Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#2232 07/21/05 05:30 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Hi ,

There is an intersting theorem(Sharon's theorem) on data compression which actually sets the limit on the amount of data which can compressed without loosing its content ...
When I apply this telecommunication law to Universe I get a very weird result...
We know that infinite manifestation of universe (or information) evolved from the finite inital conditions...
This actually means that the infinite information can be compressed to finite value...
Hope you guys are getting my point..

.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
Now this is an interesting (the terminology in the field is "valid") question.

But you want to think about th following:
a) What does it mean that the universe evolves from finite initial conditions? Finite initial conditions also means an infinite set of conditions specifying finite values for the relevant variables.
b) Assuming that the universe expanded from a finite "size", what is the "initial size" consistent with Sharon's theorem?
c) It is (wildly) believed that the amount of information present in the "initial" state of the universe must be the same with the amount of information that we see today, based on some sort of information conservation theorem, which would somehow resemble the conservation of energy theorem. How would a steady state approach to energy conservation would affect your reasoning, if one were to consider that inflationary cosmology is a valid theory of the Universe evolution.

Yhink about this, dkv, and also think about the fact that this is a problem that both "gravity" people and "quantum information/computing" people have in their sights (i.e. there is a multitude of sources adressing this problem that you might want to consult)

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
The famous theorem is called Shannon's theorem...
formula
C(Channel Capacity) = W(bandwidth) log2(1 + Signal-Power /Noise-Power )
Then there are derivations to show that depending upon Noise levels there are different limits to the maxm. compression which can be acheived.


================
a) What does it mean that the universe evolves from finite initial conditions? Finite initial conditions also means an infinite set of conditions specifying finite values for the relevant variables.
REP: Once a particular history is chosen then it become obvious why we are in the Universe we are?
Therefore atleast the current Universe can be reduced to its own intial condition(although it was picked up from set of infinite conditions)
b) Assuming that the universe expanded from a finite "size", what is the "initial size" consistent with Sharon's theorem?
REP: I do not know exactly.for me the information about Universe is complete if I know the base equations and initial conditions(it may be probalistic) of a Universe... I assume that Universe is not affected by any other Universe after its birth..(My assumption could be wrong)
c) It is (wildly) believed that the amount of information present in the "initial" state of the universe must be the same with the amount of information that we see today, based on some sort of information conservation theorem, which would somehow resemble the conservation of energy theorem. How would a steady state approach to energy conservation would affect your reasoning, if one were to consider that inflationary cosmology is a valid theory of the Universe evolution.
REP: I also agree that total amount of information remains the same.. but when I am talking a Universe(and not Universes) then my discussion is limited only its compression ... and I do not forsee any reasons of why the total
amount of information if remains constant affects my argument...
====================
Yhink about this, dkv, and also think about the fact that this is a problem that both "gravity" people and "quantum information/computing" people have in their sights (i.e. there is a multitude of sources adressing this problem that you might want to consult)
REP: What are they saying?

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
dkv: ?The famous theorem is called Shannon's theorem; formula
C(Channel Capacity) = W(bandwidth) log2(1 + Signal-Power /Noise-Power )
Then there are derivations to show that depending upon Noise levels there are different limits to the maximum compression which can be achieved.?

Yeah, I know it. But since you mentioned it, of course it begs the questions:
1. What is the bandwitdth of the Universe.
2. What is the Signal power of the Universe.
3. What is and most importantly what means the noise in this context?

Until you define these concepts, let?s stick with the fact that somehow, the info in the universe cannot be ?compressed? below a certain limit. Note however that compressed in information transmission theory has a different meaning than the meaning you used for the context of the Universe.
And BTW, what means ?information? when you talk about the universe?

================
dkv: ?Once a particular history is chosen then it become obvious why we are in the Universe we are? Therefore at least the current Universe can be reduced to its own intial conditions (although it was picked up from set of infinite conditions)?

