RE: Conventional QTI = False
> -Original Message- > From: Russell Standish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > I wasn't referring to that snippet, but another one discussing the > evolution of "superclusters" of galaxies. The theory predicts that the > universe will ultimately come to be dominated by said clusters. The > snippet I mentioned seems to be referring to our measured velocity of > ca 600km/s in the direction of the Virgo supercluster, although that > wasn't explicitly mentioned in the article. Yes, I know the one you mean (the snippet and the supercluster). An article on the future evolution of the universe. That suffers from the same objection to the prediction that we'll fall into our galaxy's black hole, namely that the dynamics of the situation might be such that our galaxy is 'evaporated off' from the supercluster's potential well rather than 'relaxed into' it. (However I realise you were just making a casual remark in passing so maybe all this analysis is getting a bit over the top) > Re our own supermassive black hole at the heart of the Milky Way - I > assume we're in a stable orbit about that one, with the usual caveat > that its impossible to prove stability of any arbitrary n-body orbit > of course. The sun does seem to be in a very stable orbit about the galaxy - almost circular, in fact. See "Rare Earth" for an explanation of why this is one of the many factors that had to come out just right for us to exist at all... Charles
Re: Conventional QTI = False
I wasn't referring to that snippet, but another one discussing the
evolution of "superclusters" of galaxies. The theory predicts that the
universe will ultimately come to be dominated by said clusters. The
snippet I mentioned seems to be referring to our measured velocity of
ca 600km/s in the direction of the Virgo supercluster, although that
wasn't explicitly mentioned in the article.
Re our own supermassive black hole at the heart of the Milky Way - I
assume we're in a stable orbit about that one, with the usual caveat
that its impossible to prove stability of any arbitrary n-body orbit
of course.
Cheers
George Levy wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > > Russell Standish wrote:
> > >
> > > > Anyway, it looks like we're falling into a supermassive black hole
> > > > right now, but we've got about 100 billion (10^11) years
> > > before we hit
> > > > the event horizon. (Reported in New Scientist a couple of
> > > issue ago).
> >
> George wrote:
> > >
> > > To avoid any scheduling conflict, I'll make sure to enter this in my
> > > scheduler. I wouldn't want to miss this for the world.
> > >
> > > George
>
> Charles Goodwin wrote:
> >
> > According to NS for 8th Sept the supermassive hole at the centre of our galaxy has
>been observed with much greater precision due to
> > a flare which occured when matter fell into the accretion disc. But it doesn't say
>anything about us falling in Or is this just
> > a general statement based on the momentum exchange which will take place inside
>the galaxy over the next few 100 billion years?
> > Because momentum exchange can go either way - either the Earth (or what's left of
>it) is flung out of the galaxy or it falls into
> > the central black hole. Similarly if the galaxy itself is orbiting a supermassive
>hole at the centre of the local group (say) that
> > might also lead to 'evaporation' of the galaxy from the group or collapse into the
>central hole
> >
> > I just thought you needed to be aware of that. Set your scheduler for either ice
>or fire, a bang or a whimper
> >
> > Charles
> >
>
>
>
> Thanks for the weather report Charles. I'll get dressed in layers, take
> my sunscreen lotion, and pack a good lunch.
>
> George
>
Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
Australia[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Room 2075, Red Centrehttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
Re: Conventional QTI = False
> > > > Russell Standish wrote: > > > > > Anyway, it looks like we're falling into a supermassive black hole > > > right now, but we've got about 100 billion (10^11) years > > before we hit > > > the event horizon. (Reported in New Scientist a couple of > > issue ago). > George wrote: > > > > To avoid any scheduling conflict, I'll make sure to enter this in my > > scheduler. I wouldn't want to miss this for the world. > > > > George Charles Goodwin wrote: > > According to NS for 8th Sept the supermassive hole at the centre of our galaxy has >been observed with much greater precision due to > a flare which occured when matter fell into the accretion disc. But it doesn't say >anything about us falling in Or is this just > a general statement based on the momentum exchange which will take place inside the >galaxy over the next few 100 billion years? > Because momentum exchange can go either way - either the Earth (or what's left of >it) is flung out of the galaxy or it falls into > the central black hole. Similarly if the galaxy itself is orbiting a supermassive >hole at the centre of the local group (say) that > might also lead to 'evaporation' of the galaxy from the group or collapse into the >central hole > > I just thought you needed to be aware of that. Set your scheduler for either ice or >fire, a bang or a whimper > > Charles > Thanks for the weather report Charles. I'll get dressed in layers, take my sunscreen lotion, and pack a good lunch. George
RE: In one page or less
At 9/13/01, you wrote: >Yes, words like "alternation" and "succession" definitely imply that time >is involved. But you are saying that this is a timeless >construct (like Platonia of the multiverse) ? > >Charles Time as I understand the usual usage involves the concepts of fixed cycles measured by a clock and potentially reconstructible histories - example: why does time have an arrow if each "law" of physics is symmetric to time reversal [ The behavior of some subatomic "particles" aside.] I do not see how these concepts are compatible with the postulate. I have to admit that I miss the reference to "Platonia". Hal
