MigL

Wear something sexy ...

Just to clarify my position, Studiot ... Mathematics treats lines, surfaces, volumes and higher dimensional manifolds as infinitely sub-divisible. Physics, on the other hand, may describe a space-time which is quantized and has a smallest possible value. Now Mathematics will allow you to treat andrepresent those many sub-divisions, no matter how large their number, but if you want to 'count' possible events in a section of sace-time, Physics may have some constraints as to the maximum number of those events.. Perhaps Geordief should indicate which viewpoint he wishes to consider. ( I will excuse your thinking like a Mathematician, if you excuse my thinking like a Physicist 🙂 )

200 lbs, falling 12 ft, and you catch yourself with your fingertips. 85 times ! you have no concept of reality, or you watch too many movies.

The OP did not deal with 'abstracts', but events in space-time, which are information. The Bekenstein bound does not limit itself to energy/entropy, but applies to all information. Bekenstein derived the 'bound' from entropy considerations of Black Holes, and it was reinterpreted in the framework of QFT by Casini in 2008. Would a 'perfect' shadow be information, or absence of information ? I grant that abstract concepts, such as infinities, can be represented, and Mathematics needs to deal with such 'abstacts', but Physics has constraints; one being the Bekenstein bound.

Life is a struggle against entropy. At its most basic, life strives for 'order' versus the 'disorder' of non-life. IOW, the purpose of life is to not die.

Question asked in the OP The number is finite, so definitely representable.

Getting back to the OP and how much information is required to represent a certain number of events in space-time, Seth has already alluded to an upper limit, here The earth's surface is almost exactly 2x10^84 square Planck units. I vaguely remember reading that something unpleasant happens when you try storing that much information on a limited surface. The Bekenstein bound "implies that the information of a physical system, or the information necessary to perfectly describe that system, must be finite if the region of space and the energy are finite. In computer science this implies that non-finite models such as Turing machines are not realizable as finite devices" See here Bekenstein bound - Wikipedia Sometimes Physicist have to bring Mathematicians back 'down to earth' from their 'flights of fancy'. ( no offence meant, Studiot 😄 )

Institutions, that teach or place, scientists, can , and often do, have biases. The science itself, can not.

Don't wanna nit-pick, but a 'circle-shaped' pie is actually 2 pi. So equating desserts with mathematical quantities is not self-consistent.

You realize that 'oval' is derived from the Latin word for egg ( ovum ) ? ( what a relief; I thought you were asking about your mis-shapen penis )

Really ? They had IQ tests in the 15th century ?

Don't count yur Brexit chickens before they hatch ... The UK MoD through British Aerospace, is developing, along with Italy's Leonardo ( which has a strong presence in the UK with helicopters and electronic systems ) and Mitsubishi of Japan, the 6th generation fighter arcraft, Tempest. BAE Systems Tempest - Wikipedia Rolls Royce is collaborating with ( Fiat ) Avio and IHI to develop hi-electrical output engines to power this 'system of systems'. There is a strong possibility that SAAB of Sweden may also join the 20-25 Billion development program. Doesn't seem like the UK is very isolated to me.

Very bad idea. We don't 'preach' science. We discuss science, and if anyone is willing to engage, ask questions, and learn, we try to answer those questions to the best of our combined abilities. Two things to take away ...| 1 - People have to be willing to engage/ask/learn. 2 - We don't have all the answers, as most of us belong to the previous catagory.

Just like other interpretations of QM superposition of states can be taken to absurd/ridiculous extremes, so can the Many Worlds interpretation. Can a macroscopic cat belonging to Erwin be in a superposition of states, alive and dead, whilst ignoring the multitude of interactions that occurr in a macroscopic object, like a cat, that would cause collapse or decoherence to a singular state. This thread seems to illustrate the point. You can't create mew universes every time an interaction forces decoherence. And H Everett's interpretation is called Many Worlds; Multiverse refers to the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

You have a lot of patience Swansont. ( much more than Capiert deserves )