The Finite Truth of Reality

[Divine Insight]

Technology has revealed to us something quite profound.

For example, photographs and sounds can be digitized. At first this may not seem very profound. However there's a catch. In both cases photographs and sounds can necessarily be made finite. Not only in size or duration, but also in terms of what is even possible.

Consider the following

A camera that can take a digital picture stores this picture in a collection of bits. The number of bits are fairly large, but quite finite. And because they are finite this means that they can only be arranged in a finite number of patterns. In other words, the number of images that can be recorded by such a camera is finite.

However, these cameras can take a picture of anything that actually exists. At least if the object is visible. This means that everything that can possibly exist in the universe can have it's picture taken. And thus if follows that everything in the universe that is visible is necessarily FINITE in number.

Moreover, it's even necessary that these photographs can actually produce pictures that are not even possible in reality. In other words, they can be digitally manipulated in photoshop or similar software to produce images that aren't even possible in the real world.

This means that everything that exists in the world world is 'finite' in possibility. It's not infinite in possibility.

In fact, the truly strange thing is that every human face (just as an example) already exists as a possible arrangement of pixels in a finite digital form. In other word, every imaginable face already exists as a picture (mathematically speaking). There is no face that the camera could not take a picture of. Therefore the image must exist in potentiality within the digital memory of the camera (yet that memory is FINITE)

So the total number of possible humans is necessarily finite as well.

In fact, the digital memory of these camera must also contain every possible face or expression that you can make. Because this camera can take a picture of you when you are sad, or happy, or sticking out your tongue, etc. Every possible image of your own face from ever possible angle is already taken care of by the the FINITE memory of a digital camera.

I've been focusing on humans and faces here, but actually this also applies to ever possible image that can be captured by a camera (including massive accidents of jumbo jet crashes, or train wrecks, or the aftermath of natural disasters, etc.

EVERYTHING that ever happens or can happen must necessarily be FINITE. It cannot be infinite because all of these thing can be captured by a digital camera that has a finite memory.

The same is true for Sound

A CD can easily record sound. And so we can make this simple by considering only a 5-minute sound track. A 5-minute sound track is recorded digitally. That is a finite number of digits that can only be arranged in a finite number of ways. This means that in any given 5-minute digital recording space any and all possible sounds must be able to be recorded.

Think about this for a second. Not only all the music and songs there were ever written or ever will be written, but also included in with that is every 5-minute sound clip you can imagine including every possible 5-minute conversation between humans in ALL POSSIBLE LANGUAGES (even languages that humans have never even invented!)

Any sounds that can be made can be recorded. Yet the possible configuration of the recording bits is FINITE.

This means that every conversation that has ever taken place already "exists" mathematically in this digital audio memory. And even do conversations that never took place. Yet all of this information must necessarily be FINITE.

It has to be finite, because there is only a finite number of ways to rearrange the recording bits. Yet an audio recorder would necessarily need to be able to record any conversation you could ever possibly have (whether you actually have the conversation or not).

Conclusion

Everything we ever do or say, not only already "exists" as a potential configuration of a finite number of bits, but is necessarily finite in number itself.

Our reality is necessarily FINITE in terms of what's actually possible.

Reality is necessarily finite in this sense. The very existence of digital technology shows us that this is necessarily true.

And ironically this doesn't only include humans, and events on earth. But this must include every possibility of anything in the entire universe. Every imaginable alien that you could imagine taking a picture of, must already exist as a configuration in that FINITE memory space of a digital camera.

And every sound that you can imagine recording (including alien conversations) must necessarily already exist as a configuration of the FINITE memory space of a digital audio recorder.

It's truly amazing when you stop and think about this.

It's almost a form of "Determinism". Not so much in the sense of cause and effect, but rather it's a form of determinism in the sense that reality is determined by a finite configuration of bits.

There is nothing you can do or say that isn't already within the potentiality of a configuration space of a FINITE number of bits.

That's truly interesting I think.

