OK, so since I have been away, no real progress has been made on this topic, so I will take it up from where I left it. Incidentally, and with the risk of being looked at ugly, this is a perfect example of a situation where people make unwarranted parallels stemming only from syntactic similarities.
Q: ?1. What is the bandwitdth of the Universe.?
dkv: ?Infinite, because all the information is infinite and is transmitted to its next state without any loss every second.?
Oh, boy. I love this type of circular arguments. You DON?T KNOW that information is infinite. And you DON?T KNOW that it propagates without loss. This is what you are suppose to investigate. So you use two unsupported statements to justify another unsupported statement. Good one. Try again.
Q:?2. What is the Signal power of the Universe.?
dkv: ?Signal Power of the Universe 1.?
When? And why?
Q: ?3. What is and most importantly what means the noise in this context?
dkv: ?Noise can be assumed to be zero as external Universes are orthogonal to our existence and there is no background noise of information. Therefore the channel capacity is infinite, and this is the reason why it can be compressed.?
Noise does not necessarily come from interaction with other universes. As is, in our Universe you have a lot of interacting phenomena that could produce ?noise?, so before globalizing to ?orthogonal? universes, look in your own backyard. So the question still stands.
dkv: ?Universe can be reduced to an Information Set if we choose proper tools and technology. Therefore the analogy is more close to reality.?
Really? It can? Then please do it first, instead of postulating it. I am most interested in how you reduce a cell to a set of bits!
Q: ?And BTW, what means ?information? when you talk about the universe? ?
dkv: ?Replied above.?
You realize that what you replied here has no value, right? So the question stands.
dkv: ?No can not be called determinism because the unless and until we start compressing the information we can not reach to its smallest form. Going by the classical history "Human Compressors" started this process some 2000 years ago and in those 2000 years we have compressed the universe to the size of an Plank's Radius with initial conditions.?
Well, I am not going to argue this item anymore. What you claim is determinism by the book, so why don?t you look it up? Furthermore, you should also review differential equations, for the simplest case.
The rest of your reply is rather nonsense in the purest from. Sorry for that. Once again you are talking about things you don?t have a clue about. I would suggest reading something more than popular science. If you actually want to consider such issues seriously
dkv: ?I go by my common sense. Look at fractals, complete information is encoded at every level.?
This shows you have a short memory. We already discussed how common sense does not work but in very limited cases, with quantum mechanics as the common counterexample to your conjecture. So try again.
REP: I am writing all this at the runtime .. so please forgive.
And? We all suffer from this minor ailment of having to earn a living. And BTW, don?t try to match nature to your knowledge. One of them is limited. Try the other way around. Try to expand your knowledge to be able to comprehend nature. This is the way it goes.
dkv: ?Google is a good place but there I don?t find enough information?
Wha?? That would be the day. But then, there are also those things called libraries?
dkv: ?Btw Quantum computers will be the natural choice for decompressing the compressed equations of Universe.?
Lovely, isn?t it? Yet another idea you pooped, before finishing the one you started previously. And again, your claim is unsupported, especially since quantum computers will still have finite memories to deal with information that in your view is infinite?Don?t you ever keep track of your reasoning?
