Author Topic: Continuance of the INfinity Proposal  (Read 21747 times)

Offline gymsum

  • Bot Destroyer
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
Continuance of the INfinity Proposal
« Reply #30 on: July 31, 2008, 10:45:00 PM »
Quote from: Numsgil
Just because something is increasing doesn't mean it has to be exponential.  That's my point.  Why can't it be F = kt, where F is facts, t is time, and k is some constant?  So one second from now there'll be exactly k more facts in the universe then there were before.
because of the over lap, the fact becomes redundant to the point that its acuatually K*K*K...K times.... because the past is forever, and as an observer we can reuse information of the past multiple times, in fact so many times its geometric to the initial, as in overlap.

Offline Numsgil

  • Administrator
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 7742
    • View Profile
Continuance of the INfinity Proposal
« Reply #31 on: July 31, 2008, 11:59:54 PM »
If facts become redundant, then the curve would could be C * exp(-k*t), meaning there are fewer and fewer new facts as time progresses (approaching some constant C).

Offline gymsum

  • Bot Destroyer
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
Continuance of the INfinity Proposal
« Reply #32 on: August 02, 2008, 04:44:35 PM »
Quote from: Numsgil
If facts become redundant, then the curve would could be C * exp(-k*t), meaning there are fewer and fewer new facts as time progresses (approaching some constant C).

No no no. Its not a reduction, as the redundancy becomes seperaate to the fact, and is in itself another node of information in a seperate time reference, meaning it is not = to the previous or next set of redundant information. And I'm not familiar with that setup, exp(x,y)?

Offline Numsgil

  • Administrator
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 7742
    • View Profile
Continuance of the INfinity Proposal
« Reply #33 on: August 02, 2008, 08:53:19 PM »
exp means e^  In this case C * exp(-k * t) is the equation for a decay curve.  as t -> infinity, exp(-k * t) will approach 1.

Redundancy to me means this (#4 in this context).  So I don't think it's the right word for what you mean.

I assume you mean something like this: suppose some datum is true at time t = 0.  If I know this at time t = 1, that is another datum, etc. etc.  Something like that, right?  I believe this is a form of recursion, another fun word that starts with r.

This gets in to some fuzzies...  Because of the uncertainty principle, for instance, time and energy have an uncertainty relation.  Meaning that as you get more precise in your definition of a moment of time, you become less precise in your ability to measure energy or mass.  I'm not sure exactly what the implications of that are, but I'm sure there's something important there.

Second, if the universe is recursive like that, it would mean that you could possibly compute it just by knowing the start conditions for the universe.  Meaning that it is possible to know any one datum, just not all datums at once (unless you're not actually in the universe you're trying to understand).

And third, from a strictly practical point of view, the interesting information is a fraction of the available information.  While it might not be possible to know everything, I still contend that it's possible to know everything you or anyone else has a desire to know.  The charge of cobalt atom #352234-A in my body is of absolutely no concern to me.

Offline gymsum

  • Bot Destroyer
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
Continuance of the INfinity Proposal
« Reply #34 on: August 06, 2008, 09:00:47 AM »
Yes that would be the idea of a fractals and chaos. The difference between the numbers and the fractals is merely in geometric references as proportions rather than exact numbers, which still show infinite boundaries. Which is why even the "static" information is equally important within itself in every frame of reference, otherwise it could be moving incredibly slow and without the recursion it owuld be impossible to say it was moving at all, when relative to it billions of other things are moving much faster. So all information within a single intity there exsists an exponetial amount of information relative to time. As everything effects everything, the tidal gravity from an orbital object will in fact effect its trajectory, meaning that its previous position was nfinitely recorded throughout the universe at the speed of light, the same speed that tidal gravity changes effect everything.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2008, 09:01:27 AM by gymsum »

Offline Numsgil

  • Administrator
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 7742
    • View Profile
Continuance of the INfinity Proposal
« Reply #35 on: August 06, 2008, 01:22:57 PM »
Yes, the speed of gravity is generally assumed to equal the speed of light.

You should also check out Zeno's Paradoxes.  The arrow paradox in particular seems interestingly close to what you're talking about.

Remember that once you get down to the quantum level, there's a great deal of randomness anyway.  Meaning that even if you understood every state of every thing in the universe all at once, it would still be impossible to predict the fate of Shrodinger's cat.  So the future will always have an element of uncertainty.  That uncertainty can be understood through statistics, which is really a form of lossy compression.

So yes, if I want to exactly predict the flight of an arrow I would need to know the states of every atom in the universe at a time relative to its distance from the arrow.  But in practice I can determine the flight of the arrow well enough to kill a man at 50 paces (I did get my Archery merit badge after all ).  This is because I'm not really interested in the exact flight of the arrow, just it's probably path to N degrees of certainty.  Thought of this way, we should take heart of this fact.  There will always be an element of risk involved in every endeavor from unlikely events.  Man kind is sure to never become soft.

