And the Universal Turing Machine [...], in order to be functional at all, is so unlimited in scope that it must literally encompass the entire universe (and for all we know, this is precisely what the universe actually is).
In fact, there's a well-accepted hypothesis, called the Church-Turing thesis, that essentially says the universe is equivalent to a Universal Turing Machine. (Sometimes I find it amusing how computer scientists have reinvented their own metaphysics from first principles!)
May I as well suggest another kind of framing?
Of course you may, and thank you for doing so! But I'm going to need some time to ingest it; I think you're using a way of looking at things that is foreign to my understanding, and I'm not sure I comprehend what you're saying. (But I'm also not sure where the points of contention are; that is, I'm not sure where your model and mine overlap or not. So I'm not yet sure what I'm missing and what questions to ask!)
Perhaps this even has an expression in purely physical terms, with Uranus the only planet to spin perpendicular to the orbital plane, [...]
On this point, however, I'm fully agreed: I'm certain that the physical manifestation of the planets is in accord with their nature, though I must confess I'm still trying to understand these. (I've talked about a few that I'm certain about! It's also notable that the benefics are the brightest stars in the sky, that Mars is intensely red, that Jupiter is massive, and—yes—that Uranus is sideways! But there's so much more to process and understand... all I can say is that, wasteful or not, I'm grateful to NASA for the Voyager program, or we'd have so much less to go on!)
no subject
In fact, there's a well-accepted hypothesis, called the Church-Turing thesis, that essentially says the universe is equivalent to a Universal Turing Machine. (Sometimes I find it amusing how computer scientists have reinvented their own metaphysics from first principles!)
Of course you may, and thank you for doing so! But I'm going to need some time to ingest it; I think you're using a way of looking at things that is foreign to my understanding, and I'm not sure I comprehend what you're saying. (But I'm also not sure where the points of contention are; that is, I'm not sure where your model and mine overlap or not. So I'm not yet sure what I'm missing and what questions to ask!)
On this point, however, I'm fully agreed: I'm certain that the physical manifestation of the planets is in accord with their nature, though I must confess I'm still trying to understand these. (I've talked about a few that I'm certain about! It's also notable that the benefics are the brightest stars in the sky, that Mars is intensely red, that Jupiter is massive, and—yes—that Uranus is sideways! But there's so much more to process and understand... all I can say is that, wasteful or not, I'm grateful to NASA for the Voyager program, or we'd have so much less to go on!)