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* <c.hales.domain.name.hidden
> <mailto:c.hales.domain.name.hidden>> 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 everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Mar 17 2007 - 16:19:29 PDT