I think technology is great, and some of the stories we can produce, equally as thought provoking.
Ipod's and Mission Impossible?
Oh Clifford, where are you?
While some might of thought the analogy to the "blackgold" as a standard in a economic sense, I still try to think of the "gold reserves" as the true monitor of banks and money printed. Yet, we find that new indicators are setting the price of living, to standards that the few make towards cost of living realizations? US ruin where rerserves, China's gain? A worthy trading partner indeed.
Okay that's to political. On to the essence of the story.:)
My plan is not a incidious one, where I will try and convert you to "evil," but put into perspective the state of affairs. Not concieved to derail geometrical thinking at it's finest, but bring one in concert with the strumming of "good songs" as we ride the "river of life:)" Oh my, I am being bombarded by solitonic images of boats traveling channels, and all sort of things.
Written and directed by Kenneth Alan Taylor I would rather think of the Goose that laid the Golden Egg,
then eggs that could possibly hatch as the dumbest ideas of Rooster's:)
Okay, so I am struggling.
You have to remember the basis of this question is "held in light" of a thought experiment linked at the heading of this post. I know it's possibilties yet containment really makes it difficult to fathom. So I like to think of
tall tails and sailing ships as possible stories that were created in fiction, have now made it possible for Jack to bring this Golden Egg, back for consideration. Or maybe the
Princess's Pea as a measure of what would have been contained in the singularity, had drawn to delving all minds to consider this nagging question that we tend to sleep on? The "Beginning of the universe?"
Did you know Plato like the "idea of ideas?" While it might made one think of the
emphemeral qualities of mind, I know that to be "grounded" would be a good thing, while we look at Jack in the Beanstalk's journey to fetch the Golden Egg.
Anthony A. on Jan 2nd, 2006 at 7:41 pm :
In an infinite universe, there appears to be, as I noted before, some interchangeability between the different branches of the wavefunction and the different copies that exist in the infinite universe. (In fact this is the basis for a new interpretation of quantum mechanics that I have been reading, and got me thinking about the whole matter.)
The thought provoked here, is contained in the structure of this statement, "different branches of the wavefunction" could lead to new quantum reality taken from the artifacts, and released into probable futures? This is a summation of how one might see all that can be contained in the outcome of heads or tails, and from such information, provide for model apprehensions that could have been emitted from the very beginning of this universe? Why not?
We punch in the probability of this reference of quantum perception with cosmological data and if 13.7 billions years could be contained in the model, then what says the limit of this universe could not be contained in what this universe might have become?
The amount of information that can be stored by the ultimate laptop, 10 to the 31st bits, is much higher than the 10 to the 10th bits stored on current laptops. This is because conventional laptops use many degrees of freedom to store a bit whereas the ultimate laptop uses just one. There are considerable advantages to using many degrees of freedom to store information, stability and controllability being perhaps the most important. Indeed, as the above calculation indicates, to take full advantage of the memory space available, the ultimate laptop must turn all its matter into energy. A typical state of the ultimate laptop's memory looks like a plasma at a billion degrees Kelvin — like a thermonuclear explosion or a little piece of the Big Bang! Clearly, packaging issues alone make it unlikely that this limit can be obtained, even setting aside the difficulties of stability and control.
But what's the point here in recognition?
That there are indeed outcomes from thinking of a certain point, could have manifested possibilities. The outcome here is present questions although contained in the article linked in from 2000, it points the mind to direction currently manifesting in our everyday lives, as we move to question the nature and geometry of this beginning of the universe and it's possible branches thereof?
But let's see this in contrast to early computation models. Rooms filled with equippment to have now found such levels atomized to current technological wonders?
Being part of this scenario in our past and witnessing the moves to such lenghts, bring perspectve to the nature of the colliders and the quest for perspctive held in contrast to quantum probabilites. Looking at this bold highlighrted statement of Seth Loyd brings th every nature of what is being pursued asa viable question about what we had hoped to conatin inthe LAPTOP, BUT SEEING THE COMPLEX QUESTION OF CONTAINMENT MAKES THIS QUITE UNLIKELY. It does not remove the question of probable outcomes and th every nature of geoemtries assigned, as this is a leading indicator to values held in contrast to the depth of pereception needed?
Danger, Phil Anderson by Sean CarrollLooking for such a position, can be a fickled thing, so where would such things lead from a "flat spacetime" to have then gone either way in the speculations of the geometries?
Sorry, a layman dreaming. Is it a philosophical question, that the possibilties could have ever be increased from negative things(geoemtries in expression), heated up, to create new possibitlies?