**From:** *Spudboy100@aol.com*

**Date:** Tue Feb 19 2002 - 10:44:10 MST

**Next message:**James Rogers: "Re: AGING: perhaps we are over the hump."**Previous message:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: Hermits and Cranks (fwd)"**Maybe in reply to:**Emlyn O'regan: "Hole in a box"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Mr. Newstrom's calculations seems so delightfully, optimistic, that even when

the old notion of it being "too good to be true", I say hoo-hah! Make it be

so!

In a message dated 2/19/2002 8:57:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,

louisnews@comcast.net writes:

<< > Anders wrote:

* > > Assume we can store x bits / kg of matter. One stored bit is
*

* > > worth c^2/x J of energy if its substrate is transmuted.
*

: I disagree with your premise. As Godel pointed out, a single integer can

: store an infinite amount of information:

: Digitize the information into discrete bytes a, b, c, ...

: Encode a single integer as 2^a * 3 ^b * 5^c ... using prime numbers for the

: base.

: Any unique infinate data will have a unique result.

: Then take only TWO atoms and store the number as say the number of inches

: betwen them.

Thus, any two atoms can store an infinite amount of information. (The only

limit in the scheme I have given is the size of the universe in inches.)

Given cleverness in how to store large integers, I don't think there is a

limit based on the amount of matter in the universe.

The real energy shortage will be in how much energy it takes to read/write

information. All reading and writing of data seems to require energy.

Thats where the energy cost will lie. >>

**Next message:**James Rogers: "Re: AGING: perhaps we are over the hump."**Previous message:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: Hermits and Cranks (fwd)"**Maybe in reply to:**Emlyn O'regan: "Hole in a box"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:40 MST
*