[Jashwell]

A burden that you have to meet - is to show that the Universe is finite in both detail and scope in order to prove that the Universe is finite - in order to prove that the Universe isn't infinite, you need to show that the Universe isn't infinite.

The existence of digital encoding and representation of things as numbers does not in any way support the claim that the Universe is finite.

I don't need to support that claim as I have never made that claim. I'm not claiming to have proved that the universe is finite.

However, I did point out in the OP the FACT that EVERYTHING that ever happens or can happen must necessarily be FINITE.

OP:

And thus if follows that everything in the universe that is visible is necessarily FINITE in number.

(Not OP:)

Any imagine that will ever exist in the entire age of the universe is already in the finite memory set of your camera's digital memory.

Your digital camera not only contains ever possible image of the universe from ever possible perspective, angle, or distance, but it also contains numbers that would produce images that have never been seen in this universe and never will be seen!

None of these claims are true in an infinite Universe.
"However, I did point out in the OP the FACT that EVERYTHING that ever happens or can happen must necessarily be FINITE."
In addition to this surely implying the Universe is finite; this isn't supported or shown by anything said. The same counterargument still applies - anything with greater complexity than the secondary memory of the camera may support (let alone infinite) because of detail or scope will not be representable in the camera.

In other words, there is nothing you can say or do that isn't already accounted for in a provably finite set of numbers.

If the time and distance between each vibration in a sound are continuous; the sound (almost certainly if not definitively) isn't accountable in a system of finite complexity. (there are at least an infinite number of irrepresentable sounds)

In any kind of input where a measure of time or space is required, this is the case.

Every scene you can ever imagine observing already exists in a finite set of numbers (proven by the existence of digital cameras).
Every conversation you can ever imagine hearing or speaking already exists in a finite set of numbers. (proven by the existence of digital audio recorders)

Imagination and observation may well be finite - that's beyond the point - but every phenomena isn't necessarily discrete.

More to the point, as previously demonstrated I can imagine phenomena that aren't digitally representable - continuous values.

There is no need for an infinite set of numbers to describe the events in this universe.

Again, a Universe infinite in detail or scope requires an infinite set of numbers.

This doesn't prove that the universe is finite. It only demonstrates that it certainly can be finite and this wouldn't be the slightest problem. It doesn't "need" to be infinite in any way.

Nobody said it did need to be infinite. You said it (and the things within it) needed to be finite.

But even more interesting that this, I think, is the fact that everything you do or say has basically already been 'recorded' in a provably finite set of numbers.
That's true whether the universe is finite or not.

Recorded? No.
"someone COULD paint what you look like" is not that impressive. Recorded would imply someone already did.

[bluethread]

It is indeed freaky, and it is false. Because that is not how memories work. Not even human memories. The program only creates the access to the image. The image is not recorded until the user directs it to be. A finite memory can not and does not hold all images. It only hold the images it is directed to hold, after they are created by a program or user, up to it's limit. Then it must erase and replace. It can hold all the possible images if all parameters, ie space, detail, depth, etc. are finite, given it is large enough and there is a program and/or a user capable of loading the images. However, if even one of those three is infinite, all bets are off and the existence of the finite memory that holds them is impossible.

You are totally misunderstanding the whole concept entirely.

This has nothing at all to do with how many images the memory can hold at any given moment. The memory only needs to be large enough to hold ONE image. You can erase the memory every time you need to take a picture if you like.

The limitation is not in how many images a memory can hold "simultaneously". In fact, the mere fact that actual physical memories aren't even entirely used for each individual image only adds to the points I've been making.

If you have a camera that only has enough memory to store one image at a time my argument still holds TRUE.

That memory represents a finite set of possible permutations. In other words, that memory can only be used to display a finite number of pictures. It doesn't matter that you are erasing the pictures in between. The total number of pictures that this memory is capable of displaying is still finite.

