On 08 Nov 2013, at 20:10, Richard Ruquist wrote:
The 10^120 bits for the holographic visible universe is based on the
Planck Scale
and is the number of Planck Areas on its surface.
Penrose estimates that it will maximize
at 10^122 in the future.
Yes, but with comp, the visible universe is
Here is something related:
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/generalized-quantum-immortality-61505.html
On 9 November 2013 14:13, LizR wrote:
> I think in New Scientist. Perhaps. I'll let you know if I remember or find
> it.
>
>
> On 9 November 2013 12:22, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>> Li
I think in New Scientist. Perhaps. I'll let you know if I remember or find
it.
On 9 November 2013 12:22, Jason Resch wrote:
> Liz,
>
> That is very interesting. Do you remember anything about this interview
> (where it was, who was interviewing him, etc.)?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
>
> On Fri, N
Liz,
That is very interesting. Do you remember anything about this interview
(where it was, who was interviewing him, etc.)?
Thanks,
Jason
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 5:07 PM, LizR wrote:
> In an interview Max Tegmark said that he expected to have a "truncated"
> form of QI - he'd survive the qu
In an interview Max Tegmark said that he expected to have a "truncated"
form of QI - he'd survive the quantum suicide experiment, but his brain
would still deteriorate in any case until he eventually fades out ("like
when an amoeba croaks" were his exact words, iirc)
I think he also mentioned that
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 07 Nov 2013, at 00:51, LizR wrote:
>
> I was thinking specifically of Max Tegmark's MUH. He considers minds to be
> "subsystems" of the maths - he doesn't say anything about computations
> existing in arithmetic. So I think he probably h
The 10^120 bits for the holographic visible universe is based on the Planck
Scale
and is the number of Planck Areas on its surface.
Penrose estimates that it will maximize
at 10^122 in the future.
Richard
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 08 Nov 2013, at 06:51, LizR w
On 08 Nov 2013, at 06:51, LizR wrote:
On 7 November 2013 23:43, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Nov 2013, at 04:40, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I have no idea what the information capacity of a MWI multiverse is.
0, in Gods' eye.
Surely the information capacity of the multiverse is equivalent to
On 7 November 2013 23:43, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 07 Nov 2013, at 04:40, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> I have no idea what the information capacity of a MWI multiverse is.
>
>
> 0, in Gods' eye.
>
Surely the information capacity of the multiverse is equivalent to the
information needed to speci
On 07 Nov 2013, at 04:40, Richard Ruquist wrote:
I have no idea what the information capacity of a MWI multiverse is.
0, in Gods' eye.
Infinity, from inside, and our partial relative position.
My guess is that it would have to be nearly infinite
like what I claim for the Metaverse.
Tha
On 07 Nov 2013, at 00:51, LizR wrote:
I was thinking specifically of Max Tegmark's MUH. He considers minds
to be "subsystems" of the maths - he doesn't say anything about
computations existing in arithmetic. So I think he probably hasn't
developed that aspect of the theory to the extent th
On 06 Nov 2013, at 23:06, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:02 PM, LizR wrote:
On 7 November 2013 10:52, Telmo Menezes
wrote:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Richard Ruquist
wrote:
Liz, that depends on how you employ MUH. I use MUH in both the
universes
and
the metaverse
This is fascinating - and frustrating. I guess all will become clear one
day...
On 7 November 2013 17:22, meekerdb wrote:
> On 11/6/2013 7:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 7 November 2013 16:33, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> OK, but that doesn't alleviate the confusion. If anything it makes
>> it worse.
On 11/6/2013 7:52 PM, LizR wrote:
On 7 November 2013 16:33, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:
OK, but that doesn't alleviate the confusion. If anything it makes it
worse. What
exactly can we deduce from the entropy of the observable universe being
approximately maximal
By the way the SA article is here:
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~bekenste/Holographic_Univ.pdf
On 7 November 2013 16:52, LizR wrote:
> On 7 November 2013 16:33, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> OK, but that doesn't alleviate the confusion. If anything it makes it
>> worse. What exactly can we deduce from t
On 7 November 2013 16:33, meekerdb wrote:
> OK, but that doesn't alleviate the confusion. If anything it makes it
> worse. What exactly can we deduce from the entropy of the observable
> universe being approximately maximal when measured by other means, given
> that the BB apparently places a bou
I have no idea what the information capacity of a MWI multiverse is.