RE: In one page or less
> -Original Message- > From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2001 4:35 p.m. > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: In one page or less > > > Dear Charles: > > In response to another of your comments and to clarify: > > > >If nothing exists, including any external time, then the > > > Everything (also > > > >known as "the Plenitude", perhaps) contains all available > > > >states as a fixed N-dimensional structure (N might well be > > > uncountable > > > >infinity). > > I think it is important to identify a "fixed" system as a > selection which > is itself information. > > The alternation between a "Nothing" and a new randomly > selected "Something" > out of the ensemble of "Somethings" is not a fixed system. > The succession > of "Somethings" is a little like generating a random number [the > Everything] by adding a new random string of bits of random > length to an > existing random string of bits. The final result is for sure > all and no > information simultaneously, but the particular string that > will be produced > remains fuzzy. > > Unfortunately our language frequently defaults to words that > hint of the > concept of time since we have not yet created an adequate > vocabulary for > describing a timeless construct. Yes, words like "alternation" and "succession" definitely imply that time is involved. But you are saying that this is a timeless construct (like Platonia of the multiverse) ? Charles
RE: In one page or less
Dear Charles: In response to another of your comments and to clarify: > >If nothing exists, including any external time, then the > > Everything (also > > >known as "the Plenitude", perhaps) contains all available > > >states as a fixed N-dimensional structure (N might well be > > uncountable > > >infinity). I think it is important to identify a "fixed" system as a selection which is itself information. The alternation between a "Nothing" and a new randomly selected "Something" out of the ensemble of "Somethings" is not a fixed system. The succession of "Somethings" is a little like generating a random number [the Everything] by adding a new random string of bits of random length to an existing random string of bits. The final result is for sure all and no information simultaneously, but the particular string that will be produced remains fuzzy. Unfortunately our language frequently defaults to words that hint of the concept of time since we have not yet created an adequate vocabulary for describing a timeless construct. Hal
RE: In one page or less
Dear Charles: The "Nothing" can not contain that much information if it is not balanced out. If it was completely balanced then the "Somethings" would have the same duration which would be net information in violation of the postulate. Hal At 9/13/01, you wrote: >It would certainly be difficult to try to define for how long nothing exists! > >Charles > > > -Original Message- > > From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2001 3:53 p.m. > > To: Charles Goodwin > > Subject: RE: In one page or less > > > > > > Dear Charles: > > > > I do not see any sort of "time" in the sense of something one > > can measure > > by a clock. The alternation as I have tried to point out in > > earlier posts > > is itself unstable as to period to use an engineering point > > of view. It is > > unstable since each transition destroys any history of the > > total system. > > This is acceptable since the total system can not accumulate > > any additional > > information since it contains no information which is > > accepted here to be > > the same as all information. > > > > Hal > > > > At 9/13/01, you wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > > > >I think I get it. If nothing exists, that is a state > > which contains some > > > > >information (i.e. "nothing exists"). To reduce the total > > > > >information content of the system to zero, the state of > > nothing existing > > > > >must be balanced by states in which something exist. Is > > > > >that right (roughly) ? > > > > > > > > Yes that is my current offering to the effort. I see the > > Everything since > > > > it contains all information as both manifest and not manifest > > > > simultaneously. It would be in a sort of fuzzy logic state > > > > like 1/2 rather than either 0 or 1. > > > > > >If nothing exists, including any external time, then the > > Everything (also > > >known as "the Plenitude", perhaps) contains all available > > >states as a fixed N-dimensional structure (N might well be > > uncountable > > >infinity). If there *is* an external time, on the other hand, > > >one can imagine some sort of alternation between Nothing and > > Something. > > >(Otherwise the only sort of alternation possible is a sort > > >of logical one, perhaps?) > > > > > >Charles
RE: In one page or less
> -Original Message- > From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > >I think I get it. If nothing exists, that is a state which contains some > >information (i.e. "nothing exists"). To reduce the total > >information content of the system to zero, the state of nothing existing > >must be balanced by states in which something exist. Is > >that right (roughly) ? > > Yes that is my current offering to the effort. I see the Everything since > it contains all information as both manifest and not manifest > simultaneously. It would be in a sort of fuzzy logic state > like 1/2 rather than either 0 or 1. If nothing exists, including any external time, then the Everything (also known as "the Plenitude", perhaps) contains all available states as a fixed N-dimensional structure (N might well be uncountable infinity). If there *is* an external time, on the other hand, one can imagine some sort of alternation between Nothing and Something. (Otherwise the only sort of alternation possible is a sort of logical one, perhaps?) Charles