No it represents nothing. It is a blank slate. It is the nature of the permutations in conjunction with the available space that establishes the finite set. The memory is just the brackets within which the set is contained.

In other words, imagine you have an extremely small memory. Say it's only 8 bits. That means that it can store 256 different permutations. That 2 to the power of 8.

This is the same as saying that it can store the number 0 through 255 and nothing else.

Therefore you can only take 256 different pictures with this memory card. That's a finite number. Now, if when you take a picture of your face your face become permutation #69, then this becomes the number that represents your face.

No, you can't. You can store 256 markers that can initiate the construction of an image based on the protocols of the program. There is nothing about the images that is stored in this memory other than that catalog number. It can only be said to represent the image in a rhetorical sense. It represents the image the same way a Dewey decimal number represents a book. Just because there is a number available for a book that does not exist, does not equate to the existence of that book.

It doesn't matter if you now ERASE the #69 from the memory and use the memory to display a different picture. What must still be true is if you ever put the number 69 back into the memory it necessarily MUST reproduce a picture of your face again.

Therefore (in this particular system) the image of your face has forever been tied to the number 69. And that has to be true even if your face never existed.

If one enters that code into THE PROGRAM, then THE PROGRAM follows a routine and creates the image. Nothing about the image is stored. It is just an on and off switch for THE PROGRAM. The image is not stored in the program either, because it is just a series of actions that result in something that a human brain might interpret as a face. It is that interpretation that makes it a face. Not the memory or the program.

~~~~~

Of course in real cameras we're talking about millions of bits just to display a single picture. But the same principle applies. The finite number of permutations is then 2 to the power of millions. That's an extremely large number, but it's still clearly finite.

Yes, the principle is the same. What is stored in that camera are instructions that are used to run a program that creates something that can them be interpreted by a human as a face. The faced or even the image of the face is not really stored in the camera. The image is reconstructed each and every time the program is run with those instructions. The image of a face is the minds response to that output. Therefore, the face is only in the mind of the observer.

It doesn't matter that your camera only has enough memory to store one picture at a time. The fact that you can erase that picture and take another one doesn't change the fact that you've already used up one of finite permutations that this memory is capable of holding. That permutation is a NUMBER. And that number is forever liked to that image in this cameras programming system.

No, the number can be changed. You are presuming a static program. It is only an on/off switch and all that is necessary for that "number" to be changed is for a defragging program to be run. The on/off switch can be any of the 256 combinations of those 8 bits and can be changed to any other combinations of those 8 bits at any time. It is all dependent on the nature of the program and the direction of the user.

Therefore that number already existed in that finite set of number, and it must have already been able to reproduce the image of your face whether your face ever existed or not.

You're getting lost in the programming of how all this is actually done. But none of that is important. None of that can change the fact that the memory can only display a finite number of images.

No, the memory does not display anything. Also, the finite nature of the memory does not limit the number of possible images that the program can construct. So, the bottom line is that finite storage does not equate to a finite number of possible images.

You can't get around that using programming.

So your objections concerning how the system is programmed are totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter how you program the system. You'll always end up with precisely the same situation. A finite set of numbers that must be forever linked with every picture you take (or even if you don't take them) The link has to be there whether you take these pictures or not.

If a certain number in that memory displays an image of your face, then this must always be true. The moment the camera was designed, before you ever took the picutre that number would have produced the image of your face.

No, it is you who is trying to get around the programing by saying that the number in the memory displays the image. It does not. You are mistaking sectors with coding. The coding does not exist in the memory until it is put there. Once the coding for a particular image creation routine is put on the memory, then and only then does it exist in the memory. It is created by the program as directed by the user and then placed in the memory. The "number", as you like to call it, does not exist in the 8 bits. It is coded onto the 8 bits, by changing their polarity. It is a possible coding that can be put on the 8 bits, but it does not exist on the 8 bits unless it is put there or just happens to be one of 256 random settings. It also does not exist in the programing, because the programming does not store anything. It may exist in the mind of the user, but that is unlikely, because images tend to drift in the human mind. Also, if the image is of something that never existed, it would not be recognized by the user as such, when it is displayed.

