>>19
Do you even know what computable means? The number sqrt(2) is computable, yet requires infinite memory and infinite time to compute for obvious reasons.
Furthermore, even if our "machine" had finite memory and needed to compute an output in finite time, you haven't proven that it won't work. The input and output both require only finite memory, so without additional knowledge of what needs to be stored there is no reason to believe that the memory required would necessarily be infinite. We have no idea what the computations would involve, and hence making comments on how long it would take to complete these computations is meaningless at best and intellectual dishonesty at worst.
In short, I suggest you actually learn something about computability theory before trying to shoehorn it into a discussion.
>>18
Alright, I'll assume that spacetime coordinates are made up of only real numbers. Let p be a particle at (x,y,z,t) = (0,0,c,t) in some frame of reference, with c being Chaitin's constant. Oops! Guess we can't compute that particle's position at time t to infinite precision, since Chaitin's constant can only be computed to a finite number of digits. The reason I chose rationals over computables is because (a) they're all computable, and (b)
>>14 doesn't seem like he knows very much about computability theory and thus may not know what the computable numbers are.