Conversation
Notices
-
If we had the answer to everything, would the world be as interesting?
-
@helene if we had the answer to everything we'd be the worldunless you mean "theory of everything" ability to derive everything, in which case we'd be mostly the same, since too much processing required to use for anything
-
@helene i mean that, in order to contain inside yourself a complete and perfect world model, you would need to yourself be the entire world. to be situated inside a world necessitates that there is information about it you don't know
-
@shmibs If you mean "derive knowledge from universe constants", then I understand what you mean and I agreeI didn't mean it in such a specific and "complex" way though, just knowing everything *somehow* (which is not really possible)But in either case, depends what you mean by "be the world"; would you mean that we would become our own "makers"?
-
@helene if you want to max out a map's fidelity you need to make it a 1 to 1 scale model of the thing being mapped, at which point you've just duplicated the thing. anything smaller requires you use lossy compression to reduce the size (i.e. throwing information away
-
@shmibs > to be situated inside a world necessitates that there is information about it you don't knowwhy would that necessarily be the case? why would it be impossible to be part of a world and know everything about it at the same time?
-
@helene well, what do you mean by "know"?to me, in order to "know" something, a person must contain itto "know the way to the grocery store", i must contain inside myself a map of the route from here to thereor, more accurately, i must contain a very lossy compression of the route that i can then apply some algorithm to in order to reconstruct the route as needed in real timeas soon as you introduce that compression, though, you're also introducing error, as you've thrown information away. so i guess maybe you have some tolerance for the "knowing" to be "false"? that every now and then you know something that isn't actually the case
-
@shmibs im not sure why that would be relevant or come into play here though ???? i don't understand your point
-
@helene "all the information stored in a lossless manner" == "1 to 1 perfect copy of the entire world"
-
@shmibs I do not necessarily mean that a person must have a mapping of all of the information that existand if that information was stored in a lossy manner then they would not know everything, so that would not countI assume that someone knowing everything would have all information stored in a lossless manner
-
@helene what?
-
@shmibs recursion might be necessary but it would not be impossible to represent
-
@shmibs ah, I meant for someone to have knowledge about everything, if they were to be part of that world ???? this is getting confusing isn't it?
-
@helene in order to have complete information you'd need a perfect 1 to 1 world model. data that have been losslessly compressed are incomplete data, requiring they be combined with some algorithm to generate the full data. this extra step (assuming the world at its lowest scale is losslessly compressible at all) would make your model useless, as it would be slower than the universe itself, having the extra decompress / recompress step, and immediately start falling behindand even the uncompressed model would actually need to be larger than the universe, as it would need infrastructure included for doing data fetches, and it would start diverging from the actual universe from the very first time you tried to use it, as you can't get information from something without interacting with it, making the closed system into an open system and thus modifying itunless you mean have stored in a databank somewhere all the information that ever was and ever will be, in which case it would need to be n times larger than the universe (- some percent for your lossless compression, if that's possible), where n is every intermediate state between beginning and end (if those are things), and again you would be corrupting it every single time you tried to access it (we try to prevent this with checksums and raid and backups and things, but it can't be done perfectly because an open system (i.e. one that allows you to access the data) is a noisy channel, and lossless transmission across a noisy channel is impossible, conservation of information againwhich comes to the last bit here, that the only way to do everything you want without these problems is to build a hypercomputer, an oracle, and of course if you can do that it implies infinite energy from perpetual motion machines etc
Hélène
バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
All senooken JP Social content and data are available under the