It has to be. Because the number can't just magically produce an image of your face after you take the picture but wouldn't have produced that image prior to that.

It must always be the case that this number produces the image of your face. Even if you had never existed.

A particular series of instructions when fed into a particular program does produce a particular image. However, that particular set of instructions does not have to exist as a finite number and, even if it did, the simple existence of a medium for recording that finite number does not equate to that number being recorded. That number is not a place, but a setting and a setting does not exist until it is set. Before that it is nothing more than a mental construct.

Now, if you are saying that there is a mental construct that corresponds with each and every possible image that one could experience, then I would agree with you. However, until that mental construct is revealed to me empirically, imaginatively or via ESP it does not exist in my mind any more than it exists in a computer memory.

[Divine Insight]

None of these claims are true in an infinite Universe.

If that's true, then the universe must be finite. It's that simple.

"However, I did point out in the OP the FACT that EVERYTHING that ever happens or can happen must necessarily be FINITE."

In addition to this surely implying the Universe is finite; this isn't supported or shown by anything said. The same counterargument still applies - anything with greater complexity than the secondary memory of the camera may support (let alone infinite) because of detail or scope will not be representable in the camera.

Detail is irrelevant. Especially in light of the fact that we already know that we live in a quantum universe where things have a limit of resolution. We already know that the universe is not infinitely resolvable. That's already a scientific fact. Demonstrated by a totally different and independent method of inquiry.

This observation of the finite set of numbers a camera is limited to only serves to confirm what is already know.

In other words, there is nothing you can say or do that isn't already accounted for in a provably finite set of numbers.

If the time and distance between each vibration in a sound are continuous; the sound (almost certainly if not definitively) isn't accountable in a system of finite complexity. (there are at least an infinite number of irrepresentable sounds)

In any kind of input where a measure of time or space is required, this is the case.

Again, totally irrelevant. I'm talking about coherent conversations here. Not imaged idealized sound waves. Digital recorders are already well beyond being able to record any intelligible conversation.

So your arguments about idealizations of perfect sound waves doesn't even matter.

Every scene you can ever imagine observing already exists in a finite set of numbers (proven by the existence of digital cameras).
Every conversation you can ever imagine hearing or speaking already exists in a finite set of numbers. (proven by the existence of digital audio recorders)

Imagination and observation may well be finite - that's beyond the point - but every phenomena isn't necessarily discrete.

According to QM it is. It has to be. But that's also irrelevant to this camera thing anyway.

More to the point, as previously demonstrated I can imagine phenomena that aren't digitally representable - continuous values.

Just because you THINK you can imagine continuous values doesn't mean that you actually can. In fact, according to QM if you think you can imagine continuous values you are just kidding yourself.

There is no need for an infinite set of numbers to describe the events in this universe.

Again, a Universe infinite in detail or scope requires an infinite set of numbers.

So what? Where's your proof that such an infinite universe even exists?

You act like this is a given.

This doesn't prove that the universe is finite. It only demonstrates that it certainly can be finite and this wouldn't be the slightest problem. It doesn't "need" to be infinite in any way.

Nobody said it did need to be infinite. You said it (and the things within it) needed to be finite.

Every actions you could ever participate in, and every conversation that you could ever speak or hear, can be accounted for using a finite set of numbers.

That seems pretty finite to me.

There is nothing you could do or say that wouldn't be included in that finite set.

But even more interesting that this, I think, is the fact that everything you do or say has basically already been 'recorded' in a provably finite set of numbers.
That's true whether the universe is finite or not.

Recorded? No.
"someone COULD paint what you look like" is not that impressive. Recorded would imply someone already did.

It already does exist as a member of the finite set of numbers that are defined by the memory's capability.

So they are in this SET.

