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" > <email@example.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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description: PGP signature