# Philisophical musings: Reduction of all that is to infinity.

inspectormustard
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
Offline
Philisophical musings: Reduction of all that is to infinity.

As a programmer working in the game design industry, I have two purposes. The most important is making simulations, which asfar as I'm concerned I make reality. I am God in my own digital kiddie pool. Second, derived from the first, is I have to be able to manipulate data into doing strange things that aren't obvious to the casual observer. Data manipulation is the essence of compression, rendering, physics, time, everything you can think of. Data manipulation itself is a form of data, which I often use to the effect of haveing data manipulate the manipulating data. Confused yet? Well, here's a simplfication.

Look at everything that is. It's data, basically. Data is just a bunch of observables (note that some data is hard or even impossible for us to observe, but that doesn't mean it's unobservable!). The universe in which we sit is just a big hunk of data. It is dimensional.

Well, is it dimensional? Maybe that's just an illusion. Let's take a look:

The location of anything in the universe can be represented with a series of coordinates. For the sake of simplicity we'll use the three we're used to; x for left and right, y for up and down, and z for forward and backward. But we don't really need three, do we? If we limit x y and z to the minimum and maximum size of the universe we get a set of three finite values. So x y and z are really just fractions of the distance from one end to the other of all our universe. Since they're fractions we can order them without losing information. For example, point A at (10,20,30) could be represented as 000010000020000030.

Well, okay, but what if we want more than one point? We do the same thing, but bound it to the maximum size of each point. For instance point A at (10,20,30) and point B at (41,68,12) is just 000010000020000030000041000068000012. We can easily add or remove dimension as well as add points, we just end up with a bigger number. If we go on like this we end up with a really really large number representing everything that ever happened, its location in the universe, and all that.

Now, here is where myself and many other atheists diverge. In order to be "complete" and not a particular arbitrarily large value pulled out of nowhere for the universe, we need one more thing. We need a lot of universes. An infinite number of them. Why an infinite number? Well, we need a lot of information. A lot of random information. Randomness has a tendency to sort itself out into more randomness, which is exactly what any given universe would appear to be if you were to look at it without being familiar with universes in general. If we were to write down the infinity which is all that is we would end up with a very large string of random numbers. Not just any numbers. Infinity is specific. I've addressed this several times, as there are different values of infinity.

The only reason this universe looks ordered is because this is the one you grew up in. If you were able to see all the others you might notice that they are all made of randomness and act with random rules.

The only pervading element in this vast space is numbers. Not the numbers you can write on a page either. Quintessential numbers, the ones that exist regardless of whether they're looked at or not. If there are any beings made of sterner stuff than we, they are made of numbers as well. Numbers are greater than the illusion of their construction. They simply are. They come from nowhere and to nowhere they go on and on, without end.

Chaoslord2004
Posts: 353
Joined: 2006-02-23
Offline
inspectormustard wrote:

inspectormustard wrote:
A lot of random information. Randomness has a tendency to sort itself out into more randomness, which is exactly what any given universe would appear to be if you were to look at it without being familiar with universes in general.

I assume you're talking about the mathematical definition of random, right? Which states that a sequence of numbers is random, iff, the only algorith that generates it is simply the sequence itself? I think this is also the definition of a mathematical structure that is irreducibly complex (nothing to do with stupid Behe).

"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions

inspectormustard
Posts: 537
Joined: 2006-11-21
Offline
Chaoslord2004

Chaoslord2004 wrote:

inspectormustard wrote:
A lot of random information. Randomness has a tendency to sort itself out into more randomness, which is exactly what any given universe would appear to be if you were to look at it without being familiar with universes in general.

I assume you're talking about the mathematical definition of random, right? Which states that a sequence of numbers is random, iff, the only algorith that generates it is simply the sequence itself? I think this is also the definition of a mathematical structure that is irreducibly complex (nothing to do with stupid Behe).

Yes, a randomly random set. If the enumeration could be obtained as some ultimate fractal it would mean that there is/was some governing principle behind the whole thing and infer that there was still another level of abstraction beyond.