Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!gatech!udel!haven.umd.edu!socrates.umd.edu!socrates!rockwell From: rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell) Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Question on halting problem Message-ID: Date: 1 May 91 06:14:44 GMT References: <1991Apr26.135918.8607@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <3132@ylum.Morgan.COM> Sender: rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell) Organization: Traveller Lines: 29 In-Reply-To: jono@dec06.cs.monash.edu.au's message of 1 May 91 03: 25:58 GMT Jonathan Oliver writes: [ on Seth Breidbart's observation that computers have limited memory] > There is indeed an upper limit on the amount of memory a computer > can have, since the universe is finite (approx 10^70 electrons from > memory). Ah, yes. Theoretically ;-) Since we're not even close to that limit, may I suggest that perhaps it has not yet been measured accurately? A couple possibilities which are expressible about current physics: (1) What if the "big bang" was a "local" event in some larger region of space? That it's big does not mean that there is nothing bigger. (2) What if conservation of energy is "merely a statistical phenomena". Note that the wonderful thing about conservation is that it makes math a hell of a lot easier. That's a good reason for using it, but not a good reason for believing it. (How could you even test for violations of conservation of energy? What's the difference between energy arriving from elsewhere and "created energy" [whatever that is]?). Anyways, infinity describes a condition where for any number picked, you can pick yet another which is bigger -- an awfully silly idea, on the face of it, but awfully silly nonetheless ;-) Raul Rockwell