[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 124 KB, 1102x967, 1391548759174.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6399137 No.6399137[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Could the only unsolvable encryption be the very root source equation that Einstein failed to find?

The very reason Einstein could not solve the equation could have been because it is unsolvable.

Suppose we found the one equation for everything. That would mean that everything was solvable and therefore predictable.

If everything could be calculated, we would then have no free will, because accurately calculated results will come true f they are acurately calculated.

If we do have free will, then not everything can be calculated and we will be able to find an unbreakable encryption one day.

That would also mean that nothing is certain, and we cannot be certain about anything. Even is the theory about string is I'm a little teapot short and spout. Hear is my whistle here is my spout. When you tip me over it all flows out. You see this is all a great metaphor for something ineligibly unimaginable.

Adding another supposition, Michio Kaku says that everything is calculable. Although if you read his teacher reviews on ratemyprofessor.com, it is clear that he is a self indulgent misogynistic egotistical technobabler who scammed the world into thinking he was a scientist with his acting skills, memorization of other's works, and overconfidence.

Anyone who pays attention to Mitio Kaku should just go back to watching bill nye the science guy.

What does /sci/ think about this?
I'm writing a dissertation on this for my thesis.

remember me, I AM ERROR.

>> No.6399151
File: 32 KB, 277x182, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6399151

bump

>> No.6399156

>>6399137
>If everything could be calculated
Of course it can't, you can't even write down Graham's number, not enough particles in the universe. Compared to 'everything' Graham's number is nothing.

>> No.6399165

>>6399156
Graham's number is inconsequential for the theory's validity.

>your point if forced into concession.

You lose 5 hp.

>> No.6399164

"unsolvable" is dependent on technology and the physical limitations of the universe.

If the universe is simulated then everything already is calculated.

And there is no free will regardless of whether if determinism or indeterminism is true.

>> No.6399167
File: 155 KB, 500x364, pointless.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6399167

Wat?

Encryption? You mean Grand Unified Theory?

And hence determinism?

Next time please mention Kaku earlier so I can stop reading earlier.

Bill Nye debated Ham and, well, sucked.

Dissertation for a thesis; you are doing no such thing.

>> No.6399168

>>6399167
Ouch.

>> No.6399170

>>6399164
>Dependent on technology
Simply wrong, our greatest technology
is what we were already born with.
OUR BRAINS.
With proper understanding of where
energy originated, we could easily
deduce the reason this dust cloud
spawned intelligence.

>If the universe is simulated

Once again wrong.

You lose 37 hp.

If the universe was being simulated that would imply that there is a need to run such a simulation, and the calculation has not yet been completed yet. Therefore; its future is uncertain.

You lose 45 hp.

>> No.6399175

>>6399167
Ouch indeed.
?YOU ARE ALSO COMPLETELY WRONG.
but what did I expect from 4chan...

It is a sort of metaphor comparing the process of breaking encryptions to solving the mysteries of the universe.

If you could try every possibility at the same time, there could be no passwords.

Just like if you could test every possible combination of calculable factors.

Because you actually tried.
You lose only 4hp

>> No.6399178

Einstein was hugely inflated by the media. Yea some of his work was very influential...however he wasn't the godly second coming which a lot make him out as. Physics is a cumulative and co operative field. There should be no big egos, it only creates problems...look at Edward Teller that sell out scumbag

>> No.6399181

>>6399168
Allow me to retort.

OP questions what would happen if GUT is realized (I think that's what he means by 'encryption' anyway. -Not if GUT is possible/if we are progressing on it. He asks then what. Determinism? Last time I checked determinism was philosophy and this is a science board.
Something something edgy eat a dick.

>> No.6399183

>>6399178
Are you trying to imply that you know better than Einstein? What is wrong with you, you narcissistic ingrate. Einstein spend his life contributing to humanity and you might be speaking German right now if he was a bad guy.

-100hp INSTANT FATALITY!

>> No.6399187
File: 68 KB, 620x349, not a metaphor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6399187

>>6399175
You know, it's going to a long time tonight before I get over getting rekt for not correctly interpreting/being COMPLETELY WRONG about
>a sort of metaphor

>> No.6399199

>>6399181
Hadouken!!!!!!!!!

