Re: Release of RosAsm V.2.025a
- From: "Beth" <BethStone21@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 01:21:23 GMT
Herbert wrote:
> Beth wrote:
> > Herbert wrote:
> > > If you have an closed system
> > > with a finite number of states (N), then it is trivial to solve
the
> > > halting problem for such a system: simulate N steps, then either
the
> > > system has halted or it never will halt.
>
> > By definition, the whole multiverse is a closed system...as if its
> > definition is "everything" then there cannot be anything that's not
a
> > member of it...if closed by definition of there being no "outside"
to
>
> My brain is to small to understand a "multiverse".
Its every facet, yes, most certainly...
But, for those who've not encountered it, the abstract concept of a
"multiverse" is that one theory (not proved) suggests that black holes /
white holes possibly "pinch off" parts of the universe which then expand
and exist independently without reference to the other "universes"
(because black holes and white holes are "one way trip" affairs)...with
the possibility that our universe is "pinched off" from another, the Big
Bang was the corresponding "white hole" to the "black hole" in the
"parent" universe and so on...
It's very much a fringe theory which might be entirely wrong ("do black
/ white holes even exist?" ain't even satisfactorily answered and this
theory would obviously be total crap, if the answer is "no" or the
answer isn't the one that's expected by current ideas)...and
observations that they might have sighted a black hole that actually
does eject matter (not the "one way trip" and so not really "pinching
off") throws spanners in many theories...
My point in mentioning "multiverses" is just to completely emphasise my
underlying point that I mean _EVERYTHING_...absolutely everything...I am
_BY DEFINITION_ defining the greatest possible entity, so that there is
_NOTHING_ outside of it...if there's "multimultimultiverses" then I mean
that if that truly accounts for everything...heck, if there's a Heaven
and a hell then those are thrown in too...if there are infinite
dimensions, then that counts as part of "everything" equally...whatever
is the "most biggest thing" then when I say "everything", I really mean
everything and I include that too...
And what you say about it being impossible for anything "outside" of
this "everything" to simulate "everything" because, by definition, there
is no "outside"?
Well, thank you...you did, in fact, completely understand my
point...even if you didn't realise it...that's _EXACTLY_ what I meant...
Whatever "everything" may or may not be, it has no "outside" _BY
DEFINITION_...hence, having no "outside" then it is a "closed system"
unto itself...well done...that was the point I was trying to get at and
you picked it up...
Now, the next point is that mathematics is independent and
universal...would you agree to that? Doesn't matter where in this
"everything" you might be located, "1 + 1" must always equal "2" because
it's entirely logical, not in the slightest bit physical...and is
independent of all physical considerations that no matter what the
physical environment of your location in this "multiverse" may be, "1 +
1 = 2" always stands as correct and valid (if you're an alien on a
different planet then you might use different notation and base 7
mathematics but the concept is universal and remains so regardless of
location or any other variable that might be different in the alien's
part of the "multiverse")...
Hence, if the "multiverse" is by definition a "closed system" and
mathematics is entirely universal then, through logic alone, the
mathematical _theorem_ of the Halting Problem cannot ever, under any
circumstances whatsoever, be proved false...
It's a "round the houses" way of making T.M.'s point that theorems are
_NOT_ theories and differ on that important fundamental point that they
are based solely in logic and, therefore, cannot ever be disproved
(without disproving logic itself to be wrong...and, boy, if that were
true then screw "disassemblers"...that would be the least of our worries
and problems, in this insane multiverse that you've just defined as
self-consistently impossible to exist...a variation of the anthrophic
argument can disprove that in a way anyone can understand: To be right,
you depend on mathematics being wrong and, by consequence, that it is
impossible for anything to exist...as we do exist to ponder this
question then you blatantly cannot be correct...you cannot dispute that
logic surely? ;)...
I had to take the long route and explicitly go through all the logic
aloud to make basically the same point T.M.'s made...just because T.M.
said it and you still dispute the validity of his logic...so I'm taking
you by the hand through logic you can understand (you did yourself
correctly pick up the "there is no outside" point, which I was driving
at...if there is no "outside" then "everything" as a whole that excludes
nothing is, in fact, a "closed system"...carry that logic through and
you've proved to yourself that a theorem - like the Halting Problem -
has to be valid...and, as mentioned, the only way to show that it isn't
requires a few impossibles like a demonstration that logic is inherently
wrong or that the universe doesn't actually exist...both things I'm sure
most would agree are ludicrous straws to be clutching to ;)...
> If you simulate a
> target system, then the simulator has to be outside of the simulated
> target. If nothing is outside of the multiverse, then there can't be
> a simulator which can simulate the multiverse.
Exactly...
That's why "Deep Thought" is just a literary device and a complete
nonsense (but, hey, it was "surrealist comedy", not actually science
;)...
And it also touches on Godel...no system can actually comprehend itself
without reference to something external to it...there is nothing
external to "everything", by definition, so mathematics is inherently
limited and cannot ever account for everything and prove itself...
At least, that's the "simple version"...Godel actually proved it
properly :)...
But that's roughly the gist of the "Incompleteness Theorem"...no closed
system can comprehend itself (without reference to something external
or, in other words, the system isn't actually "closed"...but in the case
of "everything" then there is no "external" by definition and, hence,
that's what Godel is saying: The "everything" will also be
"incomplete"...and as mathematics is universal then, by extension, maths
actually proves itself incomplete and that it will _FOREVER_ be
"incomplete"...it is an impossible puzzle to solve)...
Now those who never understood Phil's signature will finally get the
geeky mathematical joke therein ;)...
> > the system then it is finite within those bounds (even if those
bounds
> > are infinite)...
>
> Even a closed system can have an infinite number of states. That's why
> we are speaking about DIGITAL computers and not an ANALOG world.
It's perfectly possible to have a "digital infinity" as it is to have an
analogue one...
Let me get you started: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ...
The "digital" discreteness of the whole numbers does not in any way
prevent this sequence being infinite...but then we're going into strange
realms of "finite infinities" and "infinite infinities", which is a
headache best avoided...
[ That's why I said "(even if those bounds are infinite)" to qualify
things...it's a "finite infinity", not an "infinite infinity"...don't
ask...but you can look it up, if you like ;) ]
What's "analogue" about the world anyway?
No such thing as "distance" below the Planck length...no such thing as
"time" below the Planck time...they are the smallest "big world" quanta
that exist...below that, you're dealing with a new set of rules that
abandons what you understand of the physical "big world"...is light (or
any other elementary particle besides the photon too) a wave or a
particle? Both, neither, either...it has "duality"...you've got to stop
thinking in "physical" terms like that at this point...the arrow does
hit the tortoise...
Beth :)
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Release of RosAsm V.2.025a
- Next by Date: Re: Release of RosAsm V.2.025a
- Previous by thread: Re: Release of RosAsm V.2.025a
- Next by thread: Re: Release of RosAsm V.2.025a
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
