[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/20/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Roger Clough
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-20, 12:40:21
Subject: 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.
about the warrior killling
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
Receiver: everything-list
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-
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
