# Jason and the Dragon's Teeth

```Hi meekerdb

How can you store info on a particle ?```
```
Let's make this as simple as possible and say that you decide to write
some "information" on a piece of paper in the form of 1's and 0's.
Is that really information ? No. Not unless you provide additional
information such as

a) a definition of what information is
b) where the information is (address)
c) could this just be junk ?
d) how to read the 1's and 0's apart from the blank spaces
e) what spurious info from the blank spaces means
j) how to tell that spurious information from 1's and 0's.
e) how to.....

For every step I add, hoping to clear up the
issue once and for all, other problems come to life,
as in the Greek myth of Jason and the Dragon's teeth:

http://www.mythweb.com/heroes/jason/jason14.html

"The Dragon's Teeth

Aeetes, it turns out, had got his hands on some dragon's teeth with unique
agricultural properties.
As soon as these hit the soil they began to sprout, which was good from the
point of view of
Jason accomplishing his task by nightfall, but bad in terms of the harvest. For
each seed germinated
into a fully-armed warrior, who popped up from the ground and joined the throng
now menacing poor Jason. "

You need info to store and read info, and
info on what that means, etc.

enemy, and for each enemy that n

gtell info

have an decoding aparatus.

Suppose you decide to store information on a computer disk.
You say 'all I have to do is put a + charge here and nothing there."

I don't think it's that simple.

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/20/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

----- Receiving the following content -----
From: meekerdb
Time: 2012-12-19, 17:10:58
Subject: Re: the only truth we can understand is a man-made object

On 12/19/2012 11:58 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>> On 12/19/2012 8:34 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>> Hi meekerdb and Stephen,
>>
>> If information is stored in quantum form,
>> I can't see why the number of particles
>> in the universe can be a limiting fsactor.
>>
>>
>> Information has to be instantiated in matter (unless you're a Platonist like
>> Bruno). No particles, no excited field modes -> no information.
>>
>> Also there are ways of storing information
>> holographically, so size gets a bit ambiguous.
>>
>>
>> The holographic principle says that the information that can be instantiated
>> in spherical must be less than the area of the bounding surface in Planck
>> units. So there's a definite bound. If we looks at the average information
>> density in the universe (which is dominated by low energy photons from the
>> CMB) and ask at what radius does the spherical volume times the density
>> equal the holographic limit for that volume based on the surface area we
>> find it is on the order of the Hubble radius, i.e. the radius at which
>> things are receding at light speed. This suggests the expansion rate of the
>> universe and and gravity are entropic phenomena.
>>
>> Brent
> Brent, Perhaps you or somebody can help me out.
>
> I always believed that the Hubble radius was much larger than the age
> of the universe times the speed of light. To my surprise the
> Wiki-Hubble Volume says that the age is 13,7 Byrs as expected , but
> that the Hubble radius divided by the speed of light is 13.9 Byrs,
> which is rather close.

They would be the same except that the expansion rate has not been constant (it
has been
slightly increasing).

>
> Does that mean that in 200 Myrs (minus 380,000 years) the Cosmic
> Microwave Background will disappear outside the Hubble bubble and that
> 400 Myrs later the now detected light from the first stars will also
> disappear, even though the universe right now is many times larger
> than 13.7 billion light-years?

I don't understand the significance of 200Myrs? The CMB isn't going to
disappear, ever.
It's just going to be more and more redshifted by the expansion of the
universe. There's
an excellent tutorial on these questions by Ned Wright at UCLA

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm

>
> And if information can be instantaneous as has been suggested here,
> shouldn't we use the present size of the universe holographically. I
> think that's where the Penrose limit of 10^124 comes from whereas the
> Lloyd limit of 10^120 is based on the age of the universe.

I don't know where 10^124 comes from, but 10^120 is what I get for the
holographic limit.

Brent

--
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
For more options, visit this group at