If GUT is realized, then there will be no need for philosophy. It would be a concept like alchemy, completely irrelevant.

Hadouken!!!!!!!!!

Theoretically, science would replace philosophy because we would use it to know the future; knowing that the future cannot be changed by our perception of it.

Knowing that seeing the future was our natural momentum, and the comfort from knowing the future was our destiny.

You lose 99hp

>> No.6399205

I feel bad for having posted in a troll thread. Oh well, at least I saged.

Sage.

>> No.6399207

>>6399187
Fail, your insight is lacking something.
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions.

Kuh-Kuh-COMBO!

>implying you were butt hurt.
you lose 70hp

>> No.6399209

>>6399205
Suppose I was a troll,
What would a real troll be saying?

You lose 33hp

Use your potion now?

>> No.6399214
File: 52 KB, 453x359, star matter.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6399214

>>6399199
First you claim;

>If GUT is realized, then there will be no need for philosophy. It would be a concept like alchemy, completely irrelevant.

Given your terms (it will be...) then why do you rejoin it with?...

>"Theoretically"

>science would replace philosophy

^Look up 'epistemology" (philosophy) and get back to me when you figure out where science fits in it.

>because we would use it to know the future;

^A rather long-winded way of saying 'determinism'.

>knowing that the future cannot be changed by our perception of it.

^ibid

>Knowing that seeing the future was our natural momentum,

I have no idea what that sentence is trying to say.

and the comfort from knowing the future was our destiny.

Funny, I thought the future WAS our destiny.
Again; this is not a science discussion.

>You lose 99hp

Bet you were never cool enough to play DnD.

>> No.6399235

To all you fuckers who say that everything is calculable. Go think about Gödels incompleteness theorem.

If you can't think... It proves that physics is either Inconsistent or Incomplete.

>> No.6399245

>>6399235
The universe is a system and a meta system? It has axioms and rules for marshaling those axioms, like, formally n' stuff?

>> No.6399250

>>6399245
Phys describes the world, phys must be stronk enough theory to satisfiy Incompleteness. => phys is either inconsistent or Incomplete => not deterministic.

>> No.6399260

>>6399250
No.

I build a mousetrap. It consistently works. The blueprints which describe the mousetrap are not incomplete.

Godel was talking about formal abstract systems. But it's cool they mention him in high school now.

>> No.6399268

>>6399260
mousetrap is not a stronk theory.

>> No.6399277

>>6399268
Now you're getting it, anon. The mousetrap is "a sort of metaphor" for the universe. It exists and does so consistently; no theory necessary.

Check out time for the Hilbert Hotel is 12 noon.

>> No.6399289

>>6399277
Yes but if the universe is descriable with a theory then it has the properties of a that theory (otherwise the theory doesn't describe it). IE either phys is not possible to gib axioms or phys is incomplete/inconsistent.

>> No.6399323

>>6399165
Silly you, solving _everything_ involves being able to write down _anything_, and more.

>> No.6399408

>>6399323
But what if we write Grahams number as "G"?

>> No.6399430

>>6399323
its 10.
in base Grahams number

>> No.6399439

>>6399430
nope :) it is 1. FUCKIGN NOOB

>> No.6399485

>>6399137
>Suppose we found the one equation for everything. That would mean that everything was solvable and therefore predictable.

Nope.fuckingavi please into mathematics.

>> No.6399497

>>6399408
You know, that doesn't quite cover _everything_

>> No.6399504

>>6399485
Maths's nothing to do with it, it's physics. Heisenberg's and causality principles is everything you need to know in order to derive the impossibility of a perfect prediction. In fact one of those is sufficient.

>> No.6399507

>>6399439
Oh. And 10, in base ten, is also 1?

>> No.6399511

>>6399507
I loled. Not sure if you've just been trolled or just told some idiot, either way I'm entertained.

>> No.6399514

>>6399497
Actually it does.

>> No.6399530

>>6399514
Graham =/= everything.

>> No.6399533

>>6399530
yes but the principle of representing large numbers as short string is the same.

>> No.6399632

>>6399533
calculate the 10^100th digit of G.
Good luck with that without having the whole number.