RE: In one page or less
> -Original Message- > From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > 2) The "Nothing" contains at least some information: Whenever it is manifest any >question asking if it is manifest must receive the response "yes". > >I don't understand this bit at all, sorry! > > The idea here is that while manifest the "Nothing" must consider itself to > be "true". This is information in the form of the ability to resolve a > meaningful question. I think I get it. If nothing exists, that is a state which contains some information (i.e. "nothing exists"). To reduce the total information content of the system to zero, the state of nothing existing must be balanced by states in which something exist. Is that right (roughly) ? (SNIP) > >This sounds very interesting. I wish I could understand it better! If you > >have time could you post something which is more understandable to the layman? > > I will try as soon as I see what all the initial comments are. OK, I look forward to reading more... Charles
RE: In one page or less
At 9/13/01, you wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > This is a simple and short effort to present my current > > ideas. To aid > > communication it is not intended to follow an established means of > > mathematical expression. I am completely out of time so I > > hope it reads ok. > >Please let me know if I've misunderstood... > > > 1) The single postulate is "The total system contains no information." > >That's a good starting point. It implies a sort of information symmetry in >which every bits of information is cancelled out >somewhere else. > > > 2) The "Nothing" contains at least some information: > > > >Whenever it is manifest any question asking if it is manifest > >must receive the response "yes". The idea here is that while manifest the "Nothing" must consider itself to be "true". This is information in the form of the ability to resolve a meaningful question. >I don't understand this bit at all, sorry! > > > 3) #2 violates the postulate so the system must contain more > > component(s), > > i.e. a "Something" or succession of "Somethings" or an > > ensemble of all > > possible "Somethings" that balance or neutralize this information. > > > > 4) The "Nothing" since it contains information can not be stable with > > respect to the manifestation of the other component(s) or the > > system again > > violates the postulate because no neutralization is possible. > >Why is no neutralisation possible for a stable "Nothing" ? Can't it be >balanced by another stable "Something" (or "Nothing", >perhaps) ? The above information must be balanced out by an equal amount of information that make the manifestation of the "Nothing" "false" rather than "true". If the "Nothing" is ever "false" it must be replaced by "Something". > > 5) Any individual "Something" or a simultaneously manifest > > ensemble of all > > possible "Somethings" must also comply with #2 so are > > violations of the > > postulate and unstable with respect to the "Nothing". > > > > 6) The instabilities result in an alternation between the > > "Nothing" and the > > other component(s). > > > > 7) The incorporation into the system of a FIXED "other > > component" which is > > either an individual "Something" or the complete ensemble of > > "Somethings" > > is a selection representing additional information > > which can not be balanced out by corresponding antipodal information > > present in the "Nothing". > > > > 8) The way to make the total system comply with the postulate: > > > > a) The Nothing alternates with a succession of "Somethings" randomly > > selected [no rules of selection control] from the ensemble. > > > > b) The selection of the next "Something" out of the ensemble > > must be random > > or the selection process is additional information in > > violation of the > > postulate. > > > > c) The ensemble contains an infinite number of individual > > "Somethings" so > > there can be no endless loops of repeats which would > > represent additional > > information and are forbidden by the postulate. > > > > --- > > > > Evolving universes are successive isomorphisms to some > > portion of each > > successive "Something". > > > > Each manifestation of the "Nothing" corresponds to the > > emptiness or gap > > between successive discrete isomorphisms of universe evolution. > > > > Enduring evolving universes with fully deterministic rules of > > isomorphism > > succession find no home in this model because the gap for > > such universes > > would quickly become open ended. This violates the "Nothing" > > "Something" > > alternation. > > > > The total system or "Grand Ensemble" is the "Everything". It > > contains no > > information and it can not contain enduring fully > > deterministic universes. > >This sounds very interesting. I wish I could understand it better! If you >have time could you post something which is more >understandable to the layman? I will try as soon as I see what all the initial comments are. Hal
RE: In one page or less
