3 ms·
I've always wondered this as well. Consider a finite collection of atoms consisting of a human and an environment. For simplicity, assume these atoms move cla
by Xcelerate 12y ago
I've always wondered this as well.
Consider a finite collection of atoms consisting of a human and an environment. For simplicity, assume these atoms move classically. The human is a subsystem, and since the entire system involves deterministically, there is only a limited number of configurations that the human subsystem can realize within the environment. If a "human" is what is necessary to comprehend reality, then there are aspects of the system that cannot be realized by the subsystem, since there are far more states available to the total system.
Then again, I could just be rambling.
- danbruc 12y agoI would argue it depends on the nature of the system. If the system follows (simple) rules then you can likely compress the description of the system into something that fits into a (small) subsystem. If the system and its behavior is a uncompressible mess this will not work out. Up to now, I would say, our universe with all its relatively simple laws of physics looks pretty structured and easily compressible.
- hasenj 12y agoI don't think this works. You don't have to encompass everything about the universe in your mind. You can just comprehend a formula that allows you in principle to calculate any part of it that you need. Think of a fractal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set