Re: Can if life effect cosmic development and is a supertask possable?

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:50 AM, john <[email protected]> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], Bruno Marchal <marchal@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 16 Jun 2013, at 16:41, john wrote:
> >
> > > Can life or any physical action effect the future outcome of the
> > > universe's physical development.
> > >
> > > Could life drastically change the course of the universe and stop
> > > the heat death.
> > >
> > > I do think life (intelligence) can change many things but can life
> > > steer the universe into a different end? Is a supertask impossible?
> > >
> > Assuming such a universe exist, you might need supermoney, and ...
> > Superman.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I have just barely grasped "background independence" and it has made
> > > me more likely to accept things happening beyond human conception
> > > and reality being much larger since everything is a process. With is
> > > saying to me everything is software there is no hardware.
> > >
> > This follows logically (+occam) from the computationalist theory of
> > mind. It makes physical reality appears from number relations, seen
> > from the relative first person point of view.
> >
> > Arithmetic contains a web of dreams in which we are infinitely
> > distributed, and the question of knowing if this defined an unique
> > multiverse, or a cluster of multiverses, or something more complex, is
> > open (hard math).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Lastly is there any physical transformation or physical processes
> > > that cannot be visually represented? I have been thinking about this
> > > for a long time.
> > >
> > That question is unclear. We can always visualize partially anything
> > we point too. Then we know that in arithmetic we have already the non
> > computable, the non provable, the non definable, and if you define
> > enough well what you mean by "visually representable" you can bet that
> > there will be infinities of non visually representable things.
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> >
> > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
> >
>
> > " That question is unclear. We can always visualize partially anything "
>
> Very delicate objects that cannot be seen (measured) ever in its true
> form without distortion. Despite this could we use round about ways
> to actually see them (in particular) with algorithms alone?
>
> Let the system evolve and measure some other exterior part effected by
> what is being measured. If that is that possible then what would
> that say about reality as a whole if you can in a sense "hack" the system.
>
> what I mean by this is to use the algorithm as a wall to bounce data
> off it to predict a secondary phenomenon to a degree that would be
> other wise imposable, then reverse engineer that data to see what you
> could not see normally.
>
> Also I stand by original question and would like to upgrade it to
> this; could a CGI film correctly represent the best interpretation of
> the Multiverse visually.
>
> Is the hole Multiverse a process you can
> create an approximate object representation of? For some reason I see it
> as like an apple with two polls with two ends and the inside is pure noise.
>
> Can we point to the multiverse.
>
>  
>

That would be the ultimate "butterfly effect"

(for life to influence the cosmos)