Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Wordman wordman@*******.com
Subject: The quantum Matrix (RE: Ya know....)
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 13:46:40 -0400
> \ Interestingly, Mr. Adams describes the world of a video game, where both
> \ time and space is quantized.
>
> Does that mean that both time and space are quantized in the Matrix?

I would think it would have to be. It is likely quantized small enough as to
be perceived as continuous, like, say CD music is. To be run by what is
currently defined as a computer, it would need to have both discrete time
and position.

Two things. One: Computers have different quantized limits at different
times and for different reasons. For example, a computer could track the
actual position of a rocket with great accuracy (as much as its floating
point system would allow). On the other hand, to paint a rocket, a computer
is limited to the number of pixels available, which will have much less
resolution than the floating point number would.

Second: It would be interesting to think of what it would mean if the Matrix
was not quantized. A truly infinite computer system would be... interesting.
Message no. 2
From: Mark A Shieh SHODAN+@***.EDU
Subject: The quantum Matrix (RE: Ya know....)
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:19:20 -0400 (EDT)
"Wordman" <wordman@*******.com> writes:
> > \ Interestingly, Mr. Adams describes the world of a video game, where both
> > \ time and space is quantized.
> >
> > Does that mean that both time and space are quantized in the Matrix?
>
> I would think it would have to be. It is likely quantized small enough as to
> be perceived as continuous, like, say CD music is. To be run by what is
> currently defined as a computer, it would need to have both discrete time
> and position.

Not necessarily true. My opinion is that the Matrix has
discrete time, but not necessarily discrete position or resolution.
What gets sent to a cyberdeck is definitely discrete, but the quality
of the host determines the discreteness, and cheaper cyberdecks
request lower-quality discreteness due to hardware limitations.

> Two things. One: Computers have different quantized limits at different
> times and for different reasons. For example, a computer could track the
> actual position of a rocket with great accuracy (as much as its floating
> point system would allow). On the other hand, to paint a rocket, a computer
> is limited to the number of pixels available, which will have much less
> resolution than the floating point number would.

Sorry if you've heard this before, but I just want to make
sure for everyone else... :)

First of all, you can have arbitary accuracy on your floating
point system. It's a matter of how much of a performance hit you're
willing to accept, and how much space you're going to need to store
them. So, the matrix is probably quantized, but the degree of
accuracy probably varies from system to system, depending on the needs
of the users.

So, as far as painting a rocket goes, you might be able to
produce a formula p(t) that would return coordinates and direction for
any t you want. Is it quantized? The output that the user sees is
likely quantized, but as far as the computer is concerned, it knows
where the rocket is to arbitrary time, so time is not discrete.

Same thing with position. If, with todays technology, you
asked for a picture of a rocket, you're likely to get back an image of
X x Y pixels, with so many bits for color. However, if the rocket is
defines as, say, a bunch of Bezier surfaces (I think Quake 3 will
support this), then what you have is exact to whatever precision you
want. If you can define your object as a Bezier surface, than you
have a mathematical formula for calculating your object. Quake 3
takes advantage of this by allowing an object to have so many polygons
depending on how close it is, so objects close to the viewer have more
polygons for more detail. Once it has determined how many polygons
are in the image, it produces an approximation by asking the formula
of the Bezier surface for a bunch of points on the surface and renders
an approximation using polygons.
Again, the computer knows with arbitrary accuracy what a
rocket looks like, but it (or quake 3) just produces a rough
approximation, because that's the best image you're going to get out
of the hardware and still get 30 frames per second (or however many
you want). If you were to give it all the time in the world, it would
produce for you an image of a rocket with the corresponding amount of
precision.

