General > RANT
Continuance of the INfinity Proposal
gymsum:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
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).
gymsum:
--- 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).
--- End quote ---
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)?
Numsgil:
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.
gymsum:
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version