Is very finite number of ways that matter can be arranged?

quantum_wave said:
That theory talks about describing a system "down to the quantum level". Just to clarify, does "down to the quantum level", include quantum physics like superspostion and decoherence, or doesn't it?
Click to expand...

The systems considered are in energy eigenstates, rather than general superpositions of such eigenstates (otherwise, the number of possibilities would have to be infinite). It is still pretty remarkable, if true, that the amount of information required to completely specify any definite-energy state is bounded above by a number proportional to the surface area of the system.
 
Tailspin said:
Yes humbledesktop, the logic does hold up but that logic is based on a theory and a theory is based on current information.
Click to expand...

It is not a theory, it's a fact, like 2 + 2 = 4.

a.) digital photographs have fixed and finite number of pixels
b.) digital photographs have fixed and finite number of colors
c.) number of possible digital photographs is fixed and finite number for any given image size

What part do you believe you can doubt?


But consider that number of those combinations include photographs of the whole universe, from every angle and distance. Photographs of aliens on some other planet having breakfast, photographs of you riding a horse on the Moon, photograph of me taking a photograph of you, even if we never actually do it - it contains every single thing that can possibly exist, or you could possibly imagine. Yes, the number of things anyone could possibly ever imagine is also a finite number.
 
Motor Daddy said:
That pretty much means the human is a clueless observer, eh?

Best to rely on the math?
Click to expand...

No. The guy is interested in art, not abstract math. And art is bound to the limits of human sensory perception, even if it was not already bound to the limits of atomic and molecular properties.
 
humbleteleskop said:
No. The guy is interested in art, not abstract math. And art is bound to the limits of human sensory perception, even if it was not already bound to the limits of atomic and molecular properties.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure that is all he is interested in. Like me, he may also be interested in a more philosophical question, what is reality. Science does not claim to do "reality", but one thing we know about science is that if it gets everything right, science and reality will be the same thing. He may want to have the two reconciled in his own mind, and reconciled with the potentials that are infinite, instead of settling for someone else's "finites".
 
humbleteleskop said:
No. The guy is interested in art, not abstract math. And art is bound to the limits of human sensory perception, even if it was not already bound to the limits of atomic and molecular properties.
Click to expand...

After reading your thread with Russ I thought you might have more game than that. I guess not.

But what can you say, I mean really? (LG Shrug)
 
humbleteleskop said:
It is not a theory, it's a fact, like 2 + 2 = 4.

a.) digital photographs have fixed and finite number of pixels
b.) digital photographs have fixed and finite number of colors
c.) number of possible digital photographs is fixed and finite number for any given image size

What part do you believe you can doubt?


But consider that number of those combinations include photographs of the whole universe, from every angle and distance. Photographs of aliens on some other planet having breakfast, photographs of you riding a horse on the Moon, photograph of me taking a photograph of you, even if we never actually do it - it contains every single thing that can possibly exist, or you could possibly imagine. Yes, the number of things anyone could possibly ever imagine is also a finite number.
Click to expand...

Frankly, a metaphore based on digtal pictures is not proof. It just a way of explaning the logic and if it's not proven then it is just a theory.

If this is a fact then you should be able to tell us what it's called, who proved it and how they proved it.

You say the number of things anyone could possibly ever imagine is also a finite number is that because there is a finite length to a person's lifespan?
Or because, theoretically, there are only so many different thoughts that are possible to think?

As for the doubt...
As I said, this theory/fact is based on current information. But new information is always coming in and has historically blown away many old facts and theories. And given that this one is about reality and the universe, two things we admittedly know very little about, it seems very presumptuous to say anything for certain about either of them. There are people who say that our universe is a hologram, they can't even agree on the shape of the universe.

I asked my father, who is a scientist about all this and he shares your sentiment humbledesktop. He said this was our fundamental understanding of the uiniverse. But that made me think.. "Our understanding of things is subject to change, especially on the subject of reallity and the universe."

Let's assume for a minuet that what you say is true. Some people have said that even if all possibilities are finite we will never exhaust them. Why not? If the human race continues to exist and create how can we not exhaust them?
 
There is even a project to create "every possible photograph" with a computer algorithm.

- "If you think about it, any digital photograph is simply a finite collection of pixels, with each one showing a specific color. There are also only a finite number of colors each pixel on a display can be. Thus, there are only a finite number of photographs that could possibly exist. An unfathomably large number, but finite nonetheless."
http://petapixel.com/2013/02/07/exhibition-uses-a-computer-to-generate-every-possible-photograph/

jeffreythompson.org/every-possible-photograph.php


Maybe a possible way to discover new things. Just imagine all our actual photographs will eventually by drawn by the computer, there will be a photograph of you driving a formula one car even if you had never done it, whole movie actually. There would be a movie of everyone's life, as filmed from every possible angle and distance. There would be movies not only of everyone's real life, but also of all the other possible and impossible lives everyone could have lived, from every angle and every possible magnification. EVERYTHING. And yet, it's still a finite number.
 
