Logo by AGUS - Contribute your own Logo!

END OF AN ERA, FRACTALFORUMS.COM IS CONTINUED ON FRACTALFORUMS.ORG

it was a great time but no longer maintainable by c.Kleinhuis contact him for any data retrieval,
thanks and see you perhaps in 10 years again

this forum will stay online for reference
News: Visit us on facebook
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. March 28, 2024, 05:56:51 PM


Login with username, password and session length


The All New FractalForums is now in Public Beta Testing! Visit FractalForums.org and check it out!


Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
Share this topic on DiggShare this topic on FacebookShare this topic on GoogleShare this topic on RedditShare this topic on StumbleUponShare this topic on Twitter
Author Topic: Set which contains every possible image..  (Read 10176 times)
Description: see title
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
sonofthort
Alien
***
Posts: 24


hmm


WWW
« on: October 30, 2010, 08:52:00 AM »

A friend and I were discussing an idea he had which would cycle through every possible pixel combination to produce every possible image.  Basically, it would treat the monitor like a giant number, whose base is the number of possible colors for each pixels.  For instance, a 1280x1024 resolution monitor using 16mil color could represent a total of (16mil)^(1240*1024) images, which would probably take 2*infinite amount of time to render. 

Anybody ever think about this before?
Logged
hobold
Fractal Bachius
*
Posts: 573


« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2010, 11:25:36 AM »

There's a related idea that is much older. Writing down all possible combinations of the letters of the alphabet for a "universal library" would produce all past and future literature, including all future newspapers. Among a lot (A LOT!) of other garbled garbage ... and of course we couldn't tell the accurate future newspapers apart from the fictional ones.

The image variant of this idea has the same problem that the vast majority of all images would look like meaningless noise. Only a vanishingly small fraction would qualify as images with actual content.
Logged
Millennium Nocturne
Guest
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2010, 11:26:02 AM »

Actually, a monitor can display the universe from every possible angle and at every possible resolution in every possible time..
So if you use it in reverse (by displaying every possible pixel combination), you can display the whole universe at every possible time.

But I warn: Since the combinatorial capacity of the human brain is extremely short if you compare it against the universe, well..the universe wins.
This means:The Universe is infinite and your brain isn't..well..you can't imagine or perceive everything that is on the universe, even worst, since the universe is infinite, anything that you can imagine (no matter how sci-fi it is, for example), actually exists in the universe, since your combinatorial capacity is lower.

more clearly:
Everything that you ever have imagined, actually exists somewhere because the human brain (compared against the universe) is pretty limited and cannot create something that is out of the universe..

So do not think on evil thing..because they actually happens somewhere..   wink

Logged
bib
Global Moderator
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 2070


At the borders...


100008697663777 @bib993
WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2010, 11:41:12 AM »

Anybody ever think about this before?

Of course, and I quickly found out that the idea was ridiculous due to the MUUUUCH too large number of combinations smiley
Logged

Between order and disorder reigns a delicious moment. (Paul Valéry)
Tglad
Fractal Molossus
**
Posts: 703


WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2010, 01:20:19 PM »

We've already seen one version of this... just pull the aerial out of your tv. White noise will randomly produce every black and white image.
As you will see, most images look like white noise. That's because white noise has highest entropy, another way of saying it is that there are many more images that look like white noise than ones that look like something interesting (like a person's face).

An interesting idea is an infinite fractal that contains every possible image. In a previous thread I considered that the mandelbrot set may include every possible image. But again, the percentage of interesting images would be vanishingly small.
Logged
David Makin
Global Moderator
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 2286



Makin' Magic Fractals
WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2010, 02:06:30 PM »

Remember that there are many different possible infinities from a mathematical/science point of view - this is different from the unscientific version which does include anything at all.
For instance although the set of integers is infinite, in no way does it include the irrationals for example.
So even if you ignore the current accepted view of the Universe (i.e. that it is not infinite, being in fact restricted to a given expanding space/time bubble) then just because the Universe may be scientifically infinite does not mean it can contain everything we can imagine.

