You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ec429 comments on The Apparent Reality of Physics - Less Wrong Discussion

-3 Post author: ec429 23 September 2011 08:10PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (62)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: ec429 24 September 2011 02:39:19AM 0 points [-]

But then, how do you determine whether information exists-in-the-universe at all? Does the number 2 exist-in-the-universe? (I can pick up 2 pebbles, so I'm guessing 'yes'.) Does the number 3^^^3 exist-in-the-universe? Does the number N = total count of particles in the universe exist-in-the-universe? (I'm guessing 'yes', because it's represented by the universe.) Does N+1 exist-in-the-universe? (After all, I can consider {particles in the universe} union {{particles in the universe}}, with cardinality N+1) If you allow encodings other than unary, let N = largest number which can be represented using all the particles in the universe. But I can coherently talk about N+1, because I don't need to know the value of a number to do arithmetic on it (if N is even, then N+1 is odd, even though I can't represent the value of N+1). Does the set of natural numbers exist-in-the-universe? If so, I can induct - and therefore, by induction on induction itself, I claim I can perform transfinite induction (aka 'scary dots') in which case the first uncountable ordinal exists-in-the-universe, which is something I'd quite like to conclude.

So where does it stop being a heap?