Now, of course, the issues are being able to reduce these
objects to mathematical models. For the issue of time, you need to
know where the object will be in the future to provide a formula for
where it will be between now and then. If it's a scripted sequence of
actions, then you know the formula, but otherwise, it's not always
possible to predict the future. For the issue of modeling, or drawing
a rocket, you need to be able to produce a mathematical model of the
object. An easy object, for example, would be a steel marble. It is
opaque, and it is perfectly spherical. A hard example? A poorly made
glass marble. It has countless imperfections, it is translucent, yet
the amount of translucency varies throughout the marble. It's round,
but not perfectly so. Hard examples are easy to find. :)
Many of the problems in computer graphics today are an issue
of producing what looks like reality in a reasonable amount of time,
not that of doing it at all. Two definitions of "reasonable" are
about 1/30th of a second, for real-time work such as computer games,
or an hour or two, for things like FMVs (see A Bug's Life or Toy Story
for examples of frames that can be rendered in under a couple of hours
on several year old technology). If it gets much more than that,
you're not going to finish 2 hours of movie anytime soon.

Mark
Message no. 3
From: Wordman wordman@*******.com
Subject: The quantum Matrix (RE: Ya know....)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:55:04 -0400
> Not necessarily true. My opinion is that the Matrix has
> discrete time, but not necessarily discrete position or resolution.
> What gets sent to a cyberdeck is definitely discrete, but the quality
> of the host determines the discreteness, and cheaper cyberdecks
> request lower-quality discreteness due to hardware limitations.

I see no problem with that. But the host also has its own level of
discreetness.

> First of all, you can have arbitrary accuracy on your floating
> point system.

Not exactly. You cannot have arbitrary accuracy on _a_ floating point
system. You _can_ pick a floating point system that is as accurate as you
want. Whatever system you pick, however, will still have its limits. Most
software uses the floating point system of the processor on which it runs,
and these are almost always of fixed resolution.

Floating point numbers are very useful, but any single floating point system
does not have arbitrary accuracy. They are good at representing both really
big numbers and very small numbers, but can be overwhelmed by a number that
is both. For example, a number with thirty digits both before _and_ after
the decimal is not representable by a single floating point number under
most floating point systems. You could, however, choose to use a different
floating point system that could represent this number (generally by
increasing the number of bits used to hold the number). Eventually, though,
any non-infinite system will reach its limit. All numbering systems on
computers are non-infinite.

> It's a matter of how much of a performance hit you're
> willing to accept, and how much space you're going to need to store
> them. So, the matrix is probably quantized, but the degree of
> accuracy probably varies from system to system, depending on the needs
> of the users.

I disagree with this. The Matrix is standardized, so it is likely that every
system uses the same floating point system. I suppose the standard might be
some sort of adaptable system.

> So, as far as painting a rocket goes, you might be able to
> produce a formula p(t) that would return coordinates and direction for
> any t you want. Is it quantized? The output that the user sees is
> likely quantized, but as far as the computer is concerned, it knows
> where the rocket is to arbitrary time, so time is not discrete.

The time used in the formula above is not discrete, but time is still
discrete to the computer. You have to separate the way the computer works
from the problem that _you_ think the computer is solving. The computer has
no knowledge that it is solving the formula p(t). All it knows is that it is
executing instructions, and it is definitely executing instructions at very
discrete time intervals. The above example is a great illustration that you
_can_ represent non-quantized systems in a computer, but the computer, at
some level, can _only_ treat them inside quantized time and state. This
sounds like sorcery, but it really isn't. Computers do one thing above all:
simulate other things. The most basic things computers simulate are
mathematical functions. Most mathematical functions are continuous
(non-discrete). Most are even infinite in their solution space. The trick is
that even an infinite function has a finite solution space when run on a
computer. The solution is limited by the ability of that computer to
represent numbers for both input and output of the function. The solution
space is also quantized by the resolution of the numeric system used by that
computer. Granted, this solution space is still extremely large, so large
that you probably won't _notice_ that it is finite, but it is definitely
finite. As the poster says, you can take steps to make the finite space
bigger (by choosing a numbering system with greater resolution), but it will
still be finite.

