3 ms·
> The Bekenstein Bound says that any finite volume of space must contain finite information. Finite information can be fully encoded as a number. Ergo, human co
by WoodenChair 7y ago
> The Bekenstein Bound says that any finite volume of space must contain finite information. Finite information can be fully encoded as a number. Ergo, human consciousness is a number.
That would be "many numbers" not "a number." So many numbers that it's possible no digital machine can simulate it.
- Tenoke 7y agoIf human reasoning can fit in say a 2m^3 object, you can (in theory) always build a machine that encodes the information in 2m^3 or less.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- WoodenChair 7y agoBut probably not a digital machine using today's form of digital technology.
- naasking 7y ago> That would be "many numbers" not "a number." A distinction without a difference, honestly. Your computer conceptually has "many numbers", but its addressable storage is finite, and so is really just one big number. > So many numbers that it's possible no digital machine can simulate it. The very fact that the brain exists is proof that a machine of this size fully mimicking the brain's capabilities is feasible. Encoding information digitally is at best a constant factor difference from other numerical bases. And this is assuming a quantum-level reproduction, which very likely isn't necessary.
- jandrewrogers 7y agoNo, a set of "many numbers" trivially maps 1:1 to a single number with the same information content. Constructs like space-filling curves are a manifestations of this relationship. The property is occasionally exploited in algorithm designs in order to modify the number of elements in a set.