Godel and Turing refer to what is predictably knowable. One can speculate infinitely, but SET has pointed out that the difference is impossible to k now in any "absolute" framework. Whether you're talking about actual infinity or Godelian con, we just haven't developed the system capable of knowing. There is no predictive process by whihc we can know, and that's about as far as it goes.
A Question For Setai
(127 posts) (13 voices)-
Z
MemberWell my point was that the only absolute framework you can view everything without violating the Incompleteness Theorem because the only possible framework in which to view everything must be uncountably infinite. My argument was that assuming this is true, and since you could integrate your consciousness into the UIPZEHC , which eliminates one black box, and the fact that an uncountably infinite computer infinitely outmatches any thinktank and has no reason to lie.
Posted 5 months ago # -
Theorem because the only possible framework in which to view everything must be uncountably infinite. My argument was that assuming this is true, and since you could integrate your consciousness into the UIPZEHC , which eliminates one black box, and the fact that an uncountably infinite computer infinitely outmatches any thinktank and has no reason to lie.
I would bet that the fakers would have a very fancy Virtual Reality Matrix controlling the telepresence uplink into their Black Box that would easily convince you that you had connected with and became the UIPZEHC
Posted 4 months ago # -
Z
MemberNot if, as I described earlier, you began to run a program that the solution to could only be found by individually examining an uncountably infinite number of sets of variables and possible solutions, and left it permanently running in your mental "background" so that you could detect immediately whether a. you were a Godelian con machine, in which case the program would fail, or b. if you were going to be imminently integrated into a GCM, in which case the program would run for a time, and then fail as soon as you were integrated.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Z
MemberAlso, another question, the only place I've seen anyone mention entropically computing upon the event horizon of a black hole is here, by you, do you think you could link me to some other papers or forums in which this is discussed so that I might explore the topic further?
Posted 4 months ago # -
Seth Lloyd -Programming the UnIverse- and the Ultimate Laptop- http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v17/n1/full/scientificamerican0407-82sp.html
Lee Smolin- Three Roads to Quantum GravityPosted 4 months ago # -
Z
MemberWhile this paper does mention methods of computing upon an event horizon, none of them mention entropic computation that I could see, and all of the proposed methods of defeating the black hole information paradox seemed to rely on either quantum theory or string theory, the latter of which's functionality in a Planck Zero Universe, I am still unsure of, and the former of which does not work at all. Do you have any papers verifying that String theory or M-theory are independent of Planck's constant, or is it yet another victim of Physical Constant Dependency Syndrome, a random disease of physical theories that I just made up to suit my needs and be more efficient than saying is it dependent on certain physical constant being a certain value.Although now that I've had to explain that I guess it's less efficient. Whatever.
Posted 4 months ago # -
Hawking Radiation is the output of a black hole computer and Hawking Radiation IS the medium of the black hole's entropy
without QM black holes destroy information and you have a non-deterministic universe- my non-quantum photonsphere network idea was only a hypothetical speculation- you have to have QM for the kind of BH computers discussed in the literature
Posted 4 months ago # -
Z
MemberIt turns out the material I have been able to find on M-theory tells it is background independent so I assume that you could, in fact, compute using the membranes that comprise the infinite mass black hole in the PZ universe discussed, therefore I believe that particular quibble to be solved until further notice. Please respond if you have any ideas to the contrary or additional ideas related to this thread topic.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Tipler's deep math about guiding an infinite series of compressed spacetime oscillations toward a singularity might offer some I sights- it is one of the most rigourously constructed infinite machines ever conceived- a ten dimensional superstring black hole embedded in the eleventh dimensional landscape might allow similar guided oscillating compressions with whole D5-Branes enfolding each other in an infinite collapse
Posted 3 months ago # -
Z
MemberCorrect me if I’m wrong but, perhaps electron rest mass does not have to be infinite, because in a PZ universe there is no quantum physics, and electron rest mass only has to be infinite to be certain in a universe in which the Uncertainty Principle exists, because only in a universe with uncertainty, must an electron force itself to hide behind an event horizon and therefore preserve the Uncertainty Principle.
Posted 3 months ago # -
Z
MemberPerhaps yo could explain this Tiplerian idea further as it seems the most promising. I also read that microscopic black holes would behave similair to electrons, perhaps gates could be constructed out of these or infinitely small versions of these "black particles" could be used as processors, because you could flip teir bits by changing their charges.
Posted 2 months ago # -
Z
MemberAlso I got the idea that if you situated half of a preexisting black hole inside the PZ universe and the other half in ours by way of a wormhole link, you could input information into the normal side, then the AI residing in the PZ side would process it and give you back a result through the Hawking radiation coming out the normal side, suitably compressed for the bounds of this universe's information density limit of course.
Posted 1 month ago # -
sensoniq
MemberSure -- I just meant that a lot of the posts are bumps (i.e., "Set?")...So, while a standard thread would normally fade away, this one keeps coming back with all the bumps, hence "epically revived". Not that there's anything wrong with that (as long as Set doesn't mind, of course), but it is just unusual in that I've never seen a thread posing a singular question, addressed to one member, that keeps recurring like this.
Posted 1 month ago # -
Z
MemberIt's just that I'm a long time lurker and this was the first thread I had ever started that had actually gotten posts, and since the matter the thread concerned seemed to be mainly Set's territory, I just thought that, even if I'm not onboard with all of his techno-shamanism stuff, he would still be the person most capble of answering my questions, and I had yet to et all of the answers I was looking for as of yet, so I decided to be persistent, because I thought that there wouldn't really be any other opportunities to get my question answered if this thread went necro, which is why I just kept doing CPR, metaphorically of course. Sorry if I've bothered anyone, especially Setai, I've just never really been on a forum before, so I haven't quite worked out the rules yet.
Posted 1 month ago #
Reply
You must log in to post. If you haven't created an account yet, click here.