geordief

Yes ,that is what I was asking.(perhaps I was trying to shoehorn my understanding of the map/territory ,it model/modeled idea into the discussion since I find it very important in it's own right) Perhaps ,but I don't see it.I don't have that expertise.

Is it unbounded?If we start with ,say 3 events then the set of all relationships is still a finite number. And if we increase 3 to a number representing the set of all events in the spacetime of a finite universe then the corresponding set of relationships is still also another finite number. So ,if we have a theoretical number larger than that ,it will not have its "territory " will it?

(Actually, I anticipated your line of thinking if I am not deluding myself) So the set of these potential causal relations is still finite in a finite universe and if we call the new number derived from E , E2 then there will be another number ,say N(new) where N(new)>E2 What happens?A black hole? But just creating a number is not the same as storing information(in my mind the mapping was just theoretical.)

So if the number of events in the real world is E and a number,N >E then you are saying that N can be mapped to E?

Even if the real world is finite?

Well numbers can be a model of real things like the events/interactions in my OP and so those events are the territory with the numbers being the maps. Since the numbers can be of any size , a large enough one cannot be mapped onto the real world (the set of real events) and so I thought you could consider them (the sufficiently large numbers )as a kind of map without a corresponding territory.

Thanks.Even small numbers present me with difficulty and so I don't think I will manage to understand how Graham's number is constructed. I suppose numbers can be considered as maps that need not have a territory.

with circumspection? Thought the OP was phrased ambiguously..."a moral-free" market or a moral "free-market"? (I know it is the latter)

Thanks.I imagined that even those numbers might fall short but it seems I was wrong-just that writing them out longhand would be impossible.

Are there numbers that are to large for us to represent? Finite numbers... If we calculate the number of events/interactions that take place within a defined spacetime volume is it possible to represent that in a conventional way ,like 10 to power of some finite number? Eg a ball of lead with a mass of 1 kilo. Then ,if we extrapolate and our test volume is increased to include the observed or theorized universe ** that number defies imagination but is there any way to represent it? Not infinity because it is not ,I think infinite. Not measurable,quite obviously but what happens to our number system if we try to give it a number? **ie the number of interactions that might take place over the whole lifetime of a temporaly finite universe.

Science is composed of (groups of) scientific workers whose motives may differ. As with all things ,those outside the group may benefit ,or otherwise from the product of their labour. In the realm of physics it may be said that the product of their work is to peel away the layers that obstruct the view of the way things work. Failing that it is to build more accurate models of that. The alternative to those results becoming public knowledge is to prevent people from pursuing careers in scientific endeavour. A bit of a catch 22 (?).Some discoveries seem beneficial at first and later are regretted whilst the opposite probably applies in other cases. We seem as a civilisation to be in a kind of treadmill where the option of falling behind is as unfortunate a circumstance as having to continuously keep up.

Yes ,there are different perceptions in different contexts.I didn't mean that the perception I mentioned was widespread(or right) ,but that it was kind of perennial. Yes the layperson struggles to have a clue-or interest about what scientists try to learn. That means me (I struggle to have the understanding of a layman) The world is on a knife edge and we are accelerating into god only knows what future.I almost feel relieved I won't be here to find out.

Well,it seems a fairly common perception that we may be coming to a point where most of the physical laws are known( a faulty perception ,no doubt but I feel it is there) Then our level of scientific progress seems to be unprecedented and so the precedents you adduced ,as striking as they may be might not be good models for what we are facing into. It seems to me that the future has never been less clear than it is today. I was born into a period of incredible technological and scientific (and social) change and am still unprepared for what is happening now (and seems likely to happen) AI does seem to be one of the huge changes just hoving to on the horizon and so I may have given into the temptation to shoehorn it into this thread (since its effects seem as if they are going to be felt right across the board and may possibly and bizarrely even impact on the subject of this thread )

Does the law of diminishing returns apply to scientific progress? If humans' needs are more or less met will what is unknown in the physical world seem less important ? Might human civilisation "degenerate" into party time ?(especially if all the scientific acquisition are kept in the trust of AI guardians**whom few are inclined to doubt) **one of their roles might be the propagation of scientific infotainment.

I think they should contribute to the cost of their accommodation .They are having far too good a time. Same goes for tobogganing penguins.

I wonder if that is an absolutely universal trait?Are there any individuals who do not have this sense of themselves as a separate entity? If those people do not exist then can we view it as some kind of an instinctual reflex connected to the need to survive as an individual in the first instance? Do plants have mechanisms whereby their survival is favoured at the expense of others.? Could that be considered as "awareness of the self"?

Unless https://www.flashlyrics.com/lyrics/jim-morrison-music-by-the-doors/stoned-immaculate-58 "Out here in the perimeter There are no stars, Out here we is stoned Immaculate." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePxeGDnZpKQ&list=RDePxeGDnZpKQ&start_radio=1&rv=ePxeGDnZpKQ&t=6

Do you mean "is there a smallest possible size?" I think I have read an answer to that as "we don't know" Is it possible that the theory of an infinite number of parallel universes might be talking about "virtual" parallel universes?(so they never become real,they always recombine to one outcome)

I thought I had heard that we don't know that I wonder ,though whether the uncertainty principle might apply to space and time whereby the more precise a measurement of a temporal location is made the less precise a measure of spatial location is measured

It has to process the input from the sensors. Is that different to perceiving?

The human body clock has to perceive changes in brightness,doesn't it? It must have sensors in the body to facilitate the perception.(the eyes,I expect) And the first living creatures developed sensors too I may have heard.

The one-step change would have to have its context. Maybe that would provide a concept of quantifiable time whereas the one-step change would be less significant.(in practice I can't see any sentient being being aware of a one-step change without a context in the background) I wonder what would be the most primitive creatures with a body clock or equivalent. Does ,for example a virus measure time in any sense?

If "GMT" is refined to represent just one event at one location and time in Greenwich,and that event is non-composite(something perhaps like the decay of a single particle or -if such exists-a single quantum fluctuation) could it be said that ,in its own frame of reference only that a point called zero could be identified(but not measured)? Maybe it would have to be a sequence of changes,not just a binary one.(connecting the dots )

Does "absolute" mean the opposite of "defined relatively" in this context? The same (or closely related) idea as that there is no preferred frame of reference in relativity?

I can't suggest how to measure it but my idea is that the "nows"(or "thens) are everywhere with one to each fleeting frame of reference. I don't think we can just say that "now does not exist"(even if for a sentient entity that "now" is incredibly composite and inferred). All the "nows" have to be related and no one "now" is any different from another "now" as far as I can see. They are only "now" in their own frame of reference and their duration (what could be measured) is perhaps non existent except insofar as their relationships with neighbouring "nows" can be quantified. Yes GPS does stand out (ie the conceptual breakthrough of the space'time continuum) but I do wonder if there nay have been other conceptual breakthroughs in the past What,I wonder might have been the first perception that gave rise to the concept of time for example? Or is a concept of time just hardwired into existence including sentient existence?