este zero.  \end{definitie}