>>12491371>>12492046Let's call any computer running an algorithm that has a number as an output a C-machine. Let's call the time elapsed since the beginning of the universe t. Call the output of a C-machine at a time t, a t-output. Suppose there is a machine such that its t-output is bigger than the t-output of any other C-machine for all t. Suppose also that this machine can run for longer than any other C-machine. Call it the M-machine. Since energy is finite and the M-machine has to take energy from somewhere, the M-machine will eventually stop. Let's say it stops in a time s. Let's call the s-output of the machine M. Now you cannot add anything to it because by doing so, you'd become a C-machine with a t-output strictly bigger than the t-output of the M-machine, which we've established is not possible.
Please don't try to argue with all of the batshit insane assumptions I made above. It's just a thought experiment to convey that there *is* a limit for how long you can keep "adding one". Wilderberg argues that we can't say anything meaningful about numbers past this point since we can't actually ever compute them.
>>12492303>10^10^10 is computable in finite time though. Just not in convenient time.Yeah, sorry. My bad. I didn't mean finite as in "not infinite" I meant finite as in "we can't compute 10^10^10 in the life of the universe".