Another thing to consider is that most simulations are also simplified in
some way. For example, a model of planetary orbits will usually assume that
the planets are single points in space. This is not really true, of course,
but is true enough for the simulation to work. This kind of simplification
could be thought of as another level of quantization, though I think that's
pushing it a little.

> However, if the rocket is
> defines as, say, a bunch of Bezier surfaces (I think Quake 3 will
> support this), then what you have is exact to whatever precision you
> want.

Oo! This is a _great_ example of what I said before about computers having
different quantized limits at different times and for different reasons.
"Whatever precision you want", does _not_ mean "non-quantized". Once
you
pick a precision, you have _defined_ the resolution of the quantization.

> If you can define your object as a Bezier surface, than you
> have a mathematical formula for calculating your object. Quake 3
> takes advantage of this by allowing an object to have so many polygons
> depending on how close it is, so objects close to the viewer have more
> polygons for more detail.

This is why this is such a good example of the different levels of
quantization going on in computers. Bezier curves are limited only by the
chosen floating point resolution, which is huge (very, very huge). Quake
adds a less sharp resolution with the polygons. Even more, just by painting
these polygons to the screen, the computer uses an even less sharp
resolution, that of pixels. So, that's three different levels of
quantization going on at the same time. Add in the frame rate of the game
and that is another. Add in the clock rate of the computer, and that is
another. There are still others, like the values chosen for the colors of
the pixels and so on.

To get back to the original point of this thread: when all is said and done,
this _looks_ like it is infinite and continuous to humans but, ultimately,
it is not.

> Many of the problems in computer graphics today are an issue
> of producing what looks like reality in a reasonable amount of time,
> not that of doing it at all.

This totally correct, but this isn't really what I am talking about when
saying computers are quantized.

Wordman
Message no. 4
From: Da Twink Daddy datwinkdaddy@*******.com
Subject: The quantum Matrix (RE: Ya know....)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:30:12 -0500 (CDT)
Today, Wordman spoke on RE: The quantum Matrix (RE: Ya know....):

> > Not necessarily true. My opinion is that the Matrix has
> > discrete time, but not necessarily discrete position or resolution.
> > What gets sent to a cyberdeck is definitely discrete, but the quality
> > of the host determines the discreteness, and cheaper cyberdecks
> > request lower-quality discreteness due to hardware limitations.
>
> I see no problem with that. But the host also has its own level of
> discreetness.

But, that doesn't really have to constrain the client. For example,
instead of redering with the hosts processor the host can just communicate
the formulae to any client with greater processing power and that client
will see an 'improved' version of what everyone else sees.

> > First of all, you can have arbitrary accuracy on your floating
> > point system.
>
> Not exactly. You cannot have arbitrary accuracy on _a_ floating point
> system. You _can_ pick a floating point system that is as accurate as you
> want. Whatever system you pick, however, will still have its limits. Most
> software uses the floating point system of the processor on which it runs,
> and these are almost always of fixed resolution.

No. The BigDecimal that comes with Java can adjust its accuracy on the fly
and *each calculation* can be as arbitrarily correct as you want it. I'm
not saying that makes it non-quantized, I'm saying the second statement
above is incorrect.

It's actually fairly easy to write (in a combination of asmembly and c++)
both a Integer and a Real class that can handle as many digits as your
comuter has memory for (and for the Real class, it doesn't care which side
of the decimal they are on.)

> Floating point numbers are very useful, but any single floating point system
> does not have arbitrary accuracy. They are good at representing both really
> big numbers and very small numbers, but can be overwhelmed by a number that
> is both. For example, a number with thirty digits both before _and_ after
> the decimal is not representable by a single floating point number under
> most floating point systems. You could, however, choose to use a different
> floating point system that could represent this number (generally by
> increasing the number of bits used to hold the number).

