Re: follow-up on Holographic principle and MWI

From: danny mayes <dmayes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:02:12 -0400

Russell Standish wrote:

>I'm not sure I really follow your explanation here. Are you trying to
>link the information generation that occurs through MW decoherence to
>the expansion of space-time through the holographic principle (the
>amount of information contained within any 3D volume is proportional to
>the boundary area of that volume)?
>
>
Well, as described in the FOR think of the multiverse as a block, made
up of different stacks of pictures that comprise individual universes as
they move through time. Now try to adjust that to what is really going
on: space time is expanding out from the Big Bang. If you could remove
yourself from the multiverse and watch it, time would be expanding at an
increasing area, just as the spatial dimensions are. The reason
information storage capacity would equal the surface area of a given
object is that any object or area is actually existing in all these
overlapping timelines, or virtually identically universes. Therefore,
if you assume the "time-area" is expanding at a proportional rate to the
spatial volume, you would need to divide a cube 10^300 Planck units on a
side by 10^100 to take out the information that is moving into the
volume or area of time, since we lose this information as we are stuck
on a solitary time line and losing the multiverse information to
decoherence. This is simply another way of saying we lose the
information to the other universes, I'm just explaining why it would be
the amount it is through the mental imagery of time expanding to fill a
space equivalent to the spatial dimensions.

Taking a bird's eye view, and watching the cube moving through the
multiverse, all the overlapping universes the cube comprises, the cube
could store 10^300 bits of information- equal to it's volume. However,
if you measure the information in any individual universe, you have to
divide the cube over all the overlapping universes it comprises, or an
"area" of time equal to the the area of one of it's sides (again
assuming the expansion of time is proportional to the expansion of the
spatial dimensions.) This leaves information storage capacity equal to
the surface area of the object .

I am basically taking the block view of the multiverse seriously, and
dividing the information storage capacity by the area of all the stacks
of pictures the cube exists on, because we can only measure the
information on the one stack that is our universe. The area of the
different stacks can be thought of as an area of time, and would equal
one of the spatial areas that comprise the cube if time expansion is
proportional to spatial expansion.

This makes sense to me, but then again I am an attorney....

Danny Mayes

>On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:47:49AM -0400, Danny Mayes wrote:
>
>
>>Considered from a MWI perspective, space-time is expanding to fill a
>>volume not only of spatial dimensions, but of time. We consider time to
>>move in a "line", because we APPEAR to be stuck stuck on a single time
>>path. Of course, we really know through MWI we are on some number of
>>overlapping, identical paths. However, the point is that space-time is
>>expanding not only to fill the volumes of space, but to fill a volume of
>>time. By volume, I mean all the possible paths the multiverse can
>>evolve into. Considering just time, if you add up all the possible
>>time-lines evolving out from the big bang, it can be imagined as an
>>expanding sphere proceding out in conjunction with the spatial
>>dimensions. This time-sphere encompasses the multiverse, whereas a
>>single time line encompasses a single universe. Therefore, Bruce's idea
>>that the information contained in a volume of space constitutes
>>multiverse processes makes sense, because the expansion of the time
>>dimension would be proportional to the expansion of the spatial
>>dimensions.
>>
>>>From the time dimension perspective, we are very much therefore like
>>the flatlanders- stuck in a 3D + 1D limited to a single line world that
>>is really a fully 4D world. That seems to explain the holographic
>>principle from a MWI perspective.
>>
>>Danny Mayes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Apr 21 2005 - 23:08:12 PDT