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

--- In [email protected], "john" <johnstifter@...> 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.
>

While it is interesting and thought provoking to consider the possibilities of what life can and cannot change, we have bear in mind that life in and of itself is a part of the very universe that it will or will not change. Can the molecules in water change without the water being changed? I think that at the core, our lives constantly alters the universe just as we change ourselves.