Hi,
It was an interesting hypothesis,
When we're talking black holes we should consider them as the sources of
reduction of entropy; since when something gets into a black hole we have no
more information about it and so the overall information of the world
decreases and the same happens to entropy.
In your the world is moving toward black holes so the entropy of the world
should decrease! But that seems not to be the the case, it's somehow
inconvenient.

If we accept the idea of CA as the fundamental building blocks of the nature
we should explain: why some patterns and not the others. Some that have lead
to our physical laws and not the other possibilities?
In this situation the idea of multiverse might help.


On 3/15/07, Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
> See previous posts here re EC - Entropy Calculus. This caught my eye,
> thought I'd throw in my $0.02 worth.....
>
> I have been working on this idea for a long while now. Am writing it up as
> part of my PhD process.
>
> The EC is a lambda calculus formalism that depicts reality. It's actual
> instantation with one particular and unbelievable massive axiom set is the
> universe we are in. The instantation is literally the CA of the EC
> primitives.
>
> As cognitive agents within it, made of the EC-CA, describing it, we can
> use abstracted simplified EC on a computational substrate (also made of
> the CA...a computer!) to explore/describe the universe. But the
> abstractions (like string theory) are not the universe - they are merely
> depictions at a certain spatiotemporal observer-scales.  Reality is a
> literal ongoing massively parallel theorem proving exercise in Entropy
> Calculus. The EC universe has literally computed you and me and my dogs.
>
> Coherence/Bifurcation points in the CA correspond to new descriptive
> 'levels of underlying reality' - emergence. Atoms, Molecules,
> Crystals....etc...
>
> One of the descriptive abstractions of the EC-CA is called
> 'Maxwells-Equations'. Another is the Navier-Stokes equations (different
> context), another is Quantum Mechanics, the standard particle model and so
> on. None of them are reality - merely depictions of a surface behaviour of
> it. In the model there is only one universe and only one justified or
> needed. Which is a bummer if you insist on talking about
> multiverses.....they are not parsimonious or necessary to explain the
> universe. I can't help it if they are unnecessary!
>
> You know , it's funny what EC makes the universe look like..... the
> boundary of the universe is the collective event horizon of all black
> holes. On the other side is nothing. The endlessly increasing size of
> black holes is what corresponds to the endlessly increasing entropy
> (disorder - which is the dispersal of the deep universe back to nothing at
> the event horizons). The measure of the surface area of the black holes is
> the entropy of the whole universe.
>
> The process of dispersal at the boundary makes it look like the universe
> is expanding - to us from the inside. The reality is actually the reverse
> - the spatiotemporal circumstances are of shrinkage  - due to the loss of
> the redundant fabric of the very deepest layers of reality being eaten by
> the black holes, dragging it in....whilst the organisation of collections
> of it at the uppermost layers is maintained (like space, atoms etc).
> (Imagine a jumper knitted of wool with a huge number of threads in the
> yarn - remove the redundant threads from the inside and the jumper
> shrinks, but is still a jumper, just getting smaller....(everything else
> around looks like it's getting bigger from the point of view of being the
> jumper.).... our future?...we'll all blink out of existence as the event
> horizons of black holes that grow and grow and grow and do it faster and
> faster and faster until..... merging and merging until they all merge and
> then PFFFFFT! NOTHING..... and the whole process starts again with a new
> axiom set....round and round and round....we go...
>
> Weird huh?
>
> So I reckon you're on the right track. You don't have to believe me about
> any of it... but I can guarantee you'll get answers if you keep looking at
> it. The trick is to let go of the idea that 'fundamental building blocks'
> of nature are a meaningful concept (we are tricked into the belief be our
> perceptual/epistemological goals) ...
>
> cheers,
> colin hales
>
>
>
> Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote:
> > I'm thinking there's some kind of similarity between string theory and
> depicting the world as a big CA. In String theory we have some vibrating
> strings which have some kind of influence on each other and can for
> different matters and fields. CA can play such role of changing patterns
> and of course the influence is evident. Different rules in CA might
> correspond to various basic shapes of vibration in strings...
> > I don't know much about S.T. but the idea of such mapping seems very
> interesting.
> >
> > --
> > Mohsen Ravanbakhsh.
> >
> >
> > >
>
>
>
>
> >
>


-- 

Mohsen Ravanbakhsh,
Sharif University of Technology,
Tehran.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to