Russell Standish wrote:
I'm not sure I really follow your explanation here. Are you trying to
link the information generation that occurs through MW decoherence to
the expansion of space-time through the holographic principle (the
amount of information contained within any 3D volume is proportional to
the boundary area of that volume)?
  
Well, as described in the FOR think of the multiverse as a block, made up of different stacks of pictures that comprise individual universes as they move through time.  Now try to adjust that to what is really going on:  space time is expanding out from the Big Bang.  If you could remove yourself from the multiverse and watch it, time would be expanding at an increasing area, just as the spatial dimensions are.  The reason information storage capacity would equal the surface area of a given object is that any object or area is actually existing in all these overlapping timelines, or virtually identically universes.  Therefore, if you assume the "time-area" is expanding at a proportional rate to the spatial volume, you would need to divide a cube 10^300 Planck units on a side  by  10^100 to  take out the information that is moving into  the volume or area of time, since we lose this information as we are stuck on a solitary time line and losing the multiverse information to decoherence.  This is simply another way of saying we lose the information to the other universes, I'm just explaining why it would be the amount it is through the mental imagery of time expanding to fill a space  equivalent to the spatial dimensions.

Taking a bird's eye view, and watching the cube moving through the multiverse, all the overlapping universes the cube comprises, the cube could store 10^300 bits of information- equal to it's volume.  However, if you  measure the information in any individual universe, you have to divide the cube over all the overlapping universes it comprises, or an "area" of time equal to the the area of one of it's sides (again assuming the expansion of time is proportional to the expansion of the spatial dimensions.)  This leaves information storage capacity equal to the surface area of the object . 

I am basically taking the block view of the multiverse seriously, and dividing the information storage capacity by the area of all the stacks of pictures the cube exists on, because we can only measure the information on the one stack that is our universe.  The area of the different stacks can be thought of as an area of time, and would equal one of the spatial areas that comprise the cube if time expansion is proportional to spatial expansion.

This makes sense to me, but then again I am an attorney....

Danny Mayes

On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:47:49AM -0400, Danny Mayes wrote:
  
Considered from a MWI perspective, space-time is expanding to fill a 
volume not only of spatial dimensions, but of time.  We consider time to 
move in a "line", because we APPEAR to be stuck stuck on a single time 
path.  Of course, we really know through MWI we are on some number of 
overlapping, identical paths.  However, the point is that space-time is 
expanding not only to fill the volumes of space, but to fill a volume of 
time.  By volume, I mean all the possible paths the multiverse can 
evolve into.  Considering just time, if you add up all the possible 
time-lines evolving out from the big bang, it can be imagined as an 
expanding sphere proceding out in conjunction with the spatial 
dimensions. This time-sphere encompasses the multiverse, whereas a 
single time line encompasses a single universe. Therefore, Bruce's idea 
that the information contained in a volume of space constitutes 
multiverse processes makes sense, because the expansion of the time 
dimension would be proportional to the expansion of the spatial 
dimensions. 

>From the time dimension perspective, we are very much therefore like 
the flatlanders-  stuck in a 3D + 1D limited to a single line world that 
is really a fully 4D world.  That seems to explain the holographic 
principle from a MWI perspective.

Danny Mayes


    

  

Reply via email to