what's holding all of this information .. could it be infinite .

so i was reading some book about the history of 3D games and how those were developed .
and how the 3D data is managed in memory . so i took a look at the room and out of the window … reality seems to have an incredibly high quality , that must be a massive amount of information .

now where is all that information held ? or does it just exist ?

now the smallest thing in existence is not accurately defined . i mean even things like the “Planck length” cannot be scientifically demonstrated , those just remain speculations … so you can have an opinion on this matter … do you guys think that there is such thing as the smallest possible thing in the universe ? and if yes , do you think that the universe or this dimension is infinite in size ? now if NO then the amount of information that describes a moment has be finite … or is it ?

honestly I think it is possible to create a simulated representation of reality. if you think about if reality was a computer program it would need quite the compression, for example glass only gets detail rendering when its shattered, and such. you cant see the smallest thing in your environment so why render it? that is unless your looking at it. also whos to say that if real life was a computer simulation it isn't created by being who are not 3 dimensional... if you think about it its really easy for us to make 2D games, whos to say 4 dimensional beings wouldn't make a 3D science simulation program out of ease? this is however all speculation and impossible to prove.

There is a finite amount of energy. That answers just about everything.

brenden_nerd_:
honestly I think it is possible to create a simulated representation of reality. ...

Exactly what the majority scientific opinion was in 1899. Over the next decade relativity and quantum theory hit the streets, and the 'complex but discoverable' universe evaporated. Finite total energy? Nothing discovered so far leads to that conclusion.

brenden_nerd_:
honestly I think it is possible to create a simulated representation of reality. if you think about if reality was a computer program it would need quite the compression, for example glass only gets detail rendering when its shattered, and such. you cant see the smallest thing in your environment so why render it? that is unless your looking at it. also whos to say that if real life was a computer simulation it isn't created by being who are not 3 dimensional... if you think about it its really easy for us to make 2D games, whos to say 4 dimensional beings wouldn't make a 3D science simulation program out of ease? this is however all speculation and impossible to prove.

No , we are able to look at relatively small things , weather we decide to look at them or not , that's fixed information .

INTP:
There is a finite amount of energy. That answers just about everything.

how did you figure that ?

ChrisTenone:
Exactly what the majority scientific opinion was in 1899. Over the next decade relativity and quantum theory hit the streets, and the ‘complex but discoverable’ universe evaporated. Finite total energy? Nothing discovered so far leads to that conclusion.

so what’s the solution then Chris ?
do you think humans are able understand the origin of existence ? or to the fabric of existence ?

amine2:
so what's the solution then Chris ?
do you think humans are able understand the origin of existence ? or to the fabric of existence ?

I think we approximate the "meaning of it all". That's the nature of science. Hypothesize, test, revise hypothesis, repeat.

Occasionally an Einstein or Schrödinger comes along and says "that's not working, try this instead", and off we go with a slightly different outlook.

amine2:
how did you figure that ?

Well, for the law of conservation of energy to exist, energy has to be constant. So you have to assume the law of conservation of energy is actually a law, and not a theory.

So, once you have that, then data has to be represented as a function of energy, (to record data, you have to expel energy) and because energy is finite, so must data.

Qdeathstar:
Well, for the law of conservation of energy to exist, energy has to be constant. So you have to assume the law of conservation of energy is actually a law, and not a theory.

So, once you have that, then data has to be represented as a function of energy, (to record data, you have to expel energy) and because energy is finite, so must data.

This is one of those things that you learn in first year physics, using clear, unambiguous algebra. Once you are working with a potential energy field like gravitation, you can make a differential equation based on adjacent points in space time. The size of the array does not need to be finite in order to conserve the local variables, no matter how large the sample radius is.

So you have to assume the law of conservation of energy is actually a law, and not a theory.

Naw. A "Law" is just a theory that has stood for a really long time.

Conservation of energy is an observation that has yet to be disproved. Even now, some physics grad student is planning a long series of equations, supported by an impossible-to-fund experiment, that will lead to weak and unconvincing evidence. But hey, it's progress, and the Law becomes that much more solidified.

Qdeathstar:
Well, for the law of conservation of energy to exist, energy has to be constant. So you have to assume the law of conservation of energy is actually a law, and not a theory.

It’s conservation of mass / energy. We convert matter into energy every day.

you convert matter into energy, but the matter was just potential (stored) energy.... so you've gained nothing.

Infinity extends both inwards and outwards. What’s holding all of this information? Well, there’s a logo for this and it has federal registration. Look in the upper left corner of your screen.

oh, and we call it "Nuu", a few story-writers say that
at the beginning ... Hell was in there
for the science that place is also known as Plank Era,
a way to describe 10^−43 seconds after the singularity
(Big Bang) a way to say that our physics laws are not applicable there

therefore the science is more interested in what happens to particles a time-quantium after
say n*10^−44 seconds after the singularity, n={1,2,3,.....}

and with n>0 we have time, we have space, we have sub particles, we have our physics laws ...
and we can represent a quantum of electromagnetic radiation or sub particles representing a quantum of interaction in between, we don't actually know what happens with graviton, a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory, but we are happy to know what can happen when two photons collide, and more happy to know that a photon can carry energy proportional to the radiation frequency, and happy to know that it can have zero rest mass, and that it can't go faster than the light speed

and we are so happy because, even if we are still don't know anything, we can be sure that all the interactions it can have are updated every 10^-44 second in time and 1,616 × 10^−35 meters in space

we are so happy with photons that our theories have options to predict what happens when two photons collide

  • option a) like electromagnetic waves, they will interfere with each other and keep their wave nature
  • option b) like particles, they will bounce like classical balls

but we have also a new theory called "Quantum electrodynamics" which tells us that two photons cannot couple directly, that leaves us with classical electromagnetism, which tells us that electromagnetic waves pass through each other without any interference.

therefore we also have

  • option c) two photons interact through higher-order processes -> there is a quite small probability amplitude for two photons to get absorbed in, and two photons be emitted by, e.g. an fermion-anti-fermion virtual pair, or the QED(1) for the process(photon + photon) = electron + positron

(1) in order to respect the energy conservation, this process is only possible if the sum of the energy of the photons is above twice the electron mass, therefore in the center of mass frame of the di-photon system, the photons need to have at least ~511KeV.

and a graviton has never made YOU so happy
I love the science :smiley: