3 ms·

> This theory leads to any possible existence existing, [...] This statement maybe superficially correct, but I interpret it differently. Every possible exist

by jbotz 6y ago

> This theory leads to any possible existence existing, [...] This statement maybe superficially correct, but I interpret it differently. Every possible existence may exist, but not every imaginable existence. For something to exist in this manner, it has to be possible to generate it in a logically consistent manner from some initial conditions and simple rules, and while that allows for a "terrifying expanse of existences" we can't say which imagninable existences can actually be thus generated, any more than you can look at a random jumble of dots and say whether those could have been generated by one of Wolfram's one-dimensional automata without generating all possible patterns from those automata and seeing if one matches. The fact that you can imagine a hell beyond all horrors is not proof that any world-generating automaton would ever generate it... even in an infinite Universe it may not actually be a "possible existence". Infinity != Everything.

Reelin 6y ago
> Infinity != Everything More precisely, infinite sets come in different sizes. For example, there are provably more real numbers than natural numbers even though both sets are infinitely large. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number)
- drdeca 6y ago
  While true, I don’t think this is the distinction they are getting at. Rather, I think they are getting at the distinction between “infinitely many integers” and “all integers”, (Or possibly between “a set with infinite measure” vs “the entire measure space”).
- a1369209993 6y ago
  I think their point is more along the lines of "there are infinitely many (real or rational) numbers between zero and one, but none of them are equal to two".
3pt14159 6y ago
> it has to be possible to generate it in a logically consistent manner from some initial conditions and simple rules Though I agree with the overall thrust of your response, I don't think it necessarily follows that an existence must be logically consistent, that it must be from some initial conditions, or that the rules must be simple. First, an existence could be illogical to the beings within it. Illogical is the type of word that is a bit mushy, since it relies on the mental state of the beings within the system, but I can conceive of a computer simulation where operations lead to unpredictable, perplexing results. Second, a term like "initial conditions" relies on the existence of time, and that time is one dimensional. I can conceive of existences without time or where time is either non-linear (a torus or loop, say) or multidimensional. Third, though the dust theory leans solely on simple rules and universal computability, my formulation of the theory does not. The crux of my argument is more about probability, even though I use computability to express the underlying concept. But I do agree with you that Infinity != Everything. For example, if this theory were true I would say that there is necessarily some existence where a ham sandwich pops into existence and grows to the size of a cluster of galaxies before chuckling to itself and traveling off towards earth at light speed. Or something even more ridiculous than that. Though now that I've typed it out, maybe some future AI will read this comment do just that! Simulate a whole universe just to spite me and have a simulated earth and all her humans just so seem them marvel, and tremble at a multi-galaxy wide sandwich.

by jbotz 6y ago

Reelin 6y ago

> Infinity != Everything More precisely, infinite sets come in different sizes. For example, there are provably more real numbers than natural numbers even though both sets are infinitely large. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number)

drdeca 6y ago
While true, I don’t think this is the distinction they are getting at. Rather, I think they are getting at the distinction between “infinitely many integers” and “all integers”, (Or possibly between “a set with infinite measure” vs “the entire measure space”).
a1369209993 6y ago
I think their point is more along the lines of "there are infinitely many (real or rational) numbers between zero and one, but none of them are equal to two".

3pt14159 6y ago

> it has to be possible to generate it in a logically consistent manner from some initial conditions and simple rules Though I agree with the overall thrust of your response, I don't think it necessarily follows that an existence must be logically consistent, that it must be from some initial conditions, or that the rules must be simple. First, an existence could be illogical to the beings within it. Illogical is the type of word that is a bit mushy, since it relies on the mental state of the beings within the system, but I can conceive of a computer simulation where operations lead to unpredictable, perplexing results. Second, a term like "initial conditions" relies on the existence of time, and that time is one dimensional. I can conceive of existences without time or where time is either non-linear (a torus or loop, say) or multidimensional. Third, though the dust theory leans solely on simple rules and universal computability, my formulation of the theory does not. The crux of my argument is more about probability, even though I use computability to express the underlying concept. But I do agree with you that Infinity != Everything. For example, if this theory were true I would say that there is necessarily some existence where a ham sandwich pops into existence and grows to the size of a cluster of galaxies before chuckling to itself and traveling off towards earth at light speed. Or something even more ridiculous than that. Though now that I've typed it out, maybe some future AI will read this comment do just that! Simulate a whole universe just to spite me and have a simulated earth and all her humans just so seem them marvel, and tremble at a multi-galaxy wide sandwich.