Like I said before, given the processing power available in 2060, there
will be *no* problem representing a number to say 400 digits. [IIRC,
that's more accuarate than the atomic clock right now, our best measure of
time. Maybe that means the computer is less quantized than reality?]

> Eventually, though,
> any non-infinite system will reach its limit. All numbering systems on
> computers are non-infinite.

However, often the limit of a finine system turns into a infinite system.
At some point, one could speculate, a computer will be able to do
*everything* at such an accuracy that no human of other computer could
tell the difference from reality. Then, who can say that it is *not*
reality (and just as accurate/non-quantized?)

> > It's a matter of how much of a performance hit you're
> > willing to accept, and how much space you're going to need to store
> > them. So, the matrix is probably quantized, but the degree of
> > accuracy probably varies from system to system, depending on the needs
> > of the users.
>
> I disagree with this. The Matrix is standardized, so it is likely that every
> system uses the same floating point system. I suppose the standard might be
> some sort of adaptable system.

Exactly, I agree that it is standard (to an extent) but I believe that a
host/client/etc. can choose what ever 'performance hit' they want to
render as accurate results as they need.

<snip: big chunk>

I read most of this and I agreed.

> > However, if the rocket is
> > defines as, say, a bunch of Bezier surfaces (I think Quake 3 will
> > support this), then what you have is exact to whatever precision you
> > want.
>
> Oo! This is a _great_ example of what I said before about computers having
> different quantized limits at different times and for different reasons.
> "Whatever precision you want", does _not_ mean "non-quantized".
Once you
> pick a precision, you have _defined_ the resolution of the quantization.

Hrm, really you could say that the universe is quantized, because no I can
get accuracy to 'whatever precision I want' but no more than that.

In math, there is the idea of infinity. The best explaination of infinity
to me was/is/will be 'as big as you want.' When you take a limit in
calculus, you say it is infinity (a specific type of doesn't exist) when
you can make it 'as big as you want'

If there really is NO LIMIT on the 'whatever precision you want' it really
is non quantized. [However, realisticly, there will always be that limit
in computers, I guess.]

<snip>
I guess. I don't like thinking of those as quantizations.

> To get back to the original point of this thread: when all is said and done,
> this _looks_ like it is infinite and continuous to humans but, ultimately,
> it is not.

And maybe, that's what reality is. So, maybe *everything* is quantized.
And maybe, if we can't tell, as with a sufficiently powerful computer, it
*is* by some wierd definition, non-quantized.

Da Twink Daddy
e-mail: bss03@*******.uark.edu
ICQ: 514984
Message no. 5
From: Wordman wordman@*******.com
Subject: The quantum Matrix (RE: Ya know....)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:34:44 -0400
> > Not exactly. You cannot have arbitrary accuracy on _a_ floating point
> > system. You _can_ pick a floating point system that is as
> > accurate as you
> > want.

> No. The BigDecimal that comes with Java can adjust its accuracy on the fly
> and *each calculation* can be as arbitrarily correct as you want it. I'm
> not saying that makes it non-quantized, I'm saying the second statement
> above is incorrect.

By agreeing that it is quantized, you are forced to concede that my second
statement is, in fact, correct. With computers, you can never say "as
arbitrarily correct as you want it". If I want it correct to an infinite
degree, the computer cannot do that, because it is quantized. The best you
can do is a system that is "as arbitrarily correct as the computer can make
it". I totally agree that no one is ever likely to care about the difference
between these two statements in the real world. As you say, given enough
effort, a computer can be very accurate indeed.

> It's actually fairly easy to write (in a combination of asmembly and c++)
> both a Integer and a Real class that can handle as many digits as your
> comuter has memory for (and for the Real class, it doesn't care which side
> of the decimal they are on.)

That is true. But that still is not infinite. In fact, you can actually
prove that a computer can never be infinite with this model:

1) A computer can be built to hold a number as large as its memory will
allow, but no bigger.
2) Computer memory is made from matter.
3) The amount of matter in the universe is finite.

