in a universe that's finite — Agent Smith
Your supposition may not be valid. But entertaining idea. — jgill
No. It's better to stare blankly than to dumb down mathematics to what can fit in our small pointy heads. You'll be banning irrational numbers next, if you haven't already. — unenlightened
Question: What's the Nmax for our universe? — Agent Smith
I read somewhere that the observable universe contains roughly 10^80 atoms. That should be a good place to start at least when it comes to matter, oui? — Agent Smith
Now consider the fact that in a universe that's finite there's gotta be a number that is the upper limit of a counting processes that yields the largest number possible/required to describe this universe — Agent Smith
By the way thanks for the detailed analysis of my query, much obliged! — Agent Smith
There are 22 quarks in an atom. So from simple multiplication N is 2.2e81 iff the only objects that exist are these quarks. Let's call this for now Nᵩ (and conceptually separate it from Nₘ). — Kuro
On what principles would you decide how to count all the dark matter? — Metaphysician Undercover
Question: What's the Nmax for our universe? — Agent Smith
That said, I was hoping to find a number such that
1. No calculation ever would exceed that number — Agent Smith
1. No calculation ever would exceed that number — Agent Smith
WikiToday, the point of view has shifted: on the basis of the breakthrough renormalization group insights of Nikolay Bogolyubov and Kenneth Wilson, the focus is on variation of physical quantities across contiguous scales, while distant scales are related to each other through "effective" descriptions. All scales are linked in a broadly systematic way, and the actual physics pertinent to each is extracted with the suitable specific computational techniques appropriate for each. Wilson clarified which variables of a system are crucial and which are redundant.
Why is it I think you are not serious? :smile: — jgill
You can be serious and playful at the same time in philosophy. That's part of the fun. — Cuthbert
Sure, just fix whatever large number you wish and round off to that number. — jgill
There's an infinite number of numbers which no human has ever thought of. What's the point in trying to name a random one of these? Here's one for you though, which might be worthwhile. Try naming pi to its final decimal place. That's a meaningful number which no one has ever thought of. — Metaphysician Undercover
Most interesting. — Ms. Marple
describe this universe — Agent Smith
Clearly we don't know how to do math with infinity — Agent Smith
No calculation ever would exceed that number — Agent Smith
Physicists tend to throw their hands up in the air with disgust mixed with utter frustration when they see ∞∞ when number crunching. — Agent Smith
pi to its final decimal place — Metaphysician Undercover
Is there a finite number (Nmax) such that no calculations ever in physics will exceed that number? — Agent Smith
Most interesting. — Ms. Marple
a part is equal to the whole — Agent Smith
Is there a finite number (Nmax) such that no calculations ever in physics will exceed that number? — Agent Smith
No, set theory does not say that there is a proper subset of a set such that the proper subset is the set. Set theory does say that there are sets such that there is a 1-1 correspondence between a proper subset of the set and the set.
This is another example of you running your mouth off on this technical subject of which you know nothing because you would rather just make stuff up about it rather than reading a textbook to properly understand it. — TonesInDeepFreeze
I know so little about physics or cosmology that I can't answer that. — TonesInDeepFreeze
when one does not have sufficient knowledge then one should defer from making wild claims. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.