I certainly have no ill intent, and am a little disappointed that an
idea can not be addressed in a proper way, that being to simply
explain the inherent problems. No need for hostility or acrimony.|
That said, John has a valid point (if he showed up on my legal lists that I am a member of and started giving legal advice perhaps the reaction would be the same, though I'd like to think we, even as attorneys believe it or not, might be a little kinder) and the "theories" (or rampant speculations John may suggest) and explanations thereof really should be left to those with adequate scientific background to handle them, and I therefore overstepped my bounds to an extent.
That said, I do have two questions:
1. If it is true that "This is the distinctive core of the quantum concept of time: Other times are just special cases of other universes" (Deutsch, FOR, p.278), in the multiverse context, how can time be thought of as anything other than an area map of the multiverse?;
2. Does it really matter if the cube is really a rectangle? Regardless of the size of the "time area," (and it's proportionality to the "real" spatial dimensions) you would still have to divide it by the length of the world line, eliminating the volume.
As I said before, this is speculative. But hopefully someone will be willing to point out the error of my ways, which I am sure would help more than just myself understand all of this a little better.
Russell Standish wrote:
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" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 1:42 AM Subject: Re: follow-up on Holographic principle and MWIRussell 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
- Re: follow-up on Holographic principle and MWI danny mayes