In order to test Bruno's hypothesis, it would be necessary to know if
reality is Turing complete ("computable" for short). Hence my mention of
oracles and singularities, which presumably aren't computable. I would
imagine that reality is in principle computable, given its quantum nature
and discoveries like black hole entropy and information content - though
probably at a level below what we can currently access.
Interesting that this limits our ability to know the foundational basis of
reality - or do you think we might be able to get around that one day?
On Thursday 12 September 2024 at 19:10:55 UTC+12 Russell Standish wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 11:48:02PM -0700, Liz R wrote:
> > Thanks, Russell. Bruno tried to explain this to me a while ago but I
> probably
> > didn't take it all in. Am I right in thinking this has something to do
> with "no
> > oracles" - that is, reality contains no sources of infinite
> unpredictable data?
> > A naked signularity would presumably count as an oracle, while it
> appears any
> > area of space-time contains finite data (the Deckenstein bound?) - does
> that
> > make it Turing complete, in principle? Or am I talking nonsense?
>
> It sounds vaguely plausible, but could well be the latter :). At least
> its not egregious nonsense like immigrants eating you pets :P.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders [email protected]
> http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/146bacb9-a042-4e1e-979e-288f98ea1fb4n%40googlegroups.com.
