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 

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

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

Reply via email to