Post by johnPost by Bruno MarchalPost by johnCan life or any physical action effect the future outcome of the
universe's physical development.
Could life drastically change the course of the universe and stop the heat death.
I do think life (intelligence) can change many things but can life
steer the universe into a different end? Is a supertask impossible?
Assuming such a universe exist, you might need supermoney, and ...
Superman.
Post by johnI have just barely grasped "background independence" and it has made
me more likely to accept things happening beyond human conception
and reality being much larger since everything is a process. With is
saying to me everything is software there is no hardware.
This follows logically (+occam) from the computationalist theory of
mind. It makes physical reality appears from number relations, seen
from the relative first person point of view.
Arithmetic contains a web of dreams in which we are infinitely
distributed, and the question of knowing if this defined an unique
multiverse, or a cluster of multiverses, or something more complex, is
open (hard math).
Post by johnLastly is there any physical transformation or physical processes
that cannot be visually represented? I have been thinking about this
for a long time.
That question is unclear. We can always visualize partially anything
we point too. Then we know that in arithmetic we have already the non
computable, the non provable, the non definable, and if you define
enough well what you mean by "visually representable" you can bet that
there will be infinities of non visually representable things.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
" That question is unclear. We can always visualize partially anything "
Very delicate objects that cannot be seen (measured) ever in its true
form without distortion. Despite this could we use round about ways
to actually see them (in particular) with algorithms alone?
"seeing" seems to me to be a relation between a universal machine and
some possible other universal machine (like a brain and some possible
universe).
When we see, we "see" only what our brain produce. Indeed we can even
see objects which are not there, like when we have an an hallucination.
Post by johnLet the system evolve and measure some other exterior part effected by
what is being measured. If that is that possible then what would
that say about reality as a whole if you can in a sense "hack" the system.
We will wake up, in some relative sense, going from an illusion to
another one, but that's the only way we can approach truth, by being
less deluded. We can't observe truth.
Post by johnwhat I mean by this is to use the algorithm as a wall to bounce data
off it to predict a secondary phenomenon to a degree that would be
other wise imposable, then reverse engineer that data to see what you
could not see normally.
I think we do that all the time. It is close to Helmholtz theory of
perception.
Post by johnAlso I stand by original question and would like to upgrade it to
this; could a CGI film correctly represent the best interpretation of
the Multiverse visually.
Is the hole Multiverse a process you can
create an approximate object representation of? For some reason I
see it as like an apple with two polls with two ends and the inside
is pure noise.
Can we point to the multiverse.
If we are Turing emulable machines, then the multiverse is what
emerges from a statistics on all possible machine's dreams. Those
exists provably in tiny fragment of elementary arithmetic.
It is an open question today if this leads to 0, 1, 2, n, infinities
of universes, mutliverses, etc.
Well, that's what I think. Everett and Deustch uses the
computationalist theory, but don't push its logic far enough. It leads
to a more Platonic conception of reality, where the physical reality
is the border of something vaster (and yet arithmetical).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]