Set which contains every possible image..

[sonofthort]

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.

Which is why I said relativity is useful for calculations.  The point I am trying to make is that we do need to factor in relativity, but this doesn't mean objects stretch or compress when moving, or that objects move through time more slowly when moving at higher velocities, these are simply what we would observe due to light taking a finite time to reach our eyes (and our measurement instruments). My main point is that relativity has breed a belief that absolute space and absolute time are no longer correct models of the universe, that "space-time" is the true fabric of the universe.  It is the true fabric of making good calculations.

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?

This means that objects essentially build up the energy to make a leap to the next space quanta.  At the speed of light, an object would always move one space quanta per time quanta.  Slower objects might occupy a single space quanta over several time quanta before making the move to the next space quanta.

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?

"It is the result of the deformation of spacetime caused by a very compact mass." -Wikipedia. 

I have no problem with the idea of a gravitational field so strong that it actually bends light into it's center, however, I am not convinced that gravity (and black holes by extension) are the result of deformed spacetime.  Many of the theoretical implications of black holes stem from this understanding of gravity.

[Tglad]

Well clocks slow down when orbiting the earth, GPS would be off if we didn't adjust for this effect. You could say that time isn't slowing down for the satellite, its just that everything is moving slower, the electrons are orbiting the atoms more slowly, the radioactive decay in the clock is happening more slowly, the elastic forces operate more slowly, etc.
You could say this and you'd be right, but think how many laws of physics you have to adjust if you think of time as not slowing down, basically every one. Whereas if you think of time as slowing down, it is just a scale value on t.
In other words, the non-absoluteness of time is the simplest explanation. You can make an equivalent of relativity in absolute terms but it is just a lot more complicated and so doesn't gain anything. Usually the simplest definition is the most insightful.

I do agree that looking at the same measurements from different perspectives is a good practice.
Hmm, this thread is getting way off topic, fun to discuss though 

[ErkDemon]

FYI, the "library containing every possible book" idea was explored by Jorge Luis Borges, in his short story "The Library of Babel". It's one of the most influential short stories of the Twentieth Century.

I'm not going to get involved in the relativity discussion.

Eric

[Kali]

@ErkDemon, as I was reading the whole thread, I thought the first thing I will be replying is what you actually pointed, the Borges short story...
We, the Argentine people, have the bad habit of always looking for the opportunity to mention and praise our famous personalities, and I'm not the exception
I really encourage anybody to read Borges, I think is one of the greatest writers of all time (see what I'm talking about?  )

Well, I will try to use my limited english knowledge to express my ideas that are difficult to express even in my own language, so expect the unexpectable!

First of all, I had this idea before of a monitor that show all possible images. I mean the exactly same idea of a computer monitor!
I was reading about multiverses at that time, and I did the following mental excercise: If pure random really exists, and it's true that each possibility exists simultaneously in different universes at the same time, a true and pure random-generating monitor will actually show all of the images at the time, speaking in multiverse terms. So, in nearly most universes random noise will occurr, but some of the multiple persons running this experiment in some of the alternate realities, will experience really interesting stuff. Think of the possibilities... the person can condition itself for reacting at this in different ways... he can say: "if the image looks like instructions for building something, I will do it. If it looks like a chemical formula, I will try to obtain it and then drink it (ok, the person must be crazy enough for this ). Definitely, if this theory is right, some of the alternate realities will be seriously altered by our random generator. If we take the examples I mentioned, some real Iron-mans and Hulks may occur (ok, just joking  - but you know what I mean).
Or we can simplify this, and just take a true-random number generator (i.e. based on radiactive decay), then win the lottery of an alternative universe (or this universe, if we are lucky enough). Even when there is no inter-multiverse bank transactions, we are somehow making ourselves millonaires 
Obviously this is pseudoscientific, but still fun to imagine don't you think? - However, some scientists believe that this can replace creationism theories that points to some cosmological constants and circustances too much improbable to occur, like they were put "by hand" to make life possible. They believes that life exists because it's possible, almost impossible but possible enough to exist in at least one of the multiverses. And the fact that there are living beings asking theirselves how life could be possible, means that we are in this particular multiverse

Second point: Relativity Theory... OK, the theory fits well to many observations and no objections to the theory itself.
My objection is to what science thinks of reality.

Take this:

- All of our experience happens in our minds. Even when external stimulus are involved (or not... yes, I said "or not"), our reality is a representation of what we think is out there, if any (yes, I said "if any"). What's with it? Theories may fit to what we experience with information constructed based on our senses, but we can't, as humans, and with the current way of scientific thinking, find a "theory of all". We will find more and more theories that fits with our waking life physical experiences, and I it's great! but never... i mean NEVER, such thing as a "unified theory of ALL". Is even insulting to hear that. Even we can't find the theory of "ALL we experience", because there are lots of what we experience that is not being taking in count by our current scientific methods.

