Metropol

Very similar premise to the "infinite monkeys" theory, except you're limiting the size from infinity to the canvas size. Because humans are able to extrapolate images it's an interesting way of looking at it - and everyone will have their own interpretations of the more vague images.

You could lower those numbers significantly (humans can't discern 71381932 colours so why include them!, and 800 x 600 is too high a resolution - 400 x 300 would be acceptable.

It's fun to think of all the huge possibility of images that would appear. But remember: how could you find the image you want? Sure, you could have an index system - it'll be with the rest of the images somewhere, in all sorts of different fancy colours. There would also be endless lists of what images meant, but how would you know what picture was what? A minor constraint don't you think

As far as your maths goes, because we're dealing with images here I'm not sure but someone will no doubt confirm shortly: isn't it 800x600^(no of colours)? I admit I'm pretty bad at maths at the best of times so I am probably wrong!

Dr Lobster* wrote:i have a theory on how it would be possible to look into the past, the future, to see everybodies life as they see it, and to see every other possible permutation of events, whether they are possible or not.

the premise is in fact ridiculously simple.

as you know, your pc screen is made from a number of pixels, my theory is basically, if we went through all the possible combinations, we would in theory see everything which could be represented as an image (including text)

do you think this would work?

if we had an 800x600 pixel canvas, and we have 16777216 colours, there would be (800x600)x16777216, which is 8053063680000 possible combinations.

so is 8053063680000 the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything? or is my maths wrong and the number much bigger?

cdd is correct. The number is MUCH bigger than you reckon - it is (800x600) to the power of 16777216 - an unimaginable number, far bigger than the number of atoms in the universe, or the number of seconds since the big-bang. The problem is that the number of meaningful images is a minute subset of the images containing what is effectively random shash - how would you ever find these meaningful images amidst the chaff, let alone determine which past or future events might have generated them?

why not just look at a TV that is not tuned in (analogue of course) there has to be meaningful images on there but they would change faster than the human eye/ brain can process the information.

nidave wrote:why not just look at a TV that is not tuned in (analogue of course) there has to be meaningful images on there but they would change faster than the human eye/ brain can process the information.

I was right in the other thread. You are nuts.

marksi wrote:

nidave wrote:why not just look at a TV that is not tuned in (analogue of course) there has to be meaningful images on there but they would change faster than the human eye/ brain can process the information.

I was right in the other thread. You are nuts.

That may be so but the principal is sound - if the images on a TV screen are essentialy ranom then there has to be reconisable images on there given enough time and being able to reconise them in time.

I am not counting the shadow image if your friendly local ITV station bounced off a high rise flat!

marksi wrote:

nidave wrote:why not just look at a TV that is not tuned in (analogue of course) there has to be meaningful images on there but they would change faster than the human eye/ brain can process the information.

I was right in the other thread. You are nuts.

because you'll end up in a highly predicatable horror film which gets poorer and poorer until you're ready to leave in disgust but then thankfully it ends.

Anyone else seen White Noise?

Hymagumba wrote:

marksi wrote:

nidave wrote:why not just look at a TV that is not tuned in (analogue of course) there has to be meaningful images on there but they would change faster than the human eye/ brain can process the information.

I was right in the other thread. You are nuts.

because you'll end up in a highly predicatable horror film which gets poorer and poorer until you're ready to leave in disgust but then thankfully it ends.

Anyone else seen White Noise?

never heard of it - I take it thats the plot line?

That film put the shits up me like you wouldn't believe. I'm not normally scared in the cinema but that (barring the stupid ending) really was horrible!

t

nidave wrote:

Hymagumba wrote:

marksi wrote: I was right in the other thread. You are nuts.

because you'll end up in a highly predicatable horror film which gets poorer and poorer until you're ready to leave in disgust but then thankfully it ends.

Anyone else seen White Noise?

never heard of it - I take it thats the plot line?

The plot is, someone like Nidave decides he'd like to spend his life staring at untuned TVs, and gets what he deserves!

EVP

i've had a chat to a couple of friends about this, and it does have some possibilities it seems - thank you for all your feedback, including the very obvious mistake i made about the number of permutations (ie, 800x600^16777216). i'm looking into this problem, and the amount of time it would take to render.

the implication of all this though, is that if every possible image can be represented by an algorithm, then in theory, that means there is only a finite number of events, does it not?

Dr Lobster* wrote:i've had a chat to a couple of friends about this, and it does have some possibilities it seems - thank you for all your feedback, including the very obvious mistake i made about the number of permutations (ie, 800x600^16777216). i'm looking into this problem, and the amount of time it would take to render.

the implication of all this though, is that if every possible image can be represented by an algorithm, then in theory, that means there is only a finite number of events, does it not?

A finite REPRESENTATION of events, all discrete. A bit like:

From 1 to 5, there is a finite number of numbers, 1 2 3 4 and 5.

Go into more detail (a.k.a. get a bigger screen) and there is 1.0, 1.1 .... 1.9 and so on, producing 50 numbers.

Theoretically there are an infinite number of numbers. Same applies to your image, but you're contraining the quality to an 800 x 600 canvas.

Also, what do you have to say on events or existences which are known to be impossible but which appear in this "time machine"?