My own view is that time is *not* a dimension (merely being a measure/consequence of entropic decay) but mass *is* a dimension, so the Universe is not a space/time bubble but a space/mass bubble - note that I do not believe this totally contradicts current physics because that merely requires a dimension (or dimensions) beyond the 3 spatial ones and if the 4th was considered as being mass I think a lot of the current problems with the current model of "reality" would be solved. Of course very many people are going to be vehemently against this idea because if time is merely a measure/consequence of entropy and not a dimension then time travel really is impossible rather than merely very difficult.

On a similar issue has anyone considered that in fact gravity and the strong nuclear force are one and the same ?
i.e. gravity is the collective force from many protons/neutrons (and similar) over large distances.
Logged

The meaning and purpose of life is to give life purpose and meaning.

http://www.fractalgallery.co.uk/
"Makin' Magic Music" on Jango
sonofthort
Alien
***
Posts: 24


hmm


WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2010, 04:44:40 PM »

In a previous thread I considered that the mandelbrot set may include every possible image. But again, the percentage of interesting images would be vanishingly small.

I think I have found that post in the past.  Very interesting idea which I have wondered myself.  I think there might be something to it.


On a similar issue has anyone considered that in fact gravity and the strong nuclear force are one and the same ?
i.e. gravity is the collective force from many protons/neutrons (and similar) over large distances.

I've considered something like this as well.  Actually, I've considered that perhaps very low intensity electromagnetic radiation could act as the messenger particles for gravity.

About time as not being a dimension, I'm going to have to disagree.  I see each progressing dimension as a collection of previous dimensional states.  For instance, 2d is a set of lines, 3d is a set of squares, and 4d is a set of cubes.  If you freeze any moment in time, you essentially have one gigantic 3d state.  If you think of each moment as it's own 3d state, then time is a collection of all these 3d states and hence fits in as the 4th dimension.
Logged
David Makin
Global Moderator
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 2286



Makin' Magic Fractals
WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 31, 2010, 04:11:56 AM »

I've considered something like this as well.  Actually, I've considered that perhaps very low intensity electromagnetic radiation could act as the messenger particles for gravity.

About time as not being a dimension, I'm going to have to disagree.  I see each progressing dimension as a collection of previous dimensional states.  For instance, 2d is a set of lines, 3d is a set of squares, and 4d is a set of cubes.  If you freeze any moment in time, you essentially have one gigantic 3d state.  If you think of each moment as it's own 3d state, then time is a collection of all these 3d states and hence fits in as the 4th dimension.

As I understand it a form of electromagnetic radiation is the conventional view of gravity though no-one has managed to prove this - hence my suggestion that it may just be the strong nuclear force acting over large distances - vanishingly small for individual particles but possibly adding up to "gravity" for larger masses i.e. such that the strong nuclear force is very, very powerful at short distances, drops off rapidly over distance but such that the rate of reduction decreases over distance - so that in fact over very small range the nuclear force beats the electromagnetic, over larger ranges the electromagnetic is stronger but over even larger ranges the nuclear force (though very weak per particle) is again stronger than the electromagnetic (for said particle) and is called gravity.

I can see that mathematically one can essentially treat time as a 4th dimension, but to me I still see it as a consequence of entropic decay rather than a physical dimension that is essentially a 4th spatial dimension such that existence can be twisted so a distance becomes time in physical reality. Mass on the other hand I can quite easily accept as a 4th dimension that is essentially equivalent to any spatial dimension and could be twisted to become exactly such. In fact I waould argue that the conversion of mass to energy and vice-versa actually bears out this idea.
To put it another way I cannot visualise spatial dimensions being analogous in some way to (the rate of) entropic change.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2010, 04:16:44 AM by David Makin » Logged

The meaning and purpose of life is to give life purpose and meaning.

http://www.fractalgallery.co.uk/
"Makin' Magic Music" on Jango
Tglad
Fractal Molossus
**
Posts: 703


WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2010, 06:22:33 AM »

Uh? If mass was a dimension then you would expect to see multiple objects with the same x,y,z coordinates but different mass.
Just as the z dimension allows separate objects to have the same x,y coordinates.
Different mass objects would pass through each other.
Logged
sonofthort
Alien
***
Posts: 24


hmm


WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 31, 2010, 07:36:45 AM »

You should be able to specify "where something is" by providing it's dimensional coordinates.  You need the x,y,z, and you also need the t (time), to specify when it happens (because when it happens is just as important a coordinate as the x-y-z).  I would also argue that the 5th dimension comes into play a lot in normal conversation and people are completely unaware of it.  "I will be at such and such a location next week as long as x happens".  Just as you specify physical coordinates and time coordinates people often have to specify the outcome coordinate.

