Discussion Board

Topic: Why must we not define the bookkeeping system?

From: Vorkbaard
Location: Netherlands
Date: 09/09/2008

Reading Moving Mars for the second time, after Anvil of Stars and Dead Lines, and a recurring theme seems to be hidden channels/forbidden channels/the Bell continuum. Often when you describe a technology to change a particle's properties remotely, you say that we must not define the system that describes these properties (the bookkeeping system, God's computer, etc.).

Why must we not define it?

Re: Why must we not define the bookkeeping system?

From: Greg Bear
Date: 09/09/2008

According to the physicists I quote in my stories, it simply makes it easier to assume the matrix as axiomatic. Trying to figure out which chip and which operating system underlies reality could lead to madness! And in ETERNITY, I think, there is the theoretical question of whether or not one can feel or know what sort of operating system or computer one is living in, if one lives in a virtual universe. I recall there was once actually a Wikipedia article on this problem, but can't locate it in a quick search...

Re: Why must we not define the bookkeeping system?

From: Vorkbaard
Location: Netherlands
Date: 09/09/2008

That makes sense, but only if the channels are made of the absolute lowest level. As long as we're not positive that that is the lowest level, we can't be sure there is not another one below it. That however would pose the same question...

Anyway they provide fantastic speculation :) Thanks!

Re: Why must we not define the bookkeeping system?

From: patrick
Location:
Date: 09/15/2008

And here's an answer: in music based on the 12-tone chromatic scale, whether it be tertian tonal or no, there is no axiomatic start point. If tertian tonal, the key is wherever one decides to start on, as it can be transposed to any other key. Similarly in 12-tone music, the prime form row is arbitrary. What constrain these are generally aural context - instrumentation - and composer predilection.

In the case of physics, it may (and I suspect it is) as easy as doing similar to what Greg says, except it, although rather than 'axiomatic' perhaps just 'functional'. (Or, of course, funxional.)

Respond to this discussion

May we post your correspondence on this site?
Yes
No
IMPORTANT: For form verification, type the following number in the box below: 75




See Also...

Archives: [Oct-Dec 2004] [Jan-June 2005] [July-Dec 2005] [Jan-June 2006] [July 2006] [Aug-Dec 2006] [2007] [2008] [2009] [2010] [2011] [2012] [2013] [2014] [Current] [Search Blog Archives]