They exist in the sense of having already been defined. And within a finite set to boot.

Every number within that set could be written down in finite form. In fact, that's precisely what happens when the picture is displayed. And there are only a finite number of them.

So everything that can ever happen has already been "recorded" in a mathematical sense, by the mere fact that a finite set can be demonstrated to exist that contains every possible recording. And every possible visual picture.

And to make matters even more wild, you can even run out to Walmart and buy one of these memories. It's basically within the grasp of common humans.

And your concerns about details are truly trivial, because if we already have this technology available on Walmart shelves at prices affordable to just about everyone, then imagine how large of a memory we could construct if we put all those cameras together! We could beat the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to be sure. In other words, we would have more than enough memory to address any detail concerns you might have, and we would still have a FINITE memory.

So nothing you have said has change anything.

You can either accept it or reject it. But everything you ever say or do has already been recorded in a finite memory. And it's "Already There". You can't say that it's not already there. It has to be already there. Otherwise these cameras wouldn't work at all.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 33 by Divine Insight]

If that's true, then the universe must be finite. It's that simple.

And if that's true, then you're begging the question.

Quantum Mechanics does not necessitate a discrete space time. It is not even clear that the popular opinion of Quantum Physicists is one of discrete space time. For years, Quantum Physics has posed problems for discrete space time such as violations of 'Lorentz Invariance' and non-present experimental delays that would be expected from the kind of discrete steps a discrete spacetime would give.

Just because you THINK you can imagine continuous values doesn't mean that you actually can.

If I can think of continuous values then I am imagining them.

It already does exist as a member of the finite set of numbers that are defined by the memory's capability.

"Capability" isn't a thing that exists in most contexts. Certainly in the context of, well, things that exist. "It's already there" is false - it isn't there, 'the possibility is there' isn't the same claim. At best this kind of phrasing is something that's more appropriate for poetry than philosophy, when all it does is confuse and obscure.

Furthermore, yet as I've said before, limitations of human senses are meaningless. A device better than a human eye is not necessarily revolutionary. Hell, there's the fact that the eye is a camera - and they've been encoding images for over 500 million years.

[Divine Insight]

No, the memory does not display anything.

It doesn't need to display anything. All it needs to do is hold the number that is used to construct the image. Precisely how the image is constructed from that number is totally irrelevant. Yet you continually address the programming of how that's done. All of that is totally irrelevant. What I am saying is true for any digital camera you can possibly design. Therefore you are totally FREE to use whatever programming algorithms you so choose.

Thus the program algorithm cannot be a factor in this as you continually insist that it must be. It's true that it is a factor for any GIVEN camera. But in general what I'm talking about applies to any camera system you could imagine designing. Therefore the algorithm you use to construct the picture from the number ultimately doesn't even matter.

That memory represents a finite set of possible permutations. In other words, that memory can only be used to display a finite number of pictures. It doesn't matter that you are erasing the pictures in between. The total number of pictures that this memory is capable of displaying is still finite.

No it represents nothing. It is a blank slate. It is the nature of the permutations in conjunction with the available space that establishes the finite set. The memory is just the brackets within which the set is contained.[/quote]

But what you don't seem to be realizing here is that you are wrong about it being a "Blank Slate".

That memory already represents a finite set of possible permutations (i.e. numbers)

You are thinking of this as being a "Blank Slate". But it can't be a blank slate.

Let's say that you use this camera to take your own photo of your face. That picture now become ONE of the finite numbers that this memory is capable of holding.

Now, if you claim that this NUMBER was a 'blank slate" prior to you taking the picture would necessarily be WRONG.

It couldn't have been a 'blank slate' prior to you having taken the picture. That number already existed in the finite set of numbers that this memory is capable of being configured as.

And now this number MUST produce the image of your face when called up by your programming algorithm.

But wait! That ALWAYS had to be true!

That had to be true even BEFORE you took the picture.

That number that is now in the memory can ONLY produce a picture of your face (in this camera). It can't produce any other image. Yet that number was already in that finite set long before you ever took the picture.

