ALandati96 Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Would it be wrong to assume that something infinite would contain everything? No? Similar to VSauce's explanation of the Library of Babel, and the theory that if the universe is infinite that there could be another you? Adding to that is this theory that if you were to have a digital canvas of infinite size and each pixel were a random color of the many 16,000,000 colors you could choose from. Eventually you would have a picture of everything piece of art ever painted; every picture ever taken, ever memory held onto; and scene from every point in time everywhere. I have tried to find articles or other claims to this but I could not find any, if you know of one please link it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Your link is empty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrock Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Would it be wrong to assume that something infinite would contain everything? An infinite quantity of pure gold contains no silver. Adding to that is this theory that if you were to have a digital canvas of infinite size and each pixel were a random color of the many 16,000,000 colors you could choose from. Eventually you would have a picture of everything piece of art ever painted; every picture ever taken, ever memory held onto; and scene from every point in time everywhere. There is an infinite range of frequencies in the visible light spectrum; the number of colours is a lot less (or more) than 16,000,000 as colour is subjective and eyes cannot distinguish that many. Main problem: where on the canvas is the picture of the entire canvas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALandati96 Posted December 1, 2015 Author Share Posted December 1, 2015 Way to kill the thought instead of help me get the kinks out and make it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Way to kill the thought instead of help me get the kinks out and make it better. Maybe it was all kink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALandati96 Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 Way to support something theoretical... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Way to kill the thought instead of help me get the kinks out and make it better. In general, pointing out potential deficiencies in an idea is an effective way of refining, developing and solidifying the idea, or - if the idea is fundamentally flawed - in illuminating those flaws, so that the idea may be abandoned. Carrock's contribution should be seen in exactly this way. That said, I am not even sure what you were looking for. You end your OP with an appeal for articles addressing the idea. Carrock was simply confirming what you had seemingly stated in the OP - something infinite cannot contain everything. So, I am not sure why you are complaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 No one is under any obligation to help keep your pet idea alive. The contrary response is normal from this kind of community.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrock Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Way to kill the thought instead of help me get the kinks out and make it better. I was just pointing out specific errors. I looked at your second link and while it appeared to be accurate, I think it's pretty well impossible to use it for learning. You might find this refutation, using transfinite maths, of the possibility of an eternal expanding universe Philosophy of Science Vol. 32, No. 1 (Jan., 1965), pp. 21-31 interesting. (free registration on site required to read it) It's very clearly written as many people resist transfinite maths' concepts. One 'expert' here knew its conclusions were wrong without even reading the abstract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I was just pointing out specific errors. Way to be reasonable instead of ignoring them so we could make guesses based on those errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now