My guess is that it would have to be nearly infinite
like what I claim for the Metaverse.
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:02 PM, LizR wrote:
> > On 7 November 2013 10:52, Telmo
Actually the Beckenstein bound is proportional to the surface area of the
universe.
Nevertheless information capacity does go up with the volume of the
universe, but not proportionally.
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:09 PM, LizR wrote:
> That's similar to my pet theory for explaining the Beckenstein
Under the assumption that the universe is holographic
then the limit in informational bits is 10^120.
That limit is considered to be about the complexity of a neuron.
Beyond such complexity the conjecture is that consciousness results.
However, I am not aware of any evidence that this is the case.
On 11/6/2013 6:22 PM, LizR wrote:
On 7 November 2013 14:48, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:
On 11/6/2013 5:16 PM, LizR wrote:
On 7 November 2013 14:06, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 11/6/2013 4:15 PM, LizR wrote:
That's very interestin
On 7 November 2013 14:48, meekerdb wrote:
> On 11/6/2013 5:16 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 7 November 2013 14:06, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> On 11/6/2013 4:15 PM, LizR wrote:
>>
>> 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
On 11/6/2013 5:16 PM, LizR wrote:
On 7 November 2013 14:06, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:
On 11/6/2013 4:15 PM, LizR wrote:
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. T
On 7 November 2013 14:06, meekerdb wrote:
> On 11/6/2013 4:15 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> 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 th
On 11/6/2013 4:15 PM, LizR wrote:
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
vol
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 br
On 11/6/2013 2:46 PM, LizR wrote:
On 7 November 2013 11:31, meekerdb mailto: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.
I was thinking specifically of Max Tegmark's MUH. He considers minds to be
"subsystems" of the maths - he doesn't say anything about computations
existing in arithmetic. So I think he probably hasn't developed that aspect
of the theory to the extent that you have, and may not realise the full
impli
On 06 Nov 2013, at 22:17, LizR wrote:
If the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis is correct, spacetime (and
everything else) is an emergent feature of maths, which makes it a
secondary feature of a nonphysical, Platonic object, though not mind.
And if we are digitalizable machine, then the M
On 7 November 2013 11:31, meekerdb 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
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 wan
That's similar to my pet theory for explaining the Beckenstein bound -
information capacity only goes up as volume in the multiverse.
On 7 November 2013 11:06, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:02 PM, LizR wrote:
> > On 7 November 2013 10:52, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> >>
> >> On W
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:02 PM, LizR wrote:
> On 7 November 2013 10:52, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Richard Ruquist
>> wrote:
>> > Liz, that depends on how you employ MUH. I use MUH in both the universes
>> > and
>> > the metaverse in my cosmology.
>> > Its use i
On 7 November 2013 10:52, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Richard Ruquist
> wrote:
> > Liz, that depends on how you employ MUH. I use MUH in both the universes
> and
> > the metaverse in my cosmology.
> > Its use in the Metaverse results in massive particles with energy a
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> Liz, that depends on how you employ MUH. I use MUH in both the universes and
> the metaverse in my cosmology.
> Its use in the Metaverse results in massive particles with energy as well as
> the big bang and the spacetime of each universe.
Liz, that depends on how you employ MUH. I use MUH in both the universes
and the metaverse in my cosmology.
Its use in the Metaverse results in massive particles with energy as well
as the big bang and the spacetime of each universe.
Its use in each universe results in consciousness when the comple
If the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis is correct, spacetime (and
everything else) is an emergent feature of maths, which makes it a
secondary feature of a nonphysical, Platonic object, though not mind.
On 7 November 2013 07:01, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> Roger, Perhaps it is because you are jus
Roger, Perhaps it is because you are just plain wrong. Richard
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> *Spacetime is (nonphysical, platonic) mind*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *I am shocked to find that so far I have notfound a scientist anywhere
> that understandsthat spacetime, being
101 - 137 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