>> No.6399671

You could predict simple cause and effect problems, but things like predicting the future? No way. Emergent phenomena stops that happening.

>> No.6399694

>>6399137
No OP I'm deciding between 2 very different degrees, all factors considered and dicarded. My decision will trigger a chain of events which will affect me, people surrounding me, my possible decendants etc. And the peocedure of making the final decision will be purely irrational (i have no transitive preferences between these two degrees), or will even involve a random number generator. How determinism would explain this?

>> No.6399760
File: 60 KB, 289x264, cropped out.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6399760

>>6399694
There is a finite amount of matter.

>10^100th digit of G

VERY GOOD POINT ; but being ignorant of what a variable does not make the problem unsolvable, it just makes us IGNORANT of what G is, making it not a problem to be solved.

>> No.6399772

>>6399170
I don't think you understand what a simulation is.
Especially not a simulation of deterministic systems.

>> No.6399822

>what is the difference between something hypothetically determined and what we can determine with our given technology

smells like high school in here. OP brings up a very good point actually

>> No.6399838

>>6399822
what point? that free will doesn't exist?

>> No.6399844

>>6399838
The point is it doesn't matter, you will still have to lead your life as if it does exist, lack of free will does not mean human choice goes out the window

>> No.6399987

>>6399844
The 'point' is free will? Something debated since the ancient Greeks? Laplace?

When did /sci/ become a philosophy board?

>> No.6400051

>>6399822

Smells like high school indeed. See...

>>6399987

>> No.6400087

>>6399137
Pi is the uncrackable encryption code.

Checkmate atheists.

>> No.6400111

>>6400087
Thanks, /b/

>> No.6400143

>>6400087
>>6400111
But actually it is a pretty good point if pi is used in the laws of the universe the universe will be unpredictable.

This applies for any infinitely long non-repeating number.

>> No.6400154

>>6400143
The fact that coefficients aren't rational has a much less significant effect on predictability than instability and chaos of physical systems.
That is to say, if they were rational, it would hardly make a difference.

>> No.6400163

Sorry but what contributes to the chaotic nature of said physical systems exactly?

>> No.6400348

>>6400143
pi does not exist

>> No.6400393

>>6399137
I loose 100 hp due to your inane babbling, complete and totally irrevocable autism, and total ignorance about absolutely everything in the OP.

I die, but that's okay, living in a universe with you was too painful anyway.

>> No.6400396

>>6400348
no numbers exist as numbers

>> No.6401126

>>6400348
found the square

>> No.6401138

>>6399137
No encryption is unbreakable as long as it uses finite numbers, though it becomes unfeasable to recover data from it, when your encryption key is of the same (order of magnitude of) length as your data, or larger. Though it's possible in finite time to generate your data, it's ALSO possible to generate 1 billion other strings of data with no way of determining which is the correct one.

Math. Sometimes numbers are smaller than other numbers, yo

>> No.6401317

>>6400393
>I loose 100 hp

Not the first time.

>> No.6401326 [DELETED] 
File: 15 KB, 527x92, aleph.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6401326

This is hebbening.
You are letting it.

>>6400348
>>6400396

>> No.6401496

I fucking hate you all

>> No.6401531

>>6401138
Actually ceasar encryption that uses keys that are as long as the text are unbreakable. (Or rather as unbreakable as anything gets).

>> No.6401541

>>6401496
I love you to anon

>> No.6401944
File: 906 KB, 1024x1536, 3key.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6401944

>>6401531
>Actually ceasar encryption that uses keys that are as long as the text

Wat.

My text is 'cat' so I have a key 3 'long'?
lrn2 integers modulo 26.

>as unbreakable as anything gets).
Again, wrong.

What is One Time Pad?

Suggest you start sitting in the front row of your classes at school, anon. That way you might pay more attention and the qt3.14s won't have to turn around and crane their pretty necks to point and laugh at you.

>> No.6401996

>>6401138
More accurately, the key must have at least as much entropy as the plaintext for the encryption to be unbreakable.

It is sufficient (but not strictly necessary) that the key is random and at least as long as the plaintext.

Using a key more than once makes it not random, hence the term "one-time pad".