A particularly relevant passage for those who get stuck on "clustering" of random events (ToE: Theory of Everything):
(R) Random universe. Actually there is a much simpler way of obtaining a ToE. Consider an infinite sequence of random bits (fair coin tosses). It is easy to see that any finite pattern, i.e., any finite binary sequence, occurs (actually infinitely often) in this string. Now consider our observable universe quantized at e.g. Planck level, and code the whole space-time universe into a huge bit string. If the universe ends in a big crunch, this string is finite. (Think of a digital high resolution 3D movie of the universe from the big bang to the big crunch). This big string also appears somewhere in our random string, hence our random string is a perfect ToE. This is reminiscent of the Boltzmann brain idea that in a sufficiently large random universe, *there exist low entropy regions*that resemble our own universe and/or brain (observer) [17, Sec.3.8]. On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:45 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > All this talk about Pi and monkeys seems not to be really taking hold of > some minds here at vortex. Let me suggest if you are going to founder on > the rocks of algorithmic randomness/information/probability theory, you go > for guidance to the world's foremost authority (IMHO), Marcus Hutter and > read his relatively accessible "A Complete Theory of Everything (Will Be > Subjective)" <http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4893/3/4/329>. > > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 10:02 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>wrote: > >> Also, if you read pi carefully and far into the future, it will reveal >> all of the events that are to come on Earth and throughout the universe. >> Of course, you might have a bit of trouble eliminating the vast number of >> predictions that are utter non sense. >> >> Now, you might not find the reference to the future events before they >> happen because it may take forever to get the information. Remember, every >> historical event was also there for the reading, but we missed all of them >> as far as I know. >> >> Dave >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> >> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> Sent: Wed, Feb 20, 2013 9:36 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Russian meteor causes blast; hundreds injured >> >> If it is possible that Pi contains a coded version of the complete >> works of Shakesoeare, then is it possible that Pi already contains a >> different coded message, which we will never detect as long as the >> natural language of this different message remains unknown to us? >> >> Harry >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 3:06 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I suspect there is an invalid assumption about randomness that we are >> >> making >> when we go along with the old thought experiment of a corps of eternally >> typing >> monkeys eventually producing Shakespeare's folio or imagining that the folio >> can >> be found at some point transcoded in the decimals of Pi. I wonder if there is >> already a mathematical proof out there to the effect that the latter is an >> impossibility. >> > >> > I suspect you are not fully appreciating what endless and non-repetitive >> means. >> > If it never can end and does so without repeating then eventually in >> > the fullness of infinity every long shot must occur. (actually, only >> > if it is random. So the monkeys might win out) >> > And with less frequency, every really really long shot must occur. >> > >> > What Monkeys or Pi writing Shakespeare actually implies however makes >> > lite of just how long the search will go in each case before success, >> > which is so inconceivably long, the scale of volume of the universe to >> > Plank length falls impossibly short of conveying the immenseness of >> > the time it would take in either case compared to say the believed age >> > of the universe. >> > >> > And only after every other book that has or could be written pops up >> > first, and of course almost but not quite perfect versions would pop >> > up also. >> > >> > Every extra character required will multiply the task of how far you >> > will need to go through Pi. >> > >> > Of course you are right about one thing, in theory it is possible that >> > it might never occur. >> > I do not know, does 86 show up in the first 20 digits of Pi? the first >> > 100 digits? >> > For that matter does it show up at all? >> > There is nothing meaning it must, ever. >> > >> > But then again that becomes an increasingly improbably longshot the >> > further you search. >> > >> > 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286 >> > >> > Ah, didn't take long. >> > >> > Actually it is possible that I am all wrong since Pi is not random. >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXoh6vi6J5U >> > >> > Fun video. >> > >> > >> >> >> >> I have not seen the video, >> > You should. >> > >> > But it is worth mentioning that non-zoomed in and slowed down versions >> > do not reveal the activity as far as I can make out. >> > Which might mean that we the were to be zoomed and slowed we could >> > check the validity of what the other version shows. >> > >> >> >> >