As I understand it a form of electromagnetic radiation is the conventional view of gravity though no-one has managed to prove this - hence my suggestion that it may just be the strong nuclear force acting over large distances - vanishingly small for individual particles but possibly adding up to "gravity" for larger masses i.e. such that the strong nuclear force is very, very powerful at short distances, drops off rapidly over distance but such that the rate of reduction decreases over distance - so that in fact over very small range the nuclear force beats the electromagnetic, over larger ranges the electromagnetic is stronger but over even larger ranges the nuclear force (though very weak per particle) is again stronger than the electromagnetic (for said particle) and is called gravity.

I can see that mathematically one can essentially treat time as a 4th dimension, but to me I still see it as a consequence of entropic decay rather than a physical dimension that is essentially a 4th spatial dimension such that existence can be twisted so a distance becomes time in physical reality. Mass on the other hand I can quite easily accept as a 4th dimension that is essentially equivalent to any spatial dimension and could be twisted to become exactly such. In fact I waould argue that the conversion of mass to energy and vice-versa actually bears out this idea.
To put it another way I cannot visualise spatial dimensions being analogous in some way to (the rate of) entropic change.

Another conventional explanation of gravity is the Einstein space-time bending, that there are actually no messenger particles for the gravitational force.  Also, I am having trouble understanding your view on dimensions.  How is mass or energy itself a dimension?  Is there an x, y, z, and m (mass) coordinate to space?
« Last Edit: October 31, 2010, 07:38:26 AM by sonofthort » Logged
David Makin
Global Moderator
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 2286



Makin' Magic Fractals
WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2010, 03:47:17 PM »


Another conventional explanation of gravity is the Einstein space-time bending, that there are actually no messenger particles for the gravitational force.  Also, I am having trouble understanding your view on dimensions.  How is mass or energy itself a dimension?  Is there an x, y, z, and m (mass) coordinate to space?

I see mass as an expression relating to size in the 4th dimension e.g. the mass of a proton is its size in ther 4th dimension - considering all objects simply as waveforms (or strange attractors) then a proton includes wave motion through at least 5 dimensions - 3 normal spatial ones, "mass" and ionic (possibly plus others), a neutron is the same minus any ionic component (slightly different component in mass), an electron is the same as a proton but with a much smaller component in the mass and an opposing component in the ionic, a photon is the same without any mass or ionic components.
Considering just 4 dimensions (3 standard spatial plus mass) as analogous to quaternions then the dimension giving mass would be "r" and the spatial ones would be "i, j, k" - explaining both why mass is perceived differently to space and how mass/(kinetic)energy are interchangeable since mass itself is a size in the mass dimension rather than a location.
Logged

The meaning and purpose of life is to give life purpose and meaning.

http://www.fractalgallery.co.uk/
"Makin' Magic Music" on Jango
sonofthort
Alien
***
Posts: 24


hmm


WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 31, 2010, 08:58:31 PM »

Sounds very interesting.  I have a lot of reading to do on particles to catch up to you.
Logged
David Makin
Global Moderator
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 2286



Makin' Magic Fractals
WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2010, 04:22:27 AM »

Sounds very interesting.  I have a lot of reading to do on particles to catch up to you.

I doubt it - my ideas are just my ideas, I've read quite a bit on physics but am not a physicist in any respect - it's just that I disagree fundamentally with many of the current theories as they all seemed to be based on the idea that time is a dimension in the physical sense which is something I do not believe to be correct.
Also I envisage "particles" (protons etc.) as collections of one or more infinitessimal points moving in defined paths at essentially infinite speed (such that the whole is essentially spherical) where the paths/orbits followed are strange attractors, the properties of the "particles" being a direct consequence of the number of singularities/orbits concerned and the paths of these orbits through some of however many dimensions there happen to be and possibly other characteristics such as the direction of travel along the orbital paths.