In a sense that number was sitting there "waiting" for you to come along and take your picture so that it could be selected as the current number active in the memory.

But that number was already a member of this finite set of numbers. And this number necessarily must correspond to producing the image of your face. If it didn't make that correspondence the camera wouldn't even work.

So thinking of this finite set of numbers as a 'blank slate' is wrong. There is nothing blank about it. The number that will produce the image of any picture you will ever take is already in this finite set of possibilities.

The set cannot be blank.

The set already contains numbers corresponding to every image that you will ever take. And that correspondence is necessarily already carved in stone so-to-speak.

Also you say:

There is nothing about the images that is stored in this memory other than that catalog number. It can only be said to represent the image in a rhetorical sense. It represents the image the same way a Dewey decimal number represents a book. Just because there is a number available for a book that does not exist, does not equate to the existence of that book.

This is an absolutely incorrect and false description.

It's not anything like this at all. If it were like this then when I send you my picture file in an email, your image software would just see this as a "catalog number" and then it would use that number to "look up" the picture in question.

Where is it going to find the actual picture?

That is definitely not what happens.

The information for reconstructing the picture is entirely contained with in the memory file of the picture. And the file is nothing other than a huge binary number.

So this is nothing at all like the Dewey Decimal system at a library.

If it were, then every camera would need to contain a complete library of every picture possible.

However, ironically that's basically what's actually required anyway.

The number that represents the picture does contains all of the information required to construct the picture. And this is the freaky thing.

The number that contains the precise information to create a picture of your face, already exists in a FINITE set of numbers.

It has to. If this weren't the case then this camera could not store the image of your face because it wouldn't have a number available to match that description.

The fact that it has numbers available to match every possible visual description, and that each of those numbers must correspond to exactly one image is why all possible images must be FINITE in number.

I don't even see why you have a problem with this.

Why are you so determined to oppose this?

It's clearly true. The camera wouldn't even work if it wasn't true.

[Divine Insight]

Hell, there's the fact that the eye is a camera - and they've been encoding images for over 500 million years.

Yes, but there's no way to prove that the process used by the eye leads to a finite set of images.

The digital camera makes this vividly clear.

I also don't understand your strong opposition to these conclusion either.

Do you have some vested interest in the universe being infinite?

I personally have no bias one way or the other. I just think it's amazing that it can be shown that every conversation and every visual aspect of the universe can be demonstrated to be stored in a finite set.

I think it's an interesting fact of reality.

I'm really not out to prove anything. I think the facts speak for themselves.

If you don't see the significance of this then it's clearly not meaningful for you.

For me, I think it's an amazing observation about reality.

I finally see how things can truly be finite with no problem.

It's interesting at the very least.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 36 by Divine Insight]

I've never had a problem with things being finite, it's just that the logic isn't there - the initial claim seemed to be extrapolating finite representations to suggest the things being represented were finite; and the claims that the Universe must be or has been shown to be discrete and/or finite are not true.

As someone who programs, I don't find the fact that encoding and other forms of abstraction exist of particular interest, they're just kind of a given for me.
There are topics I find interesting relating to this, but they're more computing than philosophy - though there is a surprising amount of overlap.

[bluethread]

That is how it is with digital recording,. It can not establish that what it records is finite. It can only make a finite record of what is recorded.

I don't think you people are grasping the significance of this.

I think I do, but let's continue, just in case.

Not only is every thing that can be visualized contained within this finite configuration space. But every audio sound that can be made is also contained within. And the electromagnetic spectrum posses no problem either because we can imagine in theory creating a camera that can record every possible electromagnetic frequency.

There is nothing that this finite configuration space can't represent. And even more shockingly it necessarily must contain a "seemingly" endless amount of numbers that would produce visual or audio nonsense as well. Yet even those numbers would be finite in quantity.