> -Original Message- > From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > This is a simple and short effort to present my current > ideas. To aid > communication it is not intended to follow an established means of > mathematical expression. I am completely out of time so I > hope it reads ok. Please let me know if I've misunderstood... > 1) The single postulate is "The total system contains no information." That's a good starting point. It implies a sort of information symmetry in which every bits of information is cancelled out somewhere else. > 2) The "Nothing" contains at least some information: > >Whenever it is manifest any question asking if it is manifest >must receive the response "yes". I don't understand this bit at all, sorry! > 3) #2 violates the postulate so the system must contain more > component(s), > i.e. a "Something" or succession of "Somethings" or an > ensemble of all > possible "Somethings" that balance or neutralize this information. > > 4) The "Nothing" since it contains information can not be stable with > respect to the manifestation of the other component(s) or the > system again > violates the postulate because no neutralization is possible. Why is no neutralisation possible for a stable "Nothing" ? Can't it be balanced by another stable "Something" (or "Nothing", perhaps) ? > 5) Any individual "Something" or a simultaneously manifest > ensemble of all > possible "Somethings" must also comply with #2 so are > violations of the > postulate and unstable with respect to the "Nothing". > > 6) The instabilities result in an alternation between the > "Nothing" and the > other component(s). > > 7) The incorporation into the system of a FIXED "other > component" which is > either an individual "Something" or the complete ensemble of > "Somethings" > is a selection representing additional information > which can not be balanced out by corresponding antipodal information > present in the "Nothing". > > 8) The way to make the total system comply with the postulate: > > a) The Nothing alternates with a succession of "Somethings" randomly > selected [no rules of selection control] from the ensemble. > > b) The selection of the next "Something" out of the ensemble > must be random > or the selection process is additional information in > violation of the > postulate. > > c) The ensemble contains an infinite number of individual > "Somethings" so > there can be no endless loops of repeats which would > represent additional > information and are forbidden by the postulate. > > --- > > Evolving universes are successive isomorphisms to some > portion of each > successive "Something". > > Each manifestation of the "Nothing" corresponds to the > emptiness or gap > between successive discrete isomorphisms of universe evolution. > > Enduring evolving universes with fully deterministic rules of > isomorphism > succession find no home in this model because the gap for > such universes > would quickly become open ended. This violates the "Nothing" > "Something" > alternation. > > The total system or "Grand Ensemble" is the "Everything". It > contains no > information and it can not contain enduring fully > deterministic universes. This sounds very interesting. I wish I could understand it better! If you have time could you post something which is more understandable to the layman? Charles
In one page or less
This is a simple and short effort to present my current ideas. To aid communication it is not intended to follow an established means of mathematical expression. I am completely out of time so I hope it reads ok. 1) The single postulate is "The total system contains no information." 2) The "Nothing" contains at least some information: Whenever it is manifest any question asking if it is manifest must receive the response "yes". 3) #2 violates the postulate so the system must contain more component(s), i.e. a "Something" or succession of "Somethings" or an ensemble of all possible "Somethings" that balance or neutralize this information. 4) The "Nothing" since it contains information can not be stable with respect to the manifestation of the other component(s) or the system again violates the postulate because no neutralization is possible. 5) Any individual "Something" or a simultaneously manifest ensemble of all possible "Somethings" must also comply with #2 so are violations of the postulate and unstable with respect to the "Nothing". 6) The instabilities result in an alternation between the "Nothing" and the other component(s). 7) The incorporation into the system of a FIXED "other component" which is either an individual "Something" or the complete ensemble of "Somethings" is a selection representing additional information which can not be balanced out by corresponding antipodal information present in the "Nothing". 8) The way to make the total system comply with the postulate: a) The Nothing alternates with a succession of "Somethings" randomly selected [no rules of selection control] from the ensemble. b) The selection of the next "Something" out of the ensemble must be random or the selection process is additional information in violation of the postulate. c) The ensemble contains an infinite number of individual "Somethings" so there can be no endless loops of repeats which would represent additional information and are forbidden by the postulate. --- Evolving universes are successive isomorphisms to some portion of each successive "Something". Each manifestation of the "Nothing" corresponds to the emptiness or gap between successive discrete isomorphisms of universe evolution. Enduring evolving universes with fully deterministic rules of isomorphism succession find no home in this model because the gap for such universes would quickly become open ended. This violates the "Nothing" "Something" alternation. The total system or "Grand Ensemble" is the "Everything". It contains no information and it can not contain enduring fully deterministic universes. Hal
Re: Conventional QTI = False
Russell Standish wrote: > Anyway, it looks like we're falling into a supermassive black hole > right now, but we've got about 100 billion (10^11) years before we hit > the event horizon. (Reported in New Scientist a couple of issue ago). To avoid any scheduling conflict, I'll make sure to enter this in my scheduler. I wouldn't want to miss this for the world. George
