Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 23:04:46 -0500 From: Matthew Fuller <fullermd@linkfast.net> To: Tim Vanderhoek <vanderh@ecf.utoronto.ca> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Infinite quantities in nature! (was Re: The Ethics of Free Software) Message-ID: <20000525230446.A89273@linkfast.net> In-Reply-To: <20000524222053.A80883@mad>; from vanderh@ecf.utoronto.ca on Wed, May 24, 2000 at 10:20:53PM -0400 References: <20000524205815.A79001@mad> <200005250137.SAA12207@usr05.primenet.com> <20000524222053.A80883@mad>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ Trim, trim, trim on the CC's ] On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 10:20:53PM -0400, a little birdie told me that Tim Vanderhoek remarked > > The universe must have some mechanism to remember time. Clearly the > past is different from the present. In what manner? Time, like space, is a convention, not a form. Thus, how can it be 'stored' in any way, if it doesn't strictly speaking 'exist'? > Or, rephrased, the same question: "Are there a finite or an infinite > number of states in which the universe can be?" If it's a 'universe', one would kinda have to think an infinite number of states are potentially extant. Or, at least, an unbounded finite number, which is, of course, a seperate thing, but for the purposes of this discussion is indistinguishable. > I know of no evidence that space is quantized. > > This suggests an infinite number of possible states. > > This in turn suggests that a notational mechanism can be chosen such > that infinite wealth can be accounted. See above about the status of the existence of space and time. Also, an infinite number of potential states does not mean an infinite number of possible states, and neither implies that all such states are possible simultaneously. In fact, I'd say it was impossible, since the majority (of that infinite number, which is an interesting concept to conjure with) would be mutually exclusive. And since the majority of an infinite quantity is an infinite quantity, you're left with a finite number of useful states. > However, it seems that a certain uncertainty principle should come into > play here somewhere. Perhaps a notational mechanism can be chosen to > account for infinite wealth. However, for an arbitrary notational > mechanism, we are not guaranteed to have any way to read a person's > associated wealth data. 'a persons associated wealth data' is also an interesting concept to pontificate upon, since you also have to account for the concept of 'ownership', and a potential of infinite progressions of ownership. > There is also an implicit assumption in rephrasing the question from > step #2 into that in step #3, namely that the universe can remember > time only through mechanisms that transform passage of time into > physical changes. And if you subscribe to the theory that passage of time is just an illusion caused by physical changes? "Remember" also implies a capability to progress at a non-fixed rate. (i.e., faster, slower, or reversed) (Of course the same 'illusion' charge brought against time here could probably also be brought up against 'space' on another level...) Whee, this is much more fun than the original discussion! -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Unix Systems Administrator | fullermd@linkfast.net Specializing in FreeBSD | http://www.over-yonder.net/ "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000525230446.A89273>