John, you make out like Danny is trying to "Sokal" out this list. I
don't think that is the case. His use of terminology is very muddled -
he is a lawyer, remember, and lawyers use language in a different way
to the rest of us.

I was trying to see if he had the germ of an idea here, that properly
expressed might provide an interesting insight. Alas I haven't been
successful so far...

Cheers

On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 10:56:43AM -0400, John M wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
> 

-- 
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics                                    0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]             
Australia                                http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment: pgpSLnO6h8pRe.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to