# Re: One more question about measure

```Hi Bruno,
Le Vendredi 24 Juin 2005 15:25, Bruno Marchal a écrit :
> > Because if everything exists... every OM has a
> > successor (and I'd say it must always have more than one),
>
> Perhaps. It depends of your definition of "OM", and of your
> "everything" theory.
>
> Let me tell you the "Lobian's answer":  if I have a successor OM then I
> have a successor OM which has no successor OM.```
```
I don't understand this statement, for me, every OM has a successor, like
every integer has. How could it be that an OM can't have a successor ?

But I'm firmly convinced that the set of visual OM (I mean by visual,
something an observer like a human can see) is finite. I have an example for
this :

1) assume an observer that can see.
2) assume that the observer can see only at a certain resolution/level (it's
true that I can't see everything, I do not see quarks for example, nor my
cells)

Then, I can digitalize every image that I (assuming I'm an observer ;) can
see.

Now, I'll take an arbitrary image resolution far upper than I details I can
actually be aware of. For example : 100000x100000 pixels, every pixels can
have 16.5 millions colors (even if it has been proven that humans can only
see less than 200000 colors, just for the argument). Then the limit for the
eyes to see individual images in a movie is approximately 40hz, so for the
argument I will say that I need at least 100 frames by second (higher than
what we can perceive).

Now how much bits do I need to encode one hour of visual events ?

It's simply 100000x100000x4x100x3600.

So the needed number of bits to encode one hour of visual events at a
resolution far higher than what we can perceive is finite... It's the same if
you replace one hour by the length of a lifetime (+/- 80 years). So even if
we are immortal, at a given time in the far away future, the visual events
must repeat.

Quentin Anciaux

```