Offline gymsum

  • Bot Destroyer
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
Continuance of the INfinity Proposal
« Reply #36 on: August 06, 2008, 02:16:13 PM »
Quote from: Numsgil
Yes, the speed of gravity is generally assumed to equal the speed of light.

You should also check out Zeno's Paradoxes.  The arrow paradox in particular seems interestingly close to what you're talking about.

Remember that once you get down to the quantum level, there's a great deal of randomness anyway.  Meaning that even if you understood every state of every thing in the universe all at once, it would still be impossible to predict the fate of Shrodinger's cat.  So the future will always have an element of uncertainty.  That uncertainty can be understood through statistics, which is really a form of lossy compression.

So yes, if I want to exactly predict the flight of an arrow I would need to know the states of every atom in the universe at a time relative to its distance from the arrow.  But in practice I can determine the flight of the arrow well enough to kill a man at 50 paces (I did get my Archery merit badge after all ).  This is because I'm not really interested in the exact flight of the arrow, just it's probably path to N degrees of certainty.  Thought of this way, we should take heart of this fact.  There will always be an element of risk involved in every endeavor from unlikely events.  Man kind is sure to never become soft.

You seem to be taking examples as the entire idea, but really they are just part of the concept. Its that everything is infinite. Yes there is uncertainty, and Im not talking about predictions, Im talking about universal summation of all knowledge. And I didn't mean to come to the point that everything is one....

Offline Numsgil

  • Administrator
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 7742
    • View Profile
Continuance of the INfinity Proposal
« Reply #37 on: August 06, 2008, 04:16:23 PM »
If you're not talking about predictions, then your definition of knowledge is too narrow.  The only reason we even evolved the ability to store information is to be able to make predictions about the future.  There's been a water hole over there since before I was born, so it's probably still there.  The only reason to care about the past is that it has a tendency of repeating itself in the future.  I do not care about the current state of the electrons in the atoms in my body, let alone their past state.  I care about their aggregate, and what that means for my future.  Meaning most "knowledge" or information is useless or at the very least easily compressible.

So yes, it is impossible to know all of everything across all time for the simple fact that it probably doesn't compress very well, so you're storage device would be larger than the universe.  That's lossless compression though.  Just like the WAV format, most of the information stored in the universe is bulky and not of interest.  A clever lossy compression algorithm can take our vast universe and maybe compress it down to just the bits that humans care about.  An MP3 of our universe.  This lossy compression algorithm is what we know of as science.

Offline gymsum

  • Bot Destroyer
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
Continuance of the INfinity Proposal
« Reply #38 on: August 06, 2008, 11:29:50 PM »
I've already discussed what you just said in previous posts, and I believe the original post explained how compression played into the calculations.. And I have no idea what you're talking about when you mention an MP3 formated Universe.... This rant isn't even on topic anymore, its all about perspective now apparently.... I'm not discussing careing or higher archy of importance and memory storage within humans, and I'm not trying to convence you that you can know anything at all. So because you've ran in circles around nothing, I ask this topic close.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2008, 11:30:06 PM by gymsum »

Offline Numsgil

  • Administrator
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 7742
    • View Profile
Continuance of the INfinity Proposal
« Reply #39 on: August 07, 2008, 01:42:04 PM »
Ha!  Only I have the power to close topics.  And they just never get closed

I did a text search for "compression".  I only find things I've said, so you've never responded to the idea that I can see.  Maybe you did and I just didn't understand, you sometimes drift into incoherence.

MP3 compresses raw sound files by removing all the frequencies humans can't hear anyway.  And then taking what's left over and doing some compressions on it based on the fact that from millisecond to millisecond, the sound probably changes very little.  Compare an MP3 and a WAV of the same sound file to see how much that can make a difference.  Then listen to the two sound files and compare their audio quality.  So when I say MP3 of the universe, I'm suggesting that the uninteresting bits can be removed from our understanding of it, and we're left with an understanding that is much simpler but retains all the important bits.

While I am at it, do you know what I mean when I say a lossy compression algorithm?  As compared with a lossless compression algorithm?

So basically your position is that it's impossible to know everything because the universe at time t + 1 contains all the information at time t and lots of new information.  And that we can move that +1 all the way down to some infinitesimal value and then we see that the universe contains infinite information.  Am I correct in my understanding of what you're saying?

I am saying two points: 1.  It's probably not infinite.  There is a finite universe lifetime (maybe), and a finite mass/energy value in the universe.  There is a huge, but finite, number of configurations that the mass/energy in our universe can do in a finite period of time.  There is one exception: perhaps if the universe collapses on itself, in a big crunch, time dilation and heat would allow a period of essentially infinite data production.  Maybe.  2.  Even if the data in the universe is infinite, from a strictly practical point of view all the information worth knowing can be known.  So even if you're right, it's a rather pathological correctness, since it has absolutely no practical relevance.