Given 2 and 3, you conclude that even given all the matter in the universe,
you cannot build enough memory to hold a finite number.

Something that is more interesting to think about in this vein is the
following concept. I'm not convinced that any of the following is true, but
the logic is interesting if you believe the initial assumptions.

1) In order to exist, information must be stored somehow in matter (in a
brain, in a book, in a quark, etc.)
2) To know something requires information.
3) The amount of matter in the universe is finite.

Given 1 and 3, you conclude that the amount of information in the universe
is finite. Adding 2 into the mix, you can conclude that the universe also
contains a finite amount of knowledge.

> Like I said before, given the processing power available in 2060, there
> will be *no* problem representing a number to say 400 digits. [IIRC,
> that's more accuarate than the atomic clock right now, our best measure of
> time. Maybe that means the computer is less quantized than reality?]

That is an interesting idea. Matter in reality is quantized, ultimately, by
quarks. Would anything be gained by quantizing the Matrix on a level lower
than this? I guess you'd still have problems, because while matter is
quantized in reality, space-time isn't.

> However, often the limit of a finine system turns into a infinite system.
> At some point, one could speculate, a computer will be able to do
> *everything* at such an accuracy that no human of other computer could
> tell the difference from reality.

Chaos theory suggests that this is not the case. I don't know much about
chaos theory, but I do remember an example about the weather. Say you
covered the earth with weather sensors, one sensor every cubit meter. From
this you'd think you could make a good model of the weather and be able to
predict it. It turns out though, that you can't, at least not for very long.
You get a pretty good idea of what will happen in the next hour, even the
next day. But accuracy of predictions beyond that drop off quickly. This is
because random things happen in-between the sensors, and these things can
have radical effects on the whole system, eventually. Most random things
won't, but a couple will. This is called the Butterfly Effect, after the
idea that one of these "random things" might be that a butterfly decides to
flap its wings.

So, the solution might be a tighter sensor net (i.e. making the quantization
of the system less granular). I don't know what happens in this case, but I
suspect chaos theory would tell you that you can only guarantee the
prediction with infinite sensors with no space between them.

The question then, as Da Twink Daddy implies, really is this: how many
sensors are good _enough_? This has long been a stable in computers: how
good is good enough? Clearly, ultraviolet hosts are those that cross the
line into "good enough" territory. Also clearly, standard Matrix iconography
does _not_ cross the line into "good enough". So, I guess the lesson is that
the tech in SR is _just_ approaching the "good enough" level for simulating
reality.

> Hrm, really you could say that the universe is quantized, because no I can
> get accuracy to 'whatever precision I want' but no more than that.

Splitting hairs here, but I think that is not the same thing. What you are
saying here is that your perceptions are quantized, not the universe itself.
A small, but significant difference. Unlike computers, the universe really
does have infinite time resolution and position. At least, I've seen no
evidence to the contrary.

> In math, there is the idea of infinity. The best explanation of infinity
> to me was/is/will be 'as big as you want.' When you take a limit in
> calculus, you say it is infinity (a specific type of doesn't exist) when
> you can make it 'as big as you want'

I think a better explanation for infinity is "as big as there is".

> If there really is NO LIMIT on the 'whatever precision you want' it really
> is non quantized. [However, realisticly, there will always be that limit
> in computers, I guess.]

Right. That's the only point I was trying to make.

I think the real value of this discussion, however is, how close is the
Matrix to being "good enough".

Wordman
Message no. 6
From: dbuehrer@****.org dbuehrer@****.org
Subject: The quantum Matrix (RE: Ya know....)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 12:02:34 -0600
Da Twink Daddy wrote:
\ Today, Wordman spoke on RE: The quantum Matrix (RE: Ya know....):
\
\ > To get back to the original point of this thread: when all is said and
done,
\ > this _looks_ like it is infinite and continuous to humans but, ultimately,
\ > it is not.
\
\ And maybe, that's what reality is. So, maybe *everything* is quantized.
\ And maybe, if we can't tell, as with a sufficiently powerful computer, it
\ *is* by some wierd definition, non-quantized.

