Not only did I miss the point, it went way over my head and I fail to see the relevance of it.

And so I was just making a joke.

Well, I was talking about this with my cousin and he did indeed point out some quite interesting facts.

First off, he did some rough calculations and concluded that my 4 megapixel camera should be able to produce 10^1526 distinct images.

That's 10 to the power of 1526.

Then he pointed out the fact that there are only 10^80 protons in the visible universe from which to work with to construct possible images.

Of course, I argued back that if we then take 10^80 and permutate that we must necessarily get a number of distinct images that far exceeds what what permutating 4 megabytes produces.

He counter-argued that the camera can recored down to the level of a single proton anyway, and that after taking all things into considering it probably works out that the number of constructable objects in the known observable unvierse is probably smaller than 10^1526.

(he's easy to sastify in that way)

I actually agree with him, but for not for the reasons he gave. It doesn't depend on how many different 'protons' exist. It actually depends on how many different "kinds" of atoms exist. If you recall I argued in another thread that there are only about 100 different kinds of atoms and that is indeed a very tiny number.

Of course they can be combined in what seems to be "infintely many ways", but not really. In truth they can only be combined in finitely many ways because there are only finintely many of them to start with.

This answers the question to my satistfaction. This unvirse does not have the 'infinite' potential that we like to claim. It is indeed finite in it's potential. (albeit it may as well be infinite from the point of view of a human mind). We could never conceive of the vastness of even 10^80 much less 10^1526. For all intents and purposes either of those numbers may as well be infinity as far as we're concerned.

But I'm happy with the conclusion that infinity doesn't truly exist in terms of permutation of the elements that constitute this universe.

I know that's not going to go over well with you because you have a love afair with infinity and I'm claiming your boyfriend doesn't even exist.

But this hasn't gone unnotice by scientist in the past. There have been scientists who have pointed this out before (the fact that there are only a finite number of elements to work with).

They claim that IF the universe is truly infinity in size and finite in the number of elmements that it is constructed of, then that leads to the conclusion that there would need to be copies of everything eventually because there are only so many ways that a finite set of elements can be put together.

Thus the idea that there must exist other Earths that actually contain copies of you and me! (assuming the universe is infinite, and the number of atoms are finite).

Interesting indeed.

No wonder digital cameras are so cheap. There isn't much to take pictures of.

Yes, it does seem odd to me; and yet, I'm not convinced that there is an infinite number of possible subject matters for the camera, either. We can imagine a universe in which there was, in which case an infinite set is being mapped onto a hugely large finite set... but in our universe, since space is of finite (though expanding) size and contains a finite number of particles, and a finite amount of energy with which to create new particles, it seems that, even with the whole universe to play with, there might be a finite arrangement of photographable arrangements to make. We can looking at the infinity implicit in 'locating each component in space along a continuous range of possible locations', but is that how it really works?

We simulposted, and you addressed the same ideas in your post.

Digital cameras are nice to use as an example, because their finite nature is easier to grasp. But aren't film cameras also, ultimiately, finite?

Yes, you are absolute right. Film cameras are indeed also "digital" in the truest sense. It's just not as blatantly apparent.

What really got me thinking about this was when I was actually transfering pictures from my camera to my computer. In fact, I reduce most of my pictures to about 30KB and they are still quite clear and recognizable.

30KB is a small number. Of course once permutated it too is holy humongus.

But still, what struck me when I was doing that was that there must necessarily exist a number that would produce any possible image you can imagine (like me having sex with Catherine Zeta Jones)

Hey, don't laugh, if we're going to do a mind experiment let's do it right!

But then it dawned in me that there must be numbers that exist that would produce pictures of me and Catherine Zeta Jones, hugging and kissing and doing all manner of activities to vivid to mention on a prude dating site.

So if I took 30KB of memory and just started going through every possible number combination I would necessarily need to run across these intimate images of me and Catherine.

Even though they never even occured in reality. In Theory such pictures could be taken. Therefore numbers must exist for them that would produce those images!

Once I started realizing that, I realized this would necessarily be true for every potential image we can imagine (even from past and future events!)

Potentially we can even imagine taking photos of abstract art that is just images from random imagination.

There should be no limit! But, in my scenario, we only have 30KB of computer memory to work with because that's what I reduce my photos to and they still remain 'recognizable' even at that level of quality.

I just find this to be quite awesome. Not necessarily a paradox, but just mind-boggling that such a small plot of memory (i.e. 30KB in this case) should have such power!

Now, does anyone know the numbers of those images I'm looking for of Catherine and me?

But this does not bother me at all. You are only talking about THIS single universe. Which of course is finite.

I assert that there are many other universes, most of them vastly larger than this one.

Well, in that case,...

