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" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 > >