Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote: > > 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.
It's also wrong, according to our best theory of BHs, the entropy of a BH is proportional to it's surface area and the maximum entropy configuration of a given mass is for it to form a BH. The information interpretation of this is that the information that seems to be "lost" by something falling into a black hole is encoded in correlations between what falls in and the black-body Hawking radiation from the surface. So the entropy increases in that microscopically encoded information becomes unavailable to use macroscopic beings. This is where all entropy comes from anyway - the dynamical evolution of QM is deterministic (at least in the MWI) and so information is never lost or gained. Brent Meeker > > 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] > <mailto:[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 email@example.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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---