# Re: Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind

```That's very interesting. I'm afraid I can't quite see what is meant by the
entropy of the universe being maximal but not the local entropy. There is a
claculation showing that the entropy in a sphere is less than maximal *until
*the sphere equals the Hubble volume. This is where my understanding breaks
down. This is the sort of thing I was trying to explain - badly I expect -
in my last post. How can the entropy of a small sphere be non maximal if
the entropy of the entire observable universe is maximal (I referred to
"information" but entropy is probably better). It doesn't seem to make
physical sense. But then the whole BB surface area thing doesn't seem to
make sense, to me at least, because if you consider a sphere and move
outwards you are including matter / information / entropy proportional to
the cube of the radius , but the amount of information and entropy allowed
to exist inside the sphere goes up at the radius squared. At some point -
apparently the Hubble sphere - surely something has to give!```
```
What am I missing here?

On 7 November 2013 13:03, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>  On 11/6/2013 2:46 PM, LizR wrote:
>
>  On 7 November 2013 11:31, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/6/2013 2:09 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>>> That's similar to my pet theory for explaining the Beckenstein bound -
>>> information capacity only goes up as volume in the multiverse.
>>>
>>
>>  The volume of the multiverse is generally thought to be infinite. Even
>> the volume of our universe may be infinite.  If you want to apply the
>> Beckenstein bound, consider the observable universe since its boundary
>> forms an horizon relative to us.
>>
>>  Yes. The BB has to be applied to a finite volume. Indeed it seems
> ridiculous, intuitively - the volume of the universe is quite likely
> infinite, so we can apply the BB on larger and larger scales for as long as
> we like (in theory) - and if we do so, we will presumably find that we
> reach a point where the information content we derive for the interior of
> that volume is insufficient to account for its contents. (Or does something
> always prevent that happening in practice - is this the point at which we
> reach a "cosmic horizon" ? Does the BB have an "information protection
> conjecture" that makes the universe safe for information theoreticians?)
>
>
> If you estimate the entropy of the visible universe (i.e. our Hubble
> volume) as being the Beckenstein bound it comes out the right order of
> magnitude corresponding to an estimate from particle physics.
>
>
> Brent
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email