this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
55 points (77.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43397 readers
1061 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Boiling it down to its bare essentials, I think the question is really whether or not it’s plausible to claim that getting potentially unlimited resets, but still tracking each entity from a finite pool, with the ideal goal of any one given entity changing on each reset in a non-deterministic way, there would eventually come a state, in which each and every single entity has, at some point, encountered their then active ideal goal.
If we don’t track the entities and/or the pool is not finite, then I would say it’s simply impossible. But even then there are boundaries and variables that need further defining.
But if we assume the initial scenario I described, then sure, I think it is inevitable that a finite set of beings will eventually have all experienced their ideal goal, at some point, assuming the goals are, too, finite. And even then the one limiting boundary — time — would have to be infinite. If not, then we’d also have to define the entire thing further.