Donate some money first to children who are dying because they have nothing to eat.
Is very finite number of ways that matter can be arranged?
- Thread starter Tailspin
- Start date
Donate some money first to children who are dying because they have nothing to eat.
I said that to try and get you to see just how deeply this has affected me. I'm just trying to get you to acknowledge the possibility that maybe there is a complication in this theorem that we have yet to uncover.
Try to understand, all my life I've been creative. Years ago I decided that's what I want to do with my life and I feel this thing has reached inside me and ripped out my soul. Sometimes I think back to that day when my father first told me about it and I think I would have preferred it if he had stabbed a knife into my heart. It would have been kinder.
I could barely sleep last night because my mind was trying to work out a possible way out of this theorem but I couldn't do it.
I still have not heard who came up with this theorem and when it was proven.
Here's a thought, theorem is based on the way things are now, like the finite spectrum of colours that we can see in a pixel and sounds that we can hear. But the spectrum of colour extends beyond what we can see, what if our eyes evolved over the millennia to see these colours? What if we evolved the ability to communicate telepathically in ways that cannot be expressed in the physical world.
What if scientists discover an entirely new kind or state of matter either out in space or right here on earth, something that can be arranged indefinitely. Can you prove that such a thing cannot exist?
Frankly I'm surprised that a scientist can be so closed minded.
Try to understand, all my life I've been creative. Years ago I decided that's what I want to do with my life and I feel this thing has reached inside me and ripped out my soul. Sometimes I think back to that day when my father first told me about it and I think I would have preferred it if he had stabbed a knife into my heart. It would have been kinder.
I could barely sleep last night because my mind was trying to work out a possible way out of this theorem but I couldn't do it.
I still have not heard who came up with this theorem and when it was proven.
Here's a thought, theorem is based on the way things are now, like the finite spectrum of colours that we can see in a pixel and sounds that we can hear. But the spectrum of colour extends beyond what we can see, what if our eyes evolved over the millennia to see these colours? What if we evolved the ability to communicate telepathically in ways that cannot be expressed in the physical world.
What if scientists discover an entirely new kind or state of matter either out in space or right here on earth, something that can be arranged indefinitely. Can you prove that such a thing cannot exist?
Frankly I'm surprised that a scientist can be so closed minded.
Very cool. So that is the combinatorics solution to the 10x10 with eight colors.
Is it fair to say that there are a lot more colors, and that each visible color corresponds to a given light frequency. If so, though the number would be much much higher for all visible color wave lengths, it would still be an interesting finite number, and your conclusion that in a pixel format on a digital image, you can't get to infinity.
But artists are the creative ones, and if they wanted to free themselves from the confines of a finite digital image, and open up infinite possibilities, I think they would find another medium. There are art creations that have a higher degree of complexity, even using light and mirrors. Photons are interesting, and an artistic medium that employs them can easily be set up to present an infinite number of combinations using revolving lasers, and revolving mirrors, projecting ever changing interactions of intersecting light beams, maybe magnetically suspended. I am referring to the quantum mechanical nature of the photon, and it can act like a wave and, go though multiple slits and create interference patterns, and it can act like a particle and interact with light sensitive media, also rotating randomly on its randomly changing axis spinning in a magnetic suspension. And the creation doesn't have to be all that complicated.
There is no escape. That number of combinations of possible photographs already contains whole movies about those creative artists coming up with all the possible and impossible creations there can possibly be.
Sorry, you are convinced by the finite. I guess I am equally convinced by the intinite. Let me say that my world view includes infinite possibilities. Would you say that yours includes only a finite number of possibilities? Maybe that is our difference. To me the universe is potentially infinite, and so is time.
No, because photons do not emit or reflect photons. A photograph is a collection of many photons. At best you can "detect" a single photon when it impacts with a pixel in some photo detector like photographic film or digital camera chip. Usually though it takes thousands of photons to make a single pixel slightly bright.
Lol, no. That is my point. There are infinite possible ways that photons can exist, and the most interesting are when they are not being seen. I think they are there, and I think they can be seen by measuring their location or momentum, but not both at the same time. They always have that element of the unknown.
The number of possible photographs already contains whole movies about all your "infinite" possibilities. Think about it.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
So thousands of photons impacting a 1 square pixel area over the course of 4 hours, makes the same pic as 500 photons impacting for 2 hours?
How does that work?
Pixel brightness is proportional to TOTAL number of photons that impacted that pixel during exposure time. It doesn't matter if the total of thousand of photons arrived over 1 second or 2 hours interval.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
So which pixel is brighter, one that is hit by 500 photons in 1 hour, or 1000 photons in 2 hours?
If the pics are the same, then 250 for 30 minutes should be the same pic, no? How about 125 for 15 minutes? 62.5 for 7.5??? 31.25 for 3.75???.....
Let's just round it down to a pixel hit by 1 photon in 1 second is the same pic as a pixel hit by 1,000 photons for 1,000 seconds, right?
I agree, but using creative ideas and multiple media with infinite light and mirror configurations allows for the creation of infinite unique patterns of photons. Even a single photon when unobserved, is said to have infinite possible locations given various interpretations of QM. Maybe the artwork is called, "Where is the last photon that my artwork created before we observe it", lol. The answer, "It could be anywhere, infinite possibilities".
My point about photons is something my therapist suggested to me when I told him about this. His point was that people are making theories and even theorems about photons when no one has actually proven they exist. And no one can truly say they are 100% right about anything.
Also he advised me to stay away from this subject for a couple of days. I just wanted you to know that so you don't jump to conclusions when I don't write back.
Also he advised me to stay away from this subject for a couple of days. I just wanted you to know that so you don't jump to conclusions when I don't write back.
In general the best advice I can give you is listen to your therapist. AFAIK no one here is a specialist in therapy.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Humbleteleskop, Are you still pondering my question, or have you bailed on this thread?
I bailed. Please find someone else and suck their blood instead.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Your bailing on learning is too bad for you. I was GIVING, not TAKING. Duh?
...but you weren't in it for the learning, were you? You're in it for the defense of your own illogical ideas, regardless if they are correct or not. It's the defense of your ideas because you hold them to be true that counts. The principle that counts, right?
First comes your ego, then the truth, in that order.
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Very perceptive remark, and a wise decision.
They have the same brightness. Cameras, believe it or not, operate differently from the human eye.