Thanks for humoring me with the language. Much more comprehensible. Although some coherent formatting would be nice :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dent
LAYPERSON TALK
Bekenstein bound
In our "bubble universe" or "bubble multiverse" there seems to be a limit, you can't put an infinite amount of data in a finite amount of space,
physically realised infinity doesn't even seem coherent.
EDIT : Burali-Forti paradox
|
Layperson understanding: So because of the mathematical laws of entropy, there "appears a limit", aka not infinite? So is the "Bekenstein boundary" only currently a hypothetical boundary, or is it definite?
Also, I don't really understand the Burali-Forti paradox:
Quote:
|
...naïvely constructing "the set of all ordinal numbers" leads to a contradiction and therefore shows an antinomy in a system that allows its construction.
|
Although I guess that's the point of a paradox. Cool that Bertrand Russell kinda put it together but gave credit to his inspiration, though. I really need to spend some time on Khan Academy re-learning a lot of even basic math. I've never really been a physics guy but I even have problems understanding logical equations in philosophy because of my hindrances in math (which i still blame on our horrible math teachers in America)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dent
If the (local?) territory were infinite we could run a perpetual motion machine
|
"Local" in this case as in our particular bubble of a universe? I'm not sure I understand the perpetual motion machine reference. I think I see what you mean, as in it would be a closed system? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the more I learn about systems the more I learn there's really no such thing, is there? Other than artificially created closed systems, can't new elements always be introduced? (e.g. in this case, our "bubbles" interacting and exchanging information?
Quote:
|
I don't see how you could get started on the map, a map of what? I think the map-territory thing is more to do with our model/world-simulation vs reality/truth
|
“Begin at the beginning," the King said, very gravely, "and go on till you come to the end: then stop.”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
Theorizing on how to make a map about a potentially infinite (or not) territory is just an exercise in futility for the human mind right now. Whenever I hit a wall like that I try to move on to something more practically to avoid various existential crises.
Quote:
Eternal inflation is interesting and I want to understand some of the problems with it, here's one thing that bugs me and isn't the same as eternalism.
Eternal inflation
"This allows inflation to continue forever, to produce future-eternal inflation."
|
Yeah, I'm bit new to these Eternal Inflation concepts myself. I have been thinking a lot about the conceptual concepts of eternity and the human social construct of time, lately, though, so I did a bit of skimming, but beyond that I'm not nearly educated enough on the topic.
The concept of Eternity and Time, of course, seem to be mutually exclusive themselves, yet another paradox. I know for a personal (albeit anecdotal fact) that human beings can train themselves perceive "time" as an Eternal Present, which is creepy but offset by the fact that everything seems to change constantly, which is actually quite a blessing depending on your perspective.
Speaking of, one thing I found interesting while researching Eternalism was the Buddhist concept of
Sassatavada (literally meaning "Eternalism" in Pali), apparently a philosophical concept that arose during Buddha's teaching which he strictly rejected, given his doctrine of eternal change, including, the fact that the Self itself changes.
Comparing and contrasting these ancient philosophical ideas/concepts (which really can be brilliant...they just didn't have the instruments we do...shoulders of giants etc) with modern physical or philosophical positions is so fascinating to me.