Hi Quentin,
> Hi Bruno,
> Le Vendredi 24 Juin 2005 15:25, Bruno Marchal a écrit :
>>> Because if everything exists... every OM has a
>>> successor (and I'd say it must always have more than one),
>>
>> Perhaps. It depends of your definition of "OM", and of your
>> "everything" theory.
>>
>> Let me tell you the "Lobian's answer": if I have a successor OM then
>> I
>> have a successor OM which has no successor OM.
>
> I don't understand this statement, for me, every OM has a successor,
> like
> every integer has. How could it be that an OM can't have a successor ?
>
> But I'm firmly convinced that the set of visual OM (I mean by visual,
> something an observer like a human can see) is finite.
OK. But you could take the whole perception field. Our skin is finite
too.
Etc. Oh Stathis take even the state of each neurons ...
Anyway, by the comp hyp I presuppose at once there is such finite
description level.
> I have an example for
> this :
>
> 1) assume an observer that can see.
> 2) assume that the observer can see only at a certain resolution/level
> (it's
> true that I can't see everything, I do not see quarks for example, nor
> my
> cells)
>
> Then, I can digitalize every image that I (assuming I'm an observer ;)
> can
> see.
>
> Now, I'll take an arbitrary image resolution far upper than I details
> I can
> actually be aware of. For example : 100000x100000 pixels, every pixels
> can
> have 16.5 millions colors (even if it has been proven that humans can
> only
> see less than 200000 colors, just for the argument). Then the limit
> for the
> eyes to see individual images in a movie is approximately 40hz, so for
> the
> argument I will say that I need at least 100 frames by second (higher
> than
> what we can perceive).
>
> Now how much bits do I need to encode one hour of visual events ?
>
> It's simply 100000x100000x4x100x3600.
>
> So the needed number of bits to encode one hour of visual events at a
> resolution far higher than what we can perceive is finite... It's the
> same if
> you replace one hour by the length of a lifetime (+/- 80 years). So
> even if
> we are immortal, at a given time in the far away future, the visual
> events
> must repeat.
Not really because you assume our eyes are bounded. Any finite machine
running forever recurs but not infinite or universal one.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Sat Jun 25 2005 - 12:56:20 PDT