Re: follow-up on Holographic principle and MWI

From: John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:22:44 -0400

Dear Danny,
the farthest thing from my mind is hostility or acrimony.

I am not up to those theroetical considerations of you, which Russell found reasonably treatable in his response. I am open to the 'unrealistic' - my own worldview is beyond the reductionist scientific domains - and I thought about your formulations something similar. I was referring mostly to the language: it resembled to me as a 101 physics text with ideas coming from the unrealistic.
Or is it strongly realistic - just not in my terms?

New ideas should not be left for those with 'adequate scientific background' because the prejudice of the model-based sci. limitations is hard to overcome. (Model in my terms here: meaning a boundary-enclosed topical - or other - segment of the totality (wholeness) considered as a substantial 'unit').
In such respect Q science is a model, time is a problem-spot for me in which I have not reached a me-satisfying solution yet, I consider the Multiverse limitless in terms of an "in our universe defined 'space' concept" and so 'unmappable' in our views.
Your questions refer to things not applicable to my concepts.
Which does not mean anything like "I am right and you are wrong", or vice versa, just that I am not thinking in these terms.

Sorry for my style.

John M


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: danny mayes
  To: Russell Standish
  Cc: John M ; Fabric-of-Reality.domain.name.hidden ; everything list
  Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 2:35 AM
  Subject: Re: follow-up on Holographic principle and MWI


  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 Tue Apr 26 2005 - 16:11:28 PDT