- Philosophy apart, all of our direct and indirect measuring is done thanks to electromagnetic interactions. All other forces are somehow deducted but not directly experienced. Do we experience gravity directly? no, we experience the repeling electromagnetic forces when we, for example, fall into the ground, or see something falling thanks to light, wich is EM radiation. Do we experience kinetic force directly? Again, no. We see moving things (light:EM radiation), we feel ourselves moving (air friction:EM repulsion). Do we experience nuclear forces directly? No, we can sense the EM radiation produced by it.
I'm not saying nothing exists but EM force (but is a good point for discussing). I'm saying that, if EM has limited speed, everything that we experience will suffer from this limitation. GPS will fail, ok. Gravitational lenses occurs, ok. But is all EM-force based and the theory adjust all to EM's properties in order to match what we experience. If we can't percieve anything without EM forces, so relativity rules our reality. But we can't say for sure that reality is only this. Even our percieved reality can be really really different from a point of view outside our brains. So If we are only our brains, thinking of other realities makes nosense. I hope we are not, and I don't feel like only a brain.

There's too much to say about this, but post is too long already

One thing I must say is that sometimes I write like I always got the reason and the truth, but please insert "maybe" into any affirmation I make, because I always open to everything and I'm not sure of nothing.

I really like this thread, hope you'll continue posting... 

[DarkBeam]

Kali your post is really funny
Using a random image generator to explore another reality is the craziest thing I ever heard

[kronikel]

This is something I've thought about.
If you take any fractal and assume 2 things, that it goes on infinitely and that it never fully repeats itself, then there is a picture of yourself in there somewhere.

[Hypercube]

To go back to the original question and one of the first answers -
that only a vanishingly small proportion of the images would be interesting ...
isnt the holy grail of fractal information compression
to figure out what the rules are that decide which images are patently chaotic
and which ones contain the sort of structures that we perceive as reality?
Isnt that why we are particularly fascinated by any fractal image
that reminds us of real world phenomena?

[lkmitch]

This is something I've thought about.
If you take any fractal and assume 2 things, that it goes on infinitely and that it never fully repeats itself, then there is a picture of yourself in there somewhere.

Not necessarily.  The Mandelbrot set goes on infinitely (infinitely deep) and never fully repeats itself, but there's no picture of a Taco Bell sign in there.  There's a big (and subtle) difference between "going on infinitely" and "containing everything."  The latter implies the former, but the former does not imply the latter.

For another example, take the decimal representation of pi: 3.14159...  It goes on forever and never repeats itself, but you'll never find your car keys in there.  Or the letter "A," if we stick to the numerals 0-9.

[Syntopia]

For another example, take the decimal representation of pi: 3.14159...  It goes on forever and never repeats itself, but you'll never find your car keys in there.  Or the letter "A," if we stick to the numerals 0-9.

You won't find a physical object in any number sequence, but you most likely would find a decimal representation of a picture of your car keys if you searched long enough. (It is believed - though not proven -  that pi contains any finite sequence, thus pi is believed to contain all possible encodings of all possible images)

For an example of something that goes on forever and never repeats itself, but doesn't contain all possible sequences, consider: 1010010001000100001...

[DarkBeam]

Oh no, somebody still trusts Kali!!!

 

[Tabasco Raremaster]

Check out my spring contest 2011 entry in the 2d section.

White light contains all colors so a single white light emiting screen contains all possible images at the same time.

*Note: if you see white light at the end of a tunnel , make sure it`s not an aproaching train

[iteron]

Physicists often combine three-dimensional space and one-dimensional time into a four-dimensional entity called spacetime.

Time appears as a dimension because in maths we don't have to concern ourselves with a physical interpretation. Any dynamic process is time dependent.

Time doesn't exist physically like the three-dimensional universe does, it's an abstract measurement.

We always treat time as continuous. 

Points in spacetime represent events that are labeled by the four position and time coordinates x,y,z,t needed to locate an event.

Since it takes four quantities to specify a given event physicists say that spacetime is four-dimensional only in that sense.

I see it as a way to represent continuous motion.

As to the actual nature of time itself and how it works that's a different and very complicated question.

[puntopunto]

By accident I stumbled upon this topic and I cannot resist to post a comment. Starting with the first post

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.

I suppose you mean "all possible images, that this monitor can produce", then the time it takes, no matter how long it takes to show one of the (16mil)^(1240*1024) possibilities, is finite. If you do one image per second it will take exactly (16mil)^(1240*1024) seconds.

If you mean "will you have then all possible images", the answer is :no

proof
imagine all (16mil)^(1240*1024) possible and different from each other, images, on a row. Take the first image. Draw a nice thin white, one pixel line around that picture. That picture is certainly different from all the pictures in the row.
Another proof:
This is a picture of zero

      0

Now we decide from now on we represent zero with another picture, the black screen from the monitor above. Then we create a picture for 1, by changing a pixel in color, then we creating 2, by chancing again the color from that pixel. Going on and on we can create images of all numbers up to (16mil)^(1240*1024) . But It is not possible to create an image for (16mil)^(1240*1024) +1.

