I think most Christians (LDS and non-LDS) would probably agree God can't create a rock so heavy he could not lift. God can't count to infinity. God can't be evil. God can't do many things.
My question for Christians. Can God compute BB (10^100)?
https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/bb.pdf
Busy Beaver
-
- God
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm
Busy Beaver
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus.
- Dr Moore
- Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
- Posts: 1819
- Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:16 pm
- Location: Cassius University
Re: Busy Beaver
Fun to discover new computational math adventures. I got only a taste before moving on to the banal, confined real world of engineering sciences.doubtingthomas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 12:22 amI think most Christians (LDS and non-LDS) would probably agree God can't create a rock so heavy he could not lift. God can't count to infinity. God can't be evil. God can't do many things.
My question for Christians. Can God compute BB (10^100)?
https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/bb.pdf
Anyway, I used to imagine our experience with God as the projection of a multi dimensional being onto our 4d space time. For all we know, in God’s 17 dimensions, BB (10^100) is as trivial as 2+2 for us.
Re: Busy Beaver
One of my favorites. https://old.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/com ... aced_so_a/Dr Moore wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 12:30 amFun to discover new computational math adventures. I got only a taste before moving on to the banal, confined real world of engineering sciences.doubtingthomas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 12:22 amI think most Christians (LDS and non-LDS) would probably agree God can't create a rock so heavy he could not lift. God can't count to infinity. God can't be evil. God can't do many things.
My question for Christians. Can God compute BB (10^100)?
https://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/bb.pdf
Anyway, I used to imagine our experience with God as the projection of a multi dimensional being onto our 4d space time. For all we know, in God’s 17 dimensions, BB (10^100) is as trivial as 2+2 for us.
-
- God
- Posts: 2841
- Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm
Re: Busy Beaver
Yes, it's fun stuff.
Nice! In the end, real-world engineering is what matters.
I see. BB (6) is already way bigger than the observable universe (in any sense), the universe is effectively zero compared to BB (6). So I guess God would need an infinite number of universes and dimensions to easily compute BB(10^100)?
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus.
- Dr Moore
- Endowed Chair of Historical Innovation
- Posts: 1819
- Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:16 pm
- Location: Cassius University
Re: Busy Beaver
Interesting. I don’t know how to think about this because this BB counting metric is new for me. I guess the notion I once had, unburdened by facts and hard analysis, was a sort of super extension of our physics, informed by odd characteristics in certain higher dimensions in string theory, eg Kalabi Yau spaces. Why couldn’t it be true that a supreme being lives within a physics that makes the entirety of our own, including the real number line with its infinitely boggling mysteries, appear as child’s play and a handful of 17 dimensional reductionist celestial rules? (the 17 is just illustrative, pulled from thin air, and plus it’s one of my favorite primes) I mean, such notions are no less rational than the notion of God in the first place. Neither is it any more irrational than simulation theory of our existence.doubtingthomas wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 1:41 amI see. BB (6) is already way bigger than the observable universe (in any sense), the universe is effectively zero compared to BB (6). So I guess God would need an infinite number of universes and dimensions to easily compute BB(10^100)?
Anyway. Huge number theory is sure fascinating. Believe it was Knuth (LaTeX and the computer basics series guy) who invented a nifty shorthand notation for extremely large numbers. I once learned how that works, but the numbers were too big for practical use and so predictably I forgot the specifics as quickly as I learned them.