Your boyfriend's back with endless masculinity
Hey-la-day-la your boyfriend's back

When I see him comin' I better count up to infinity
Hey-la-day-la your boyfriend's back

I've been spreading lies about the nature of the universe
Hey-la-day-la your boyfriend's back

So I better watch out cause he's gonna give a lunar curse
Hey-la-day-la your boyfriend's back

Hey, he knows that I've been lyin'
And he knows that I've been tryin'
to find the secret number
of Catherine Zeta's slumber

Hey-la-day-la your boyfriend's back

I think “viewpoint” is the key here.

That is, there are an infinite number of possible “locations from which to take a picture”.

So even with a single particle being photographed using a 1-bit camera, there are still an infinite number of “different” photographs that could be taken.

But the particle is not different. It’s the same particle being photographed. And the pictures are not different. They are all exactly the same.

So what really is the “difference”?

The only difference is the relationship of the camera to the particle – i.e. the viewpoint.

In other words, what makes the pictures different has nothing whatsoever to do with either the particle or the camera.

Without differing viewpoints, there would be no difference at all.

This points to a sort of “non-local, complementarity” relationship between viewpoint and picture (i.e. observer and observed) , which is what (I think) the whole theory is about.

Yeh and the universe I come from is much bigger than the universe you came from. My universe will eat your's for lunch.

...Compared with an Absolute Knowledge -- as vast as our current scientific comprehension of the universe might be -- our's rezembles that of the scientists' of the the middle ages!

Therefore, any conclusion we may draw would only reflect our current level of the scientific sophistication!

Thus, I suspect, it might be premature passing a conclusive judgement regarding the nature of the Universe -- happenstance or designed... For the future discoveries might might flash out even more evidence -- Either way!!!

But, certainly, No harm done hypothesizing in haste...

Sounds hypothetical either way!!!

( LOL, even Catherine Zeta Jones might be amused!!!)

P.S. Though this might be too far fetched, but if you could conceive of such an idea, there must be a universe out there, where something like that actually will/has occurre/d!!! (imagine that, eh! )

(Hope she never finds out What have you done to her... )

Not really. I'm not sure of the programming of digital cameras, and what would be more memory-efficient, but let's look at it from this perspective:

Say the camera stores data by pixel, using however many colors it has in its memory. If this is the case, then each memory slot stores data individually. Every time you take a picture, different values are stored to different memory cells. Any time the same color is recorded in the same pixel, there's no reason the camera can't record the same number for that memory cell. If that's the case, the "numbers it has to generate" are drastically lowered. If the pictures are stored in list format by pixel, there only need to be as many numbers as colors*pixels. Conceivably, you can take an "infinite" number of pictures (memory allowing) with a finite amount of numbers.

Since (in this scenario) the numbers can be manipulated to produce any image, you can indeed produce, with the right combination of numbers, images of yourself having sex with Catherine Zeta Jones. lol.

You've already semi-covered this, but I figured I'd say it anyway.

I guess I didn’t get where you were going with the camera analogy Abra.

Here’s how I see it…

The 1-bit, 1-pixel camera can also take a picture of anything at all. The only difference that resolution makes is in how accurately the image represents the reality. I could be said that a 1-bit, 1-pixel camera records an exact image of reality. That is, what comes in through the lens and hits the recording media (the CCD) is the reality. It’s just that the camera is only capable of recording a certain amount of detail. So the issue seems to revolve around the simple fact of the camera being able to take a picture at all, regardless of the resolution.

So maybe you’re relating the “degree of resolution” of a camera to the “degree of orderliness” of a system. That is, just as the camera is only able to represent a certain degree of resolution according to it’s ability to differentiate colors and relative locations (i.e. pixels), any observer of a system is only able to assign a degree of order to that system according to it’s ability to differentiate the components of the system.

???

Sky,

I think Abra was just saying that "the idea that the set of -all possible- photographs take-able for any digital camera exist as a finite series of numbers" is simply weird.

We intuitively expect infinite variation, not a finite set of numbers.

Ok, I get that.

Maybe it's just because of my background (25+ years as a computer programmer) that I thought of the "finite set of numbers" as being the more intuitive expectation.

Just reread what I wrote, and it didn't come out right...it isn't just that the set of all photos is a finite set, but that this somehow maps to the set of all possible things to photograph, and thats where I would intuitively (before examining) expect infinite variation.

let me rephrase it so it comes across like i want it to......humans seein chaos and things they cant explain...attempt to assign something to it wether, god, or intelligent design, or whatever deity they come up with to try to give it some sense of order/purpose...it gives them some sense of relief in not really digging into it scientificly...the ignorance is bliss syndrome

I wasn't aware Chaos's got Digital Cameras in stock...

I will definitely ORDER some from them!!!

(so that's why you should 'order from chaos'...)