The idea that gravity is simply the sum of many strong nuclear forces acrting over distance was actually an idea that occurred to both myself and a friend of mine when we watched the recent BBC2 programme about the atom - it covered old ground in that I already understood that the nuclear and ionic forces have different decay profiles over distance - it was when my friend Ian mentioned gravity that we both suddenly thought that maybe the decay profiles are such that over larger distances the nuclear force again exceeds the ionic and this residue at greater distances is in fact gravity.
Logged

The meaning and purpose of life is to give life purpose and meaning.

http://www.fractalgallery.co.uk/
"Makin' Magic Music" on Jango
sonofthort
Alien
***
Posts: 24


hmm


WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2010, 05:38:50 AM »

I also have read a bit about physics and have developed some of my own ideas.  My main beef with mainstream physics is it's over obsession with relativity.  Einstien opened tremendous doors for us, but I feel that relativity is useful mainly for making accurate measurements and perhaps has been taken a little bit too far. Einstien proposed that an objects speed through space affects it's speed through time, that an objects speed through space affects its physical length, and that there is no absolute space and absolute time; that everything progresses through "space-time" at it's own rate.  All of these seem to be simply illusions one might witness which are purely a result of the speed of light being finite, and at best represent a system of making calculations which factor in relativity, but does not actually mean that for intsance an object actual length distorts relative to its speed, and I have yet to have anybody prove to me otherwise.

I believe that absolute space and absolute time are indeed the correct explaination of the universe.  This also fits in with a pseudo theory I've been working on for quite sometime.  I believe that just as there are quanta for types of energy (fundamental particles), that there may also exist space quanta, time quanta, and perhaps even velocity quanta (and quanta for just about every type of physical measurement we may make).  Funny enough, the idea of space and time quanta seem to correspond very nicely to plank constants, and also would explain why there is a universal speed limit c (matter can move a maximum distance of one space quanta per one time quanta).

Also, before I babble too much, I am skeptical of the existense of black holes.  They have yet to be observed or proven, and could very well be the resulting implications of incorrect gravitational models (the force which any physicist will admit we understand the least).
« Last Edit: November 01, 2010, 05:45:58 AM by sonofthort » Logged
Tglad
Fractal Molossus
**
Posts: 703


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2010, 08:05:18 AM »

"My main beef with mainstream physics is it's over obsession with relativity"
I think the "obsession" is because it is the most accurate model of large scale reality, used in the calculation of satellite orbits, in correct GPS calculations (as the clocks on the satellite run at a slightly different speed to on earth), seen in the lensing of galaxies, and the red-shifting of stars.
Astronomers may even detect the wobble from gravity waves in the next few years when LISA launches.

"matter can move a maximum distance of one space quanta per one time quanta"
Does that mean that normal objects move at a fraction of a space quanta per one time quanta? How can you have a fraction of a quanta?

"I am skeptical of the existense of black holes"
Fair enough, no photo of one yet. However, bending of light is proven, larger mass bends light further. So above a certain mass it will bend light inwards, hence the star will appear black. If you don't believe this will happen you need to think of an alternative, why shouldn't light bend inwards on high mass objects?

Just being your helpful critic here smiley
« Last Edit: November 01, 2010, 08:53:34 AM by Tglad » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
The best image ever Images Showcase (Rate My Fractal) DarkBeam 5 1818 Last post January 24, 2012, 03:54:37 PM
by DarkBeam
2-D FractInt image looks like 3-D image FractInt Gallery simon.snake 8 2214 Last post March 13, 2012, 12:47:57 AM
by David Makin
Deepest known image Mandelbrot & Julia Set « 1 2 » LesPaul 27 8272 Last post May 10, 2013, 09:27:50 AM
by grobblewobble
Image convolution General Discussion matsoljare 14 3057 Last post March 29, 2014, 10:34:02 AM
by kram1032
new image by stefano (ziegfrid) Images Showcase (Rate My Fractal) cKleinhuis 1 706 Last post April 22, 2013, 04:59:13 AM
by zonepatcher

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM
Page created in 0.307 seconds with 24 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.011s, 2q)