From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Mar 06 2003 - 17:22:04 MST
Serafino writes
> Hal: However, the notion of many-worlds at Tegmark's level 1 and 2 suggests
> that we do have to consider identical universes to add to the measure and
> probability of the experiences they contain.
>
> Spudboy: > The answer is to give the cosmos, our cosmos, a purpose.
> Call it a living, evolving, purpose; because such interactions,
> if such are possible, would create their own synergy.
>
> Lee: > Isn't it just to increment that which makes lives worth living?
> Namely, joy, fulfillment, satisfaction, rapture, contentment, technolust...
> [Scerir:]
> Can we say that the 'universal' or 'global' (does it make sense?)
> information increases?
I think that this can be said, and is true, whether we discuss the
physics of it or the more important aspects.
> Can we say, at least, that the quality (subjective concept?) of
> information increases?
Our default supposition IMO should be that the quality is objective.
We are naturally evolved creatures, and taking as often as we can
the "bird's eye view", the human beings' values of quality have a
number of characteristics that are increasing: the quality of their
information firstly relates to how much they know about their
universe. A completely objective analysis would reveal that the
average human nervous system now possess far more accurate maps of
its surroundings and its place in space than ever before.
> If I remember well, Tegmark used to say, in one of his first TOE papers,
> that the global information is zero, or something like that. But,
> maybe, with MWI, inflations, and simulations, and all that, the
> global information increases.
The ideas that I had always understood were that the "sum total of energy"
of the universe being zero, and the "sum total of information" in the
universe was zero. In other words, information was never lost, except
in the possibly troubling case of black holes.
Then, later, when one relinquishes the idea of wave collapse, one
allows that the Schroedering equation is time reversible. So, I
had also gathered that from the point of view of QM or MWI, there
was no information increase in the universe. But perhaps the
Level Two Linde proliferation of new bubbles changes that? Well,
one argument that it doesn't is that you always have exactly
aleph-null bubbles, period.
I have to leave alone your other interesting points for now.
Lee
> Ok, there is a classic problem here. That one saying that all information
> within the output of a given 'program' cannot be greater than the
> information within the program itself.
>
> And there is another conceptual problem. Sometimes (i.e. q.entanglements,
> q.measurements, etc.) it is difficult to say if the information resides
> in the relations between the objects, or in the objects (which could be
> different from what we thought).
>
> I remember that Von Weizsaecker (since 1955) pointed out the
> possible existence of 'abstract' and maybe 'potential' primordial entities,
> named 'Urs'. There also was a striking coincidence with 'big' or 'magic'
> numbers of the (known) universe (without MWI, inflations, etc.).
> http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9611048
> Recently it turned out that those 'Urs' are. more or less,
> the qubits! But, at that time, people thought Von Weizsaecker
> has got some illness. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212084
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 06 2003 - 17:21:06 MST