#### Re: about data storage

Hello, Voblin, you wrote: V> it is mandatory. Without variants. But further nuances of possible technical implementation begin. It seems to you. V> If the bit of the data is encoded by a state of the material object object it is easily considered under the formula log 2 (N) where N - an amount of perceptible states. A logarithm, of course, terribly lazy function. Titanic efforts powerfully improved technology and magnification of it N twice, and what achieved? Received a scoring in 1 shameful bit. Fie. But it is not necessary to forget that the logarithm of fair infinity is equal to fair infinity. So if to find fair infinity, and to it to stick, the task bottomless appears solved. In the physicist there are no fair infinity. See the quantum mechanics. V> very much that is measured in the physicist by real numbers. For example? V> Some values, of course, not is fair real number. For example, an electrical charge. There all rests against an electron charge. But even if to discard all not the presents rial-nambery, all the same there will be still an abyss of the presents. It can frighten a little bit, but the material world is that that in its any small trifle sits and impudently to us the infinite variety grins. No, the material world is that that the infinity in practice quickly appears simply big integer number. V> about quanta and uncertainty I know. But this uncertainty even if it really is a sentence not subject to the appeal (now it in the status beautiful, repeatedly checked up, but nevertheless hypotheses), works with all rigidity inherent in it only on those objects for which it is formulated. To us forbade to know simultaneously pulse and particle position? , we will not be. At once three variants and the law to observe, and a candy to eat: V> 1. And the hell with him, with position. Absolutely not interesting. Let it will be "plus-minus infinity". We will be hooked to pulse and there how many not laziness. In that case, the size of your carrier becomes infinite. In a pocket it is possible to suppose only very small carrier. If we restrict coordinates to its limits it appears that the error of measurement of pulse is rather great. The maximum size of pulse is restricted by a velocity of light, therefore infinitely precisely to measure position too does not quit. V> 2. And the hell with him, with pulse. Let it will be any. In that side even we will not look. We will be . See above. V> 3. And the hell with them, with positions and pulses of particles. On particles there are other fish in the sea. There are things, to which quantum theory any side not . For example, gravitation. Meanwhile all attempts to marry quanta with gravitation with a crash failed. Whether instead of gravitation? Or, if with it too does not grow together, something else? And what gravitation? You want to encode there something by means of mass? We again rest that the infinite amount of particles will weigh infinitely much, and restricted volume it leads to a collapse. V> the quantum theory - an outstanding piece. Eventually, it is extreme of the microcosmos physics, simultaneously possessing both property , and property of usefulness. Standard, for example, model of subatomic particles though and forged, but on the practical level certainly useless. And the string theory - so that simultaneously both useless, and not checked. V> but it is necessary to understand that the quantum theory - it is exact not the history end. Those professional physicists-theorists with whom remained though a droplet of intellectual honesty, recognize that they do not have any worthy explanation to that fact that the photon climbs at once through two holes. A problem of physicists that all people share on two unequal groups. People from group simply do not understand physical explanations - they do not have for this purpose necessary concepts. People from smaller group of idiotic questions like "as it is a photon climbs at once through two holes" do not set. Any attempt to prepare the person to explanations leads to that it is simply moved from one group to another. V> the scholastic approach "here the formula which works and which should be learned" - not for serious boys. A situation really ridiculous. At me on a nose the instrument exploiting wave properties of photons (points), but the world science has no that any distinct understanding as such generally can work. Officially recognized open question. A problem? Yes in any time not a problem. The task. At you and at physicists the treatment of the term "understanding" simply differs. For the physicist "understanding" means development of model which adequately describes the observable world - i.e." Here the formula which works ". If the formula describes all known observations plus is able to predict correctly result of the future observation - , we"understand"enough. If there are places which the formula does not describe - here then we"do not understand"something. It is necessary to saw the formula further, there does not come yet understanding. In quantum optics, for example, absolutely not clear places any more does not remain. But you do not worry - there are also such people who sincerely consider that for, say, planes" that any distinct understanding as such generally can work, the world science has no." . That is to calculate the form of wings and the device of engines we are able, and here "the present understanding", carrying power whence undertakes - is not present. Simply you want, that the difficult phenomena had such explanation which coincides with your is primitive-intuitive concepts about the nature device. That is to imagine a photon as a ball you can, and imagine it as a wave packet - is not present. Because in a life there is no such piece which would conduct itself as a wave packet. Well here I will disappoint you - such here understanding of quantum mechanics, or relativistic effects, alas, will be never. Home concepts work in conditions of life. And in macro- and to the concept micro-world absolutely others. V> generally, a little bit thinking, came to a conclusion that actually in bottomless storage to use really any. Having capacious enough (petabytes) storage and limitation of throughput of the interface, it is possible to imitate easily by means of hash functions unlimited address space. Probability of that somebody sometime reveals fraud, is small. Quite right, and becomes in limitless cloudy storages. V> real need to store infinitely many bit appears if to learn only to operate with the data of the infinite digit capacity. At least them to add. It gives at once precedent of the infinite computing power, which it is possible to think how to use. It is really basic other computing technology. And from forgetting about a problem of shortage of a place on a hard, any considerably delightful vau-effect to receive it does not turn out. The infinite computing power should for finite time fulfill an infinite loop