>>31
I haven't read this thread, so I don't know what this 'infinite detail' is, but I do think non-halting processes are fine, our universe may very well be one (and if not, by induction, an universe with a next state will always exist).
Given some fractal computing process, you can render it up to detail 'k' (some particular resolution). Given more time, you can render it up to k+1, and so on. I refuse to accept that the next step cannot exist when one models the process abstractly. (I also refuse to accept that there is such a time t which is the final state and no states follow after it. Of course, no conscious artifact (such as ourselves) will ever be able to say that a time t is final, or that t+1 doesn't exist, as our own illusion of continuity of consciousness requires us to assume t+1 always exist - and since I think living for this illusion is perfectly fine(no reason to live if you don't care about your own conscious state), I will always assume t+1 exists for any t and also the existence of a mathematical or computational multiverse, but that's a discussion for another day).