Oh, and 3.  You do not have the mathematical background necessary to really approach your idea scientifically.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2008, 01:44:36 PM by Numsgil »

Offline gymsum

  • Bot Destroyer
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
Continuance of the INfinity Proposal
« Reply #40 on: August 07, 2008, 09:48:34 PM »
Quote from: Numsgil
Ha!  Only I have the power to close topics.  And they just never get closed

I did a text search for "compression".  I only find things I've said, so you've never responded to the idea that I can see.  Maybe you did and I just didn't understand, you sometimes drift into incoherence.

MP3 compresses raw sound files by removing all the frequencies humans can't hear anyway.  And then taking what's left over and doing some compressions on it based on the fact that from millisecond to millisecond, the sound probably changes very little.  Compare an MP3 and a WAV of the same sound file to see how much that can make a difference.  Then listen to the two sound files and compare their audio quality.  So when I say MP3 of the universe, I'm suggesting that the uninteresting bits can be removed from our understanding of it, and we're left with an understanding that is much simpler but retains all the important bits.

While I am at it, do you know what I mean when I say a lossy compression algorithm?  As compared with a lossless compression algorithm?

So basically your position is that it's impossible to know everything because the universe at time t + 1 contains all the information at time t and lots of new information.  And that we can move that +1 all the way down to some infinitesimal value and then we see that the universe contains infinite information.  Am I correct in my understanding of what you're saying?

I am saying two points: 1.  It's probably not infinite.  There is a finite universe lifetime (maybe), and a finite mass/energy value in the universe.  There is a huge, but finite, number of configurations that the mass/energy in our universe can do in a finite period of time.  There is one exception: perhaps if the universe collapses on itself, in a big crunch, time dilation and heat would allow a period of essentially infinite data production.  Maybe.  2.  Even if the data in the universe is infinite, from a strictly practical point of view all the information worth knowing can be known.  So even if you're right, it's a rather pathological correctness, since it has absolutely no practical relevance.

Oh, and 3.  You do not have the mathematical background necessary to really approach your idea scientifically.

Quote
C = (E^5*D^25)*L where c is a constant for universal translation
* from original post.

Translation and compression are essentially the same idea, translate similar points to one point, thus compressing the infromation. Thats all very nice taht you know everything about MP3 format, but I still I dont know when I said it was impossible to know everything, I might have stated it was impossible to know anything, but for one Im a buddhist so that thinking is not retroactive to my beliefs. Also I cant see why I could take your word as fact since you use Wikipedia as a source and haven't gone away from this topic of MP3 for some reason.

Offline Numsgil

  • Administrator
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 7742
    • View Profile
Continuance of the INfinity Proposal
« Reply #41 on: August 07, 2008, 10:05:03 PM »
You don't think Wikipedia is a reputable source?

I don't think translation and compression are the same idea at all.  Especially not with a formula like C = (E^5*D^25)*L.

MP3 is a lossy compression algorithm most people are familiar with.  So when I talk about lossy compression, MP3 is a good example.  I don't think I'm staying on the topic of MP3 unusually long, or saying MP3 too often, or have MP3 on the brain or anything like that.

...

MP3 MP3 MP3!
« Last Edit: August 07, 2008, 10:08:47 PM by Numsgil »

Offline Numsgil

  • Administrator
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 7742
    • View Profile
Continuance of the INfinity Proposal
« Reply #42 on: August 07, 2008, 10:11:51 PM »
Quote
but I still I dont know when I said it was impossible to know everything,

Hmm, does this ring any bells?

Quote
So we can take the total entries in the Encyclopedia Encarta and assume that it contains ALL current and up to date information within its archives. For every entry, there will exsist 5 sets of information to explain the concept fully. For every set, there will be an entirely other set of information to be used in the Dictionary to agian relate the 5 sets to themselves. So what is the total amount of information that can possibly be gained from the universe? Well its quite large, so large in fact, that the Universe itself would fit in it multiple times if it were quantified as volume.

...

To know how much of the total information has been collected (not assuming this information adds to the previous series), we take all the knonw information an individual posses for say 100 people world wide, multiply that by the total population of the earth and divide it by the Total. So while we learn more, the percentage of knonw information grows incredibly slow, while the total number of known things grows exponentialy.

Sure sounds like you're saying it's impossible to me.


...

MP3!
« Last Edit: August 07, 2008, 11:01:37 PM by Numsgil »

Offline gymsum

  • Bot Destroyer
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
Continuance of the INfinity Proposal
« Reply #43 on: August 14, 2008, 04:37:02 PM »

Offline Numsgil

  • Administrator
  • Bot God
  • *****
  • Posts: 7742
    • View Profile
Continuance of the INfinity Proposal
« Reply #44 on: August 14, 2008, 04:42:09 PM »
?