The word "seemingly" is a hedge. You have yet to show how "every thing that can be visualized" is "contained within this finite configuration space". As I have stated, a memory does not hold all possible combinations. It only hold those combinations that have been encoded on it.

In fact, this can be taken far beyond a mere camera and audio recorder. We could even imagine this same situation being done as a 3-d computer simulation which would remove all questions about the thoroughness of the reproduction.

No, it does not, because the 3-d computer simulation can only be done only if the instructions for that simulation have been previously encoded. One can not do a 3-d computer simulation from a possible encoding. One needs an actual encoding to do a 3-d simulation. Even if one has a code that would produce such a simulation, that encoding is not the simulation. So, if the encoding is not actually written into the space it is not in the space. An ion is not positive and negative at the same time. It could be said that when the ion is negatively charged the space contains the instructions for a zero and when it is positively charged the space contains the instructions for a one. However, that ion does not contain the instructions for a one and a zero at the same time.

In short, our physical universe simply does not require infinity to even exist. It can be extremely finite, and it would still seem to us to behave with what we would perceive as being limitless possibilities.

Just think about the case of the digital audio recorder for just a moment.

Any conversation that you can ever imagine having is already accounted for in the memory of the audio recorder. That number already exists even if the actual conversation never takes place. The number that would have been created when that conversation was recorded already exists as a possible configuration of that digital memory.

No, we do not even need the numbers. Every conversation that was ever had was encoded when it was spoken. Are you arguing that this exact conversation has existed on the first day the English language was standardized, or are you just saying that it only existed since the time Onteng first booted up the server for this site?

That has to be the case. Otherwise digital recorders would need to constantly give us error messages saying, "Sorry I don't have a number for the conversation you just had". That NEVER happens. An audio recorder will record whatever you say. Period. There is no limitation to what it can record in terms of conversations.

That is because it records things the same way this post is being recorded. One symbol at a time.

The quality of the recording is a totally separate issue.

Every possible conversation between any humans is already accounted for within a FINITE configuration space.

This includes the first cries of every baby born to the last death wish of every dying person, and everything they might have said in between without exception.

All recordable with a finite digital memory space. And don't forget, there's also tons of room left offer for bird songs, cat's meowing, dogs barking, car horns blowing, every song and musical concert ever written (and even those that have not been yet written)

The numbers are there just waiting to be used.

They already exist as possible configurations in this finite memory space.

This blows our minds to think that this can be possible. But it's more than just possible, it necessarily must be the case.

There is no conversation you can have, no song you can write, no music you can play, no noise you can make, that doesn't already exist as a number in a FINITE memory space.

No, there are numbers available to be used, because the number of number strings is infinite, just as there are letters available, because number of letter strings is infinite. Those numbers are not in the memory space any more than this conversation is on Wikipedia server. It is not there now and never will be, unless some one enters it into Wikipedia.

[Divine Insight]

As someone who programs, I don't find the fact that encoding and other forms of abstraction exist of particular interest, they're just kind of a given for me.

I've written many programs myself. Writing programs doesn't reveal that anything should be finite. To the contrary, when you're writing programs it seems like there would be no end to the possibilities. But actually there are limitations. They just aren't apparent.

But the digital cameras and recorders vividly reveal these truths about reality.

Here is the KEY to understanding why digital cameras and recorders reveal this to us.

Once you have designed a digital recorder or camera you're set. You can take a picture of anything. There are no limitations. There's nothing you can point your camera at that the camera can't replicate as a digital picture. Yet a digital picture is just a number. And in the case of the camera its a number that already exists in a predefined finite set of numbers.

Therefore even though it seems rational and logical to assume that there are endless possibilities in photography using this camera, actually there isn't. It can only take a finite number of different pictures. And every one of those is already predetermined precisely what they must look like.

The reason we can't truly comprehend this is because this finite number is so huge that for our way of thinking it may as well be infinite for all practical purposes.