It's probably both :)

Anyway, whether the Matrix is in fact quantized or not doesn't matter to
the PCs. What matters to the PC decker is that he just triggered some
Black IC and if he doesn't deal with the issue quickly it's going to smite him.

-Graht
--
"The light is reached not by turning back from the darkness,
but by going through it."
Message no. 7
From: Da Twink Daddy datwinkdaddy@*******.com
Subject: The quantum Matrix (RE: Ya know....)
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 14:51:21 -0500 (CDT)
Today, Wordman spoke on RE: The quantum Matrix (RE: Ya know....):

> > > Not exactly. You cannot have arbitrary accuracy on _a_ floating point
> > > system. You _can_ pick a floating point system that is as
> > > accurate as you
> > > want.
>
> > No. The BigDecimal that comes with Java can adjust its accuracy on the fly
> > and *each calculation* can be as arbitrarily correct as you want it. I'm
> > not saying that makes it non-quantized, I'm saying the second statement
> > above is incorrect.
>
> By agreeing that it is quantized, you are forced to concede that my second
> statement is, in fact, correct.

No, you second statement is you can't have arbitrary accuracy. You can, as
in my reference. If I want 10,000 digits, it will give me 10000 digits, I
can ask for a number 'as big as a want' (infinity) and giving enough time
(infinite) and memory (infinite) it will give me what I asked for.

> With computers, you can never say "as
> arbitrarily correct as you want it". If I want it correct to an infinite
> degree, the computer cannot do that, because it is quantized. The best you
> can do is a system that is "as arbitrarily correct as the computer can make
> it". I totally agree that no one is ever likely to care about the difference
> between these two statements in the real world. As you say, given enough
> effort, a computer can be very accurate indeed.

But, by your logic here I can't ask for 'as arbitrarily correct as I want
it' in reality. To figure out Pi to 'as much accuracy as I want'
(infinite) I need enough time (infinite) and enough space, for lack of a
better term (infinite).

Sure, I can use symbols for stuff like Pi, e, sqrt(2), etc. But, so can my
computer/calculator. Ever messed with a TI-89/92? They can do symbolic
integration better than most people. They can carry though the symbols pi,
e, i, etc. and give you answers *at least* as accurate as a person.

<snip-o>

You've proven my point here, I think. Our concept of infinity and
non-quantized is realative to our universe, given a large/powerful enough
computer, we won't be able to tell the difference from our universe and
what the computer gives you. TO US (which is really all that matters TO
US) the computer will be non-quantized and infinite.

> > Like I said before, given the processing power available in 2060, there
> > will be *no* problem representing a number to say 400 digits. [IIRC,
> > that's more accuarate than the atomic clock right now, our best measure of
> > time. Maybe that means the computer is less quantized than reality?]
>
> That is an interesting idea. Matter in reality is quantized, ultimately, by
> quarks. Would anything be gained by quantizing the Matrix on a level lower
> than this? I guess you'd still have problems, because while matter is
> quantized in reality, space-time isn't.

Or, at least we think righ tnow that it is quantized by quarks, 100 years
ago they though it was quantized with atoms, what will be next? And of
course, we can't prove and I don't belive that space-time isn't quantized.
I belive it is just so fine that we will never be able to tell. (As you
say, very little difference. But if we are to treat them the same, we
*CAN* say a computer can be non-quantized/inifite.)