This idea is interesting because, if there is a human being who can remember all the screens together with the number it represent, then, for him, every screen picture would have meaning.

Now, make a drawing. Will that drawing be in the row of all possible pictures of the monitor.
The answer is: no. More precise the probability that it will be there is, believe it or not,  zero. (I will come back on this later)

Take a picture of your drawing with you digital camera, or take 1000 pictures. Render them on your monitor. Are they in the row from above. Sure. Because the monitor can show them, they must be in the row.
Now, sit down for the monitor. Let it show pictures, at random, out the row from above. Will you see one of the pictures of your drawing. The chance to see one is definitely not zero. But "Will you see one?"
 Eh, no.
 Let`s make the chance (probability)  a bit bigger. Let us take all pictures rendered by the monitor that has a meaning for you, that you recognize as....... Will you see one of them? The probability that this happens is certainly millions and millions times bigger as the first probability. But will you recognize something?
 Eh,eh no.
This has nothing to do with infinity. It has to do with big numbers and really big numbers. And the huge difference between them.

I cannot know how many screen captures of the monitor will have a meaning for you. But I am sure there will be no more than 10^157 such pictures. Why I take 10^157? Because I can connect it to something, that has some meaning for you: There are billions of galaxies, with billions of stars. billions of planets. On our earth there are billions and billions of molocules. Nevertheless the total number of all particles in the universe is smaller than 10^157. This is a big number. Bit not really big.
But can you image that there are actually more than the number of particles in the universe pictures stored in your brain, and having a meaning for you? It seems a save upper bound. Now what is the probability to see one of those pictures? It is 10^157/(16mil)^(1240*1024). And that is not a small, but a really small number. To make it even more clear. Imagine 10 billion worlds, with 10 billion people, all watching for 10 billion years to a monitor, with every second a picture, at random. out of the possible pictures of that screen. They will have seen about 10^36 pictures. The possibility that one person, on one of those planets, at one moment will see a picture with some meaning for him is about 10^36*10^157/(16mil)^(1240*1024). About 10^(7000000-193). Still a very small number.
Although the probability is not zero, for every practical purpose it is. Looking to a monitor, generating pictures ad random, you will see, for certain, only grey shaded, flickering images.

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..

I don't think so. It is exactly the opposite. The number of somethings in the universe is finite. And although the number of everythings you have imagined is finite, your possibilities are infinite. And many, many things you have imagined don't exist in the universe. For instance all , I repeat, all math objects do not exist in the real world. Zero is not lying in the grass, 1 is not hanging in a tree. There are no straight lines, no perfect cubes in the universe, and no 10 dimensional sphere either. It may be sad, but math don't really exist.

Back to the probability of zero, the probability that the screen renders you self made picture. The space of pictures, the space where pictures "lives" is uncountable infinite. Now we have to make a difference between countable infinite, that is when you can put the elements of the space in an infinite row, and uncountable infinite if that is not possible. The natural numbers are countable, the real's aren't.  If you pick out, ad random, a real, the probability that number is a natural one, or even a rational one, is zero. Quite a paradox. (The problem is, we do not have a mechanism to take ad random a real). Maybe this will clear up things a bit: The surface of the line x=1 is zero. The surface of all lines x=1, x=2, x=3,  ......(that are countable many lines) is also zero. Nevertheless the surface of all lines x=a, x between 0 and 1 is.....infinite.

In an uncountable infinite space the probability that something out of a countable set of elements of that space happens is zero.

Some people think that all images are in the Mandelbrot set.
I don't think so.
There are uncountable many images in that set. But that is not "all images".
I think that there are no straight lines or a square in the set. There must be a mathematician that can prove such a thing.

Also the argument of Syntopia, by working around this , by coding, is not correct. You cannot code all images, an uncountable set, with for instance the countable many subsets of the decimals in PI.

[visual.bermarte]

'In a symmetric universe wherein only two symmetrical spheres exist, the two spheres are two distinct objects, even though they have all the properties in common' from Max Black   talking about Identity of indiscernibles.

[M Benesi]

  Old post but..

  If we wrote something that went through all of the possible screens, we could go through every possible combination of images for a 640x480 256 color image relatively quickly.

  At 60 frames a second, an hour a day, it would take ~364.09 days to watch every conceivable permutation.  Maybe have anti-aliasing, and a couple other slight adjustments-although these would be covered by the pixel permutations.  Your brain would fill in the rest.  

  I'm wondering what type of effect it would have on someone.  It would be possible to acclimate people to every possible image- at least on some level.

  At least it would be a Guinness record...  who's gonna do it?  1 hour a day, need a couple of witnesses.