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

--- In [email protected], "DIMITRI" <adrian_harris_d94@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- 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 to bear in mind that life in it self and of itself is a part of the very universe that it will or will not change.



Yes life is part of the universe the whole of reality obviously. but is consciousness emergent is life greater then the sum of the parts?