Danny,
(I think) I made the mistake to read your post below.
Did you compose it from the habitual vocabulary of physics-related sciences
to construct a gobbledygook that sounds VERY scientific?
I enjoyed it as abstract paintings. Don't look for sense in those either.
I figured you may have an identification for 'time' to image it as
geometrical.
I heard about one relationship netween (physical) space and (physical) time
it is called (physical) motion. You wrote:
[DM]: "It would be like drawing a square and asking why height is
proportional to length.  The relationship is necessary. "
Same with your "cube(???)" and the time expressed as area. Or whatever.

I post these remarks only to make listmembers (whom I honor no end) to think
twice before spending their time and braingrease to work into it and -
maybe - getting a Nobel prize (ha ha).

If there is something logical, understandable, followable, in your position,
I would be happy to learn about it.

John Mikes



----- Original Message -----
From: "danny mayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "everything list"
<everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: follow-up on Holographic principle and MWI


> Russell Standish wrote:
>
> >What I was asking is why you think "time-area" should be proportional
> >to length. I can't see any reasoning as to what it should be
> >proportional to.
> >
> >
> >
> Russell,
>
> Thanks for your interest in this.  I did not make this any easier by
> bungling the initial concept a little in my first post.  To directly
> answer your question, I am assuming space-time is a single entity, with
> time representing the spatial area of the multiverse.  Therefore, the
> question you pose really wouldn't make sense.  It would be like drawing
> a square and asking why height is proportional to length.  The
> relationship is necessary.
>
> Going back to all of our multiverse stacks with the cube on it, all
> these stacks would equal the time-area.  This is the "depth" of the cube
> in the multiverse, that would allow the cube to store 10^300 bits of
> information.  The time area equals the cube in it's totality in the
> multiverse.  So why, in our universe, can we only store information
> equal to the surface area?  Well we know we don't have access to the
> whole cube, because we are not in all of the universes that this cube
> exists in.  So we have to divide the cube by something to represent the
> fact that we are only on one stack.  The proper divisor would be the
> length of the cube, because we are existing on a time-line.  The
> information that can be stored is limited to a single set of outcomes- a
> line along the plane of the time area (a stack of pictures).
>
> This leaves us with the Holographic principle.
>
> Please note this is an interesting concept (to me) I am proposing
> because the geometry of it makes sense when I picture it mentally.  You
> or others much smarter than I will have to explain why this works or
> doesn't work mathematically in QM or TOR.  Colin Bruce suggests in his
> book that the cube volume contains multiverse information (as a
> speculative ending to his book), and when I started thinking about it I
> realized if you take the "multiverse block" concept seriously, and
> consider time a spatial dimension through the multiverse, a cube of
> space would only provide a full content of information before it was
> seperated out into all of the individual outcomes as it moved through
> time (or how about "multiverse space"?).
>
> A cube of space really does hold it's volume in information.  But we
> have to divide by time.  Particularly, the length of the time plane
> because the rest of the time area has been lost to the other
> outcomes/universes/stacks (or whatever allows you to conceptualize it
> the best).  This is speculative (obviously).  I'd like to hear some
> feedback, as this explains a lot (to me anyway) if the concept is right.
>
> Danny Mayes
>
>


Reply via email to