The world is bianary

[jutntog1]

I was thinking... can every object in the world be described 100% acurately in bianary, theoreticaly i mean.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Binary is a numbering system. It doesn't actually do anything except count.

 

It's a base-two numbering system--we have base ten.

[atinymonkey]

Binary is a numbering system. It doesn't actually do anything except count.

You realise the irony in saying that via the medium of a computer?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I forgot the "except when interpreted by a computer" bit.

[Pangloss]

You know, this is really a yes/no kind of a subject. I mean, the answer is pretty black-and-white, wouldn't you say?

[Daecon]

I guess theoretically you could account for everything, using whatever terms you like best.

 

Regarding things in Binary is no different that regarding them in 100 Monkey Points, it's just that binary is easier to work with.

 

Although physically you'd need more than just a "one-or-the-other" system, as the universe is far more complicated.

 

Quarks, Electrons, Photons, Bosons, etc...

[Aeternus]

Just like in our own number system, it is hard to account for certain numbers in binary (for instance we find representing 1/3 hard in decimal/denary (0.3333 recurring, ie you can't actually represent it accurately)). I would imagine a third itself is very hard to represent in binary accurately (in either floating point or fixed point binary).

 

Saying this I'm sure you could find a way of interpretting bits to let it represent various constants and variables given certain bits set or given certain formats (such as ASCII etc) so... I suppose anythings possible but whether or not it would be practical or reasonable is another matter

[Pangloss]

One of the more interesting problems is that if your goal is to represent an analog entity in a digital (binary) fashion, you're more or less stuck with one approach -- sampling. The accuracy of a digital sample of an analog event or entity is dependent upon the frequency with which you sample. So long as your threshold of detection is below the frequency rate of the sample, you don't (in theory) have a problem. But perception is a funny thing, and this always seems to be a compromise.

 

Since your sampling frequency could never in theory equate to a 1:1 relationship of analog to digital data, the answer to the original question of this thread would seem to be "no".

 

But perhaps someone who knows more about sampling and its inherent problems can give an answer.

[Ophiolite]

If we worked in unary then decisions would be easier.

[Psion]

You know, this is really a yes/no kind of a subject. I mean, the answer is pretty black-and-white, wouldn't you say?

 

nice. You're kinda on, but off.

 

No, I don't think you could describe the world in binary.

I would think, because of the digital vs. analog properties.

[5614]

because of the digital vs. analog properties

That's my answer too.

[NeonBlack]

Since your sampling frequency could never in theory equate to a 1:1 relationship of analog to digital data' date=' the answer to the original question of this thread would seem to be "no".

[/quote']

 

Why not? At some level everything is discreet. I think we could represent anything digitally, we'd probably just have to go down to the Planck scale. So I say in theoretically yes but practically no.

[Dave]

Well, the obvious question is: why would you want to? I can't see any practical application of representing everything in binary. I guess we just need to know why semag68 wanted to know in the first place.

[neutrino86]

My answer to your question is incomplete(i.e the fact that '"everything" has not yet been described by any mathematical model), but whatever can be described with a decimal system can obviously be described by a system of another base.

[postgrep]

Everything can be described in binary theoretically? I say no.

 

What about particles of spin 1/2 ? Theres no way to express a half in binary unless you use an operator on it, which is in fact NOT expressing it in binary, but as an equation.

[DQW]

Theres no way to express a half in binary

1/2 is expressed as 0.1 in binary.

[DQW]

unless you use an operator on it, which is in fact NOT expressing it in binary, but as an equation.

Separating terms by an operator creates an expression, not an equation.

[postgrep]

1/2 is expressed as 0.1 in binary.

 

It can't be. If it is a binary system, then everything MUST be a one OR a zero, if something is to be less than one and more than zero then that is an invalid state.

[DQW]

Okay, don't believe me....

 

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Binary.html

 

Therefore, 1/2 would be represented as 0.1, 1/4 as 0.01, 3/4 as 0.11, and so on.

[neutrino86]

Yeah...the comp in front of you is using the same "conventions for doing binary operations which involve decimals...1's and 2's complements and so on..

[YT2095]

the world is analog, not even the binary 1s and 0s in a computer are true, there are never two 1`s or 0s the same, it`s No voltage or A voltage, but take the decimal places of A voltage to the N`th degree, and no 2 "Voltages" will be the same.

so although we can represent a "False" or Approximation of Binary, a computer is Still basicly 100% analogue, the Binary is the Virtual part

[Xyph]

Yeah. I see no reason why not. If everything is truly discrete at some level, then even binary represented only by approximate voltages should be good enough. It would only be a representation, obviously, but theoretically it could still be a 100% accurate one.

[YT2095]

and what if the discrete properties are above 2 in type?

 

BINARY is the Illusion here, it only works in concept or with heavy "Filtering" of the real to distingiush parameters that fit into either 1 of 2 catagories.

the real world is Not Naturaly like this at Any KNOWN level, not even day and night

[Xyph]

If there are more than 2 types of discrete properties to represent, it'll just take more code to represent it. Binary could still be used for this.

 

Yeah, the result isn't going to be the real world, but I still see no reason why, theoretically, it couldn't be a perfectly accurate representation of it, when the right equipment is used to read the binary.

 

Although, chances are, by the time such a thing could be done even for an incredibly small part of reality, there'd be less clumsy ways to do it than binary.

[neutrino86]

Numbers are numbers what ever be the base.In decimal its base ten so every integer between 0-9 is multiplied to powers of ten according to the value one wants to describe be it form 0 to 9 or more. The base 2 case is treated similarly.

Because there are only two discrete elements in this number system it has bee chosen in digital systems to indicate the 0 by a ground and a 1 by a high.

This is how we have chosen to represent the number line to a comp.