I will provide simpler version for this instance.
In a totally predictable world.
There is a cube and there is a rotating cube.
Every possible state for these cubes has been determined.
Looking at any of the states does not bring any new information.
These cubes are long done when the time ends because of entirely predictable states.
By this notion I would see no value in any thing, whatever its current state.
By the above time would either not exist and be an immovable object or it would be the only infinite thing in the universe.
"These cubes are long done," what do you mean, understood? The fact that a machine interprets the behaviour of something to the degree of absolute predictability does not impose a change in it's state, unless the method of observation had done so, e.g. observing a subatomic particle using light would change it's state as the momentum of the photon that was used to measure the state would have flung the measured particle away [into another state] even before that photon had hit your detector, thus your observation would have been a history of the object observed and not it's immediate state.
"By this notion I would see no value in any thing, whatever its current state;" What if you did not care about the fact that you could predict it? Perhaps you were more interested in feeling the edges of the cube or trying to draw pictures and designs as you pissed on the side of the cube (of course, the existence of urine would imply a more complex system than two cubes); only the INTP may feel the dissatisfaction as they are the kind of people who really on unsolved problems of personal-interest to stay occupied. It is your responsibility to resolve that dissatisfaction. Although, this universe would never exist as humans would have to be there to observe it, which means that the complexity of humans must be fully accounted for and predictable such that you arrive at this realization that we know every possible state of every constituent of the universe on a predictable basis, and we are not there yet (this example is of course an applied one, and not a theoretical one); does this make sense?
"By the above time would either not exist and be an immovable object or it would be the only infinite thing in the universe;" What concept implies that absolutely predictability would make time stop? If I knew what was going to happen, perhaps I'd be bored and possibly go insane, but time does not have to stop; again, the observer only affects the measured object under certain circumstances (we still don't understand the universe, so there could be more to it), the effect the object has on the observer does not necessarily mean an equal affect will be imposed on the object by the observer (or does it? Seriously, just had the thought and I can't think it out; I'm just sketched from Newton's 2nd--even though it explicitly applies to forces, what if there is an analogous pattern except with different fundamental components, e.g. for every [something] there is an equal and opposite [something], etc, that we have not discovered?). In the case of it being the only infinite thing in the universe, well, did you not say that it is the only thing in the universe (erm...world)? And would a better word not be constant, i.e. constant behaviour? In that terminology it looses it's significance in the eyes of a thing that can feel I think, I mean, from the significance we feel from the meaning of "infinite;" In any case, this is the same as time stopping in your interpretation, i.e. that time stops when everything in the universe is entirely predictable, it is the fact that it is infinite which makes the time stop, I suppose, i.e. predictable, by your interpretation; at least how I see it, these are the same conclusion-- one is assuming time stops when everything is predictable, the other being that we have to wait of the infinite [*sassy girl voice*:...boring!].
In any case, humans and our supercomputers (even superquantum computers) will likely not be able to ever fully understand these things, unless we are living in a simulation we designed to survive, which would have likely been built by a kind of super computer. But we need to consider the fact the the fact that we can think logically is a fluke itself; it does have limits in terms of our ability to understand/conceive concepts and/or make observations (and understand how to make those observations, i.e., the specific scientific methods) from which we may deduce an understanding of those concepts.
We as INTPs may try to attempt insurmountable questions; don't get caught up in the fact that, humans--we have complex problems that have solutions that are simple, neat..., and wrong. Work from the outer borders of your grand concept map of ideas and patterns you have identified, and then cross reference your discoveries with path findings to check for consistency.
Don't just keep the semantics to this instance; I'll certainly be discussing more with you.
And sorry if it's long and goes off-topic, I'm pretty stoned and a little drunk right now..