> > However, often the limit of a finine system turns into a infinite system.
> > At some point, one could speculate, a computer will be able to do
> > *everything* at such an accuracy that no human of other computer could
> > tell the difference from reality.
>
> Chaos theory suggests that this is not the case. I don't know much about
> chaos theory, but I do remember an example about the weather. Say you
> covered the earth with weather sensors, one sensor every cubit meter. From
> this you'd think you could make a good model of the weather and be able to
> predict it. It turns out though, that you can't, at least not for very long.
> You get a pretty good idea of what will happen in the next hour, even the
> next day. But accuracy of predictions beyond that drop off quickly. This is
> because random things happen in-between the sensors, and these things can
> have radical effects on the whole system, eventually. Most random things
> won't, but a couple will. This is called the Butterfly Effect, after the
> idea that one of these "random things" might be that a butterfly decides to
> flap its wings.

Yes, I kind of disdain the butterfly theory. But, it is correct. Unless
you can take 'infinately accurate' messurments of all that exists we can't
predict things. IF there was a way to measure everything (infinity)
'infinately accuratly' and we had a way to calculate Maxwell's Laws with
'infinate accuracy' as just a little faster than real-time them we COULD
predict no only the weather patterns but *ALL THINGS*

(Luckly the first part of my statement is not true and will never be so my
statement is true. p -> q is true anytime p is false.)

> The question then, as Da Twink Daddy implies, really is this: how many
> sensors are good _enough_? This has long been a stable in computers: how
> good is good enough? Clearly, ultraviolet hosts are those that cross the
> line into "good enough" territory. Also clearly, standard Matrix
iconography
> does _not_ cross the line into "good enough". So, I guess the lesson is
that
> the tech in SR is _just_ approaching the "good enough" level for simulating
> reality.
>
> > Hrm, really you could say that the universe is quantized, because no I can
> > get accuracy to 'whatever precision I want' but no more than that.
>
> Splitting hairs here, but I think that is not the same thing. What you are
> saying here is that your perceptions are quantized, not the universe itself.
> A small, but significant difference. Unlike computers, the universe really
> does have infinite time resolution and position. At least, I've seen no
> evidence to the contrary.

In theory, we would have no 'evidence to the contrary' in an infinite
computer.

> > In math, there is the idea of infinity. The best explanation of infinity
> > to me was/is/will be 'as big as you want.' When you take a limit in
> > calculus, you say it is infinity (a specific type of doesn't exist) when
> > you can make it 'as big as you want'
>
> I think a better explanation for infinity is "as big as there is".

No. As you've said, there is a finite amount of matter in the universe.
Infinity is much bigger than that. It's as big as you want.

There's even layers of infitity saying something concrete like 'as big as
their is' is too limiting.

<snip>

Da Twink Daddy
e-mail: bss03@*******.uark.edu
ICQ: 514984
Message no. 8
From: Wordman wordman@*******.com
Subject: The quantum Matrix (RE: Ya know....)
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 12:27:41 -0400
> Or, at least we think righ tnow that it is quantized by quarks, 100 years
> ago they though it was quantized with atoms, what will be next?

There is actually some research that suggests (but does not prove) that
quarks are the final word. I'm no physicist, but the idea was as follows.
Say you have a paper bag, and you want to see if there is something inside
it; however, you cannot open the bag or otherwise check visually. How do you
tell if the bag has something in it? One way, the way used in this
experiment, is to shake the bag and listen for stuff jostling around.

So, the idea was to "shake" a quark and see if it "rattled". I have no
idea
how this was accomplished (I'll see if I can find where I read this again),
but the result of the shake was no rattling. The conclusion was that quarks,
to a high degree of probability, were not made of other things. Based on
their equipment, the result was something like, if the quark were the size
of the solar system, any particles that made up the quark would need to be
smaller than the size of a golf-ball to avoid detection. Since such
particles were not detected, it was deemed most probable that quarks are
fundamental.

> And of
> course, we can't prove and I don't believe that space-time isn't
quantized.

I'm not sure this is true. I'm not sure, but it seems like, if space were
quantized, you could build a model of it that would somehow imply behaviors
on a big enough scale that you could test for them. I dunno.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about The quantum Matrix (RE: Ya know....), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!