Except a spiral is a ray... with and endpoint... not and - infinite... and for the universe to be infinite it has to be in either direction (direction meaning and - time). On an all encompasing global scale you can't have a ray, ray's can only be subsets, or produced. A system must be infinite or contained.
Two things:1) If that's his view, he should have said Computers are like the universe (not the other way around).2) Organisms have functions; what's the function of the universe?
The limits of mathematics are an illusion brought on by limits of actual reality. If they existed otherwise, then the math would show it as well. Considering that it's believed the laws of "physics" break down within a black hole, or may be entirely different in other areas of the universe, then our math will describe those events and break down along with as we study and alter to describe those things accurately. Math is not a mold which makes shapes, it's an eye, an eye we develop, and we use to see through to understand patterns and methods reality uses to calculate. Laws of physics are not limiting, like i said, it only seems that way because we are limited by the true deeper rules of reality. NOT the math. We just see it through the math. So don't bother arguing with math, or logic, too abstract.I get what you're saying, the idea, I just really dissagree with your way of percieving... or communicating it. It's just not solid, it's missleading.Not to mention, what does "understand" mean? If you think we can't know the math which produced everything we can observe, I disagree. Quantum computing is on the edge of proving you wrong, in fact, are you implying that this entire Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Computing is ultimately not going to work as predicted? Even though it alread IS on a small scale?Seth Lloyd could be lieing, but I highly doubt it, and on the radio recording I listened to he stated that Quantum Computers are already being observed to see information being altered. Information on how qbits flip, and information is moved, in reality. So you are obviously wrong. Unless, as I said, it's true that you're wrong as I can't interpret all your relative and missconceptualized ideas. I'll be glad to continue this if you e-mail me, I don't want to keep checking these comments.
reddog_x2000Apr 19, 2006
So, the universe exists mostly to download porn?
virtualtacoApr 19, 2006
Except a spiral is a ray... with and endpoint... not and - infinite... and for the universe to be infinite it has to be in either direction (direction meaning and - time). On an all encompasing global scale you can't have a ray, ray's can only be subsets, or produced. A system must be infinite or contained.
Closed AccountApr 19, 2006
Ok these 6x9 people, Run > calc.exe, it's 54, whoever got 42 really needs to go back to fourth grade...my word....
headphonerApr 20, 2006
Two things:1) If that's his view, he should have said Computers are like the universe (not the other way around).2) Organisms have functions; what's the function of the universe?
simpleidApr 20, 2006
The limits of mathematics are an illusion brought on by limits of actual reality. If they existed otherwise, then the math would show it as well. Considering that it's believed the laws of "physics" break down within a black hole, or may be entirely different in other areas of the universe, then our math will describe those events and break down along with as we study and alter to describe those things accurately. Math is not a mold which makes shapes, it's an eye, an eye we develop, and we use to see through to understand patterns and methods reality uses to calculate. Laws of physics are not limiting, like i said, it only seems that way because we are limited by the true deeper rules of reality. NOT the math. We just see it through the math. So don't bother arguing with math, or logic, too abstract.I get what you're saying, the idea, I just really dissagree with your way of percieving... or communicating it. It's just not solid, it's missleading.Not to mention, what does "understand" mean? If you think we can't know the math which produced everything we can observe, I disagree. Quantum computing is on the edge of proving you wrong, in fact, are you implying that this entire Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Computing is ultimately not going to work as predicted? Even though it alread IS on a small scale?Seth Lloyd could be lieing, but I highly doubt it, and on the radio recording I listened to he stated that Quantum Computers are already being observed to see information being altered. Information on how qbits flip, and information is moved, in reality. So you are obviously wrong. Unless, as I said, it's true that you're wrong as I can't interpret all your relative and missconceptualized ideas. I'll be glad to continue this if you e-mail me, I don't want to keep checking these comments.
bubblepermJul 16, 2007
How much?And where can I get one?