But that's the amazing thing. It not infinite. In fact we can even write it out in exponential notation as a power of 2. It's a precisely defined finite number.

How large is this number?

Well, for a modern camera is basically a number that is 63,000,000 digits long. That's one whale of a number, but it's still finite.

In fact the number of hydrogen atoms in our entire observable universe is only 80 digits long for comparison. So it should come as no surprise that these cameras can indeed take every picture imaginable. The number of pictures they can take is unimaginably more than the number of hydrogen atoms in the observable universe.

That alone is kind of interesting.

But what I think is far more interesting is that once we have designed one of these cameras including the programming that Bluethread keeps focusing on. Then instantly every number in that finite set has already been correlated to every possible image in the universe, and even MORE images that may not even be in the universe at all.

If you can see it in the universe, there necessarily has to be a number already existing in that finite set that will correspond to that image.

So in that sense, ever image that you will ever encounter already has a number assigned to it. Obviously that particular number is assigned to that particular image via the programming of that particular camera. And that's what Bluethread seems to want to focus on. But that's basically irrelevant because that would be true of any digital camera no matter what sort of programming scheme you come up with. The numbers that correspond to each image may change, but the end result will be the same. You still end up with a set of finite numbers which each individual number corresponds to every image possible.

So no matter how you program it you end up having all possible images covered with a finite set of numbers where each number corresponds directly to one image and one image only.

And this is true even if you NEVER take a picture.

All you need to do at that point is load in the numbers.

I just think that's amazing. Every picture you can imagine already exists as a number.

How can that not be amazing?

[Divine Insight]

The word "seemingly" is a hedge. You have yet to show how "every thing that can be visualized" is "contained within this finite configuration space".

I think it's fair to accept this as being self-evident. It's self-evident because digital cameras never fail to be able to record visual images. It's not like you are limited to what you can take a picture of with your camera.

Actually you are limited, but the mere fact that this isn't detectable is the truly amazing thing. And it can also only be true because everything that you are taking pictures of is clearly already in that limited configuration space.

As I have stated, a memory does not hold all possible combinations. It only hold those combinations that have been encoded on it.

It doesn't hold all possible combinations simultaneously no. But that's not important.

Take a 4-bit memory. It will hold 16 possible numbers right? 0 thru 15.

What you are saying is that it can only hold one number at a time. In other words, if it's currently configured (or encoded) to hold the number 6, than that is all that's in this 4-bit memory at this time. All the other numbers 0-5 and 7-15 simply don't exist. The only number that 'exists' is 6 because that's the number that this 4-bit memory is currently encoded for.

But that doesn't matter. It's still true that this 4-bit memory can be encoded for 0 thru 15. And that's its finite limit. It can't be encoded for any other possible numbers. It simply doesn't have any mathematical configuration space left over to play with.

And this is what I'm taking about with the camera memory. The camera memory has a finite limit to how many different permutations (i.e. binary numbers) that it can represent.

All of those numbers exist as a set of possible permutations that this memory can take on. It's a finite number and this memory cannot be encoded for anything other than these finite collection of numbers.

And each one of those numbers must correspond to a very specific image.

So every possible image already has a number associated with it.

If you take a picture of your face and it's encoded onto this memory as a specific binary number, then that number when decoded as an image must be the image of your face. And that had to always be true, even before you took the picture.

No, we do not even need the numbers. Every conversation that was ever had was encoded when it was spoken. Are you arguing that this exact conversation has existed on the first day the English language was standardized, or are you just saying that it only existed since the time Onteng first booted up the server for this site?

The only problem here is that there is no way of arguing that there exists any finite set of numbers that needs to be used on the Internet. You can easily imagine the numbers being infinitely available. Although, in truth, even in this situation they aren't.

But with the digital cameras and digital recorders the finite aspect of the situation becomes vividly apparent, and easily provable.

But yeah actually this typed conversation that we are having is no exception really. It too can be reduced to a number that had to necessarily exist even before the English language was ever invented.

So yes, this sort of thing has no doubt always been true.