Tailspin said:
Frankly, a metaphore based on digtal pictures is not proof. It just a way of explaning the logic and if it's not proven then it is just a theory.
Click to expand...

Have you not been through school yet? This is not any metaphor, it's plain and simple like 2 + 2 = 4. There is no any question about it. Stop imagining things, go ask someone who you trust knows mathematics if you don't believe me.
 
With all due respect, you haven't quite answered my whole post. Particularly the part about who proved this theory and how.

When I was young I saw a documentary by Tony Robinson about building safer buildings. He went to a laboratory where they tested the effects of fire on everyday environments. He showed us a typical dolls house and asked us "Why couldn't we use this to see exactly how a house burns? Because it wouldn't burn like a real house it would burn like a doll's house.” A real house is made out of wood, bricks, metal etc. The dolls house is made out of plywood and MDF. At that size and made out of those materials fire would effect it differently then a real house.
My point is if you are going to test your theory you have to simulate the circumstances as best you can all the results will be inherently flawed and the results are erroneous.
You've used a pixelated computer screen as a metaphor to prove your point. But the universe is not a computer screen and atoms and molecules are not pixels.

And what do you have to say about new information disrupting known scientific laws? It could be that in 1000 years the laws of thermodynamics will be completely rewritten and our current version regarded with humour.

humbleteleskop said:
Have you not been through school yet? This is not any metaphor, it's plain and simple like 2 + 2 = 4. There is no any question about it. Stop imagining things, go ask someone who you trust knows mathematics if you don't believe me.
Click to expand...

Believe me I would love to talk to an expert directly about this but the only person I know who knows science is my father and he bluntly refuses to talk about this.
 
@Tailspin
I'm talking about real actual photographs. Stop hallucinating. It's plain and simple as 2 + 2 = 4. There is absolutely no any question about it. Google it! I already gave you two links, and you don't believe them either? Sheesh!
 
Motor Daddy said:
Just curious, does his name begin with a "G"?
Click to expand...

No.

And humbledesktop, I can't Google it's because you still haven't told me what it's called and you haven't told me who came up with it either.

Now read this very closely and believe me.

This concept has made me deeply, deeply depressed. The idea that all possibilities are infinite is deeply important to me and this has taken that away from me. The idea that everything I create, say, do or even think is part of a set of possibilities that was apparently programmed into the universe at the big bang, the idea that my ideas could be created independently by a machine along with a complete photo record of my life before I’ve lived it with 100% accuracy.
Now that I think of it, two of the most wonderful things in life to me is freedom and creativity. This whole thing has left me deeply disillusioned. People tell me how immensely vast possibilities are and that I personally will never exhaust them but the very fact that they are finite is what gets to me.

If this is indeed the unchangeable nature of the universe and I don't want to live in it.
Believe me when I say that if this theory is true then I don't want to live. And frankly, after debating this with you humbledesktop, my will to live has dropped significantly.
 
Motor Daddy said:
That's strange then. Why would an expert in science refuse to talk about science, unless he's in a state of confusion, which means he's not an expert, right? :confused:

Help me understand!
Click to expand...

He doesn't like to talk about it because I used to go on and on about it with him and it drove him crazy. Last time we spoke he said angrily that I was being utterly ridiculous for finding this subject depressing. He puts so mutch stock in it that he won't even consider the possibility of it not being true.
 
Tailspin said:
He doesn't like to talk about it because I used to go on and on about it with him and it drove him crazy. Last time we spoke he said angrily that I was being utterly ridiculous for finding this subject depressing. He puts so mutch stock in it that he won't even consider the possibility of it not being true.
Click to expand...

Sounds like he has an almost religious attachment to his "science" and doesn't like anyone poking holes in his ideas about "science." Not talking to you about science means no holes get poked into his bubble, hence no popped bubble.
 
I don't know about that but I do know that he gets set in his ways there is nothing that can change his mind.
By the way, you didn't read the rest of that post didn't you? The part where I was talking about not wanting to live?
 
Tailspin said:
I don't know about that but I do know that he gets set in his ways there is nothing that can change his mind.
By the way, you didn't read the rest of that post didn't you? The part where I was talking about not wanting to live?
Click to expand...

I have been instructed by professionals to take all matters of "not wanting to live" very seriously so I am reporting your post to the mods for further clarity.
 
Tailspin said:
And humbledesktop, I can't Google it's because you still haven't told me what it's called and you haven't told me who came up with it either.
Click to expand...

You were supposed to google about the question: "how many possible photographs there can be?", or something among those lines. Anyway, it's called "combinatorics", it's part of mathematics. Here you can calculate the number of possible photographs or "necklaces" as they call it:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=fixed+necklaces+with+100+beads+and+8+colors

So for 10x10 pixels image and 8 colors, the number of possible combinations is:
20370359763344860862684456884093781610514683950931839433421003304127428316882437796122640
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top