Re: follow-up on Holographic principle and MWI

From: danny mayes <dmayes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 02:35:03 -0400

I certainly have no ill intent, and am a little disappointed that an
idea can not be addressed in a proper way, that being to simply explain
the inherent problems. No need for hostility or acrimony.

That said, John has a valid point (if he showed up on my legal lists
that I am a member of and started giving legal advice perhaps the
reaction would be the same, though I'd like to think we, even as
attorneys believe it or not, might be a little kinder) and the
"theories" (or rampant speculations John may suggest) and explanations
thereof really should be left to those with adequate scientific
background to handle them, and I therefore overstepped my bounds to an
extent.

That said, I do have two questions:

1. If it is true that "This is the distinctive core of the quantum
concept of time: Other times are just special cases of other universes"
(Deutsch, FOR, p.278), in the multiverse context, how can time be
thought of as anything other than an area map of the multiverse?;

2. Does it really matter if the cube is really a rectangle? Regardless
of the size of the "time area," (and it's proportionality to the "real"
spatial dimensions) you would still have to divide it by the length of
the world line, eliminating the volume.

As I said before, this is speculative. But hopefully someone will be
willing to point out the error of my ways, which I am sure would help
more than just myself understand all of this a little better.


Russell Standish wrote:

>John, you make out like Danny is trying to "Sokal" out this list. I
>don't think that is the case. His use of terminology is very muddled -
>he is a lawyer, remember, and lawyers use language in a different way
>to the rest of us.
>
>I was trying to see if he had the germ of an idea here, that properly
>expressed might provide an interesting insight. Alas I haven't been
>successful so far...
>
>Cheers
>
>On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 10:56:43AM -0400, John M wrote:
>
>
>>Danny,
>>(I think) I made the mistake to read your post below.
>>Did you compose it from the habitual vocabulary of physics-related sciences
>>to construct a gobbledygook that sounds VERY scientific?
>>I enjoyed it as abstract paintings. Don't look for sense in those either.
>>I figured you may have an identification for 'time' to image it as
>>geometrical.
>>I heard about one relationship netween (physical) space and (physical) time
>>it is called (physical) motion. You wrote:
>>[DM]: "It would be like drawing a square and asking why height is
>>proportional to length. The relationship is necessary. "
>>Same with your "cube(???)" and the time expressed as area. Or whatever.
>>
>>I post these remarks only to make listmembers (whom I honor no end) to think
>>twice before spending their time and braingrease to work into it and -
>>maybe - getting a Nobel prize (ha ha).
>>
>>If there is something logical, understandable, followable, in your position,
>>I would be happy to learn about it.
>>
>>John Mikes
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "danny mayes" <dmayes.domain.name.hidden>
>>To: "Russell Standish" <r.standish.domain.name.hidden>
>>Cc: <Fabric-of-Reality.domain.name.hidden>; "everything list"
>><everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
>>Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 1:42 AM
>>Subject: Re: follow-up on Holographic principle and MWI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Russell Standish wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>What I was asking is why you think "time-area" should be proportional
>>>>to length. I can't see any reasoning as to what it should be
>>>>proportional to.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Russell,
>>>
>>>Thanks for your interest in this. I did not make this any easier by
>>>bungling the initial concept a little in my first post. To directly
>>>answer your question, I am assuming space-time is a single entity, with
>>>time representing the spatial area of the multiverse. Therefore, the
>>>question you pose really wouldn't make sense. It would be like drawing
>>>a square and asking why height is proportional to length. The
>>>relationship is necessary.
>>>
>>>Going back to all of our multiverse stacks with the cube on it, all
>>>these stacks would equal the time-area. This is the "depth" of the cube
>>>in the multiverse, that would allow the cube to store 10^300 bits of
>>>information. The time area equals the cube in it's totality in the
>>>multiverse. So why, in our universe, can we only store information
>>>equal to the surface area? Well we know we don't have access to the
>>>whole cube, because we are not in all of the universes that this cube
>>>exists in. So we have to divide the cube by something to represent the
>>>fact that we are only on one stack. The proper divisor would be the
>>>length of the cube, because we are existing on a time-line. The
>>>information that can be stored is limited to a single set of outcomes- a
>>>line along the plane of the time area (a stack of pictures).
>>>
>>>This leaves us with the Holographic principle.
>>>
>>>Please note this is an interesting concept (to me) I am proposing
>>>because the geometry of it makes sense when I picture it mentally. You
>>>or others much smarter than I will have to explain why this works or
>>>doesn't work mathematically in QM or TOR. Colin Bruce suggests in his
>>>book that the cube volume contains multiverse information (as a
>>>speculative ending to his book), and when I started thinking about it I
>>>realized if you take the "multiverse block" concept seriously, and
>>>consider time a spatial dimension through the multiverse, a cube of
>>>space would only provide a full content of information before it was
>>>seperated out into all of the individual outcomes as it moved through
>>>time (or how about "multiverse space"?).
>>>
>>>A cube of space really does hold it's volume in information. But we
>>>have to divide by time. Particularly, the length of the time plane
>>>because the rest of the time area has been lost to the other
>>>outcomes/universes/stacks (or whatever allows you to conceptualize it
>>>the best). This is speculative (obviously). I'd like to hear some
>>>feedback, as this explains a lot (to me anyway) if the concept is right.
>>>
>>>Danny Mayes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Received on Mon Apr 25 2005 - 02:40:24 PDT