Nah, this is not finiteness, this is determinism.

dkv: ?I do not know exactly. For me the information about Universe is complete if I know the base equations and initial conditions (it may be probabilistic) of a Universe... I assume that Universe is not affected by any other Universe after its birth..(My assumption could be wrong).?

What does this have to do with the question I asked?

dkv: ?I also agree that total amount of information remains the same?

Kids also believe in the tooth fairy. What is your argument for your statement, and some sketch of a proof.

dkv: ??but when I am talking a Universe (and not Universes) then my discussion is limited only by its compression ... And I do not foresee any reasons of why the total amount of information if (?) remains constant affects my argument... ?

We are already at the point where because of your tendency of being very brief and loose in your expression, the meaning of what you write becomes unclear. So please reformulate your above statement.

REP: What are they saying?

Well, why don?t you look it up? Google would be a good start.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Yeah, I know it. But since you mentioned it, of course it begs the questions:
1. What is the bandwitdth of the Universe.
Infinite.. becsause all the information is infinite and is transmitted to its next state without any loss every second.
2. What is the Signal power of the Universe.
Signal Power of the Universe 1.
3. What is and most importantly what means the noise in this context?
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 infinte... and
this is the reason why it can be compressed.

Until you define these concepts, let?s stick with the fact that somehow, the info in the universe cannot be ?compressed? below a certain limit. Note however that compressed in information transmission theory has a different meaning than the meaning you used for the context of the Universe.
REP: Universe can be reduced to an Information Set if we choose proper tools and technology.
Therefore the analogy is more close to reality.

And BTW, what means ?information? when you talk about the universe?
REP: Replied above.
================
dkv: ?Once a particular history is chosen then it become obvious why we are in the Universe we are? Therefore at least the current Universe can be reduced to its own intial conditions (although it was picked up from set of infinite conditions)?
Nah, this is not finiteness, this is determinism.
REP: No can not be called determinism becuase 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...
====================
dkv: ?I also agree that total amount of information remains the same?
Kids also believe in the tooth fairy. What is your argument for your statement, and some sketch of a proof.
REP: I go by my common sense ... look at fractals.. complete information is encoded at every level.
===========================
dkv: ??but when I am talking a Universe (and not Universes) then my discussion is limited only by its compression ... And I do not foresee any reasons of why the total amount of information if (?) remains constant affects my argument... ?
We are already at the point where because of your tendency of being very brief and loose in your expression, the meaning of what you write becomes unclear. So please reformulate your above statement.
REP: I am writing all this at the runtime .. so please forgive.
REP: What are they saying?
Well, why don?t you look it up? Google would be a good start.
Google is a good place but there I dont find enough information...Btw Quantum computers will be the natural choice for decompressing the compressed equations of Univers.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
dvk ... you wrote:
"We know that infinite manifestation of universe (or information) evolved from the finite inital conditions.."

I challenge you to provide any actual evidence to back up the following assertions:

1. Anything in or about the universe is infinite
2. Anything about the initial condition was finite

I am not disagreeing with the statements I just don't believe there is anything that justifies them.

Assumptions about what is and is not infinite are meaningless when made by a creature that can barely think in 4 dimensions when trying to describe what is likely a 10+ dimensional entity.


DA Morgan
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 103
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 103
I knew about Shannon's Theorem before comming up with MFFM communications. As communications bandwidth is increasingly compressed by increaseing signal intricacy it intercepts less thermal noise.

Aloha, Charlie

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
U
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
U
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
Quote:
Hope you guys are getting my point.
The information content of an area is finite. Stephen Hawking lost a bet about it.

thermodynamics + Bekenstein bound = General Relativity

Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 1260 (1995)
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504004

The universe does not tolerate contradiction. What point shall we draw from your exposition?


Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
The exposition was meant to initiate a debate worldwide ...among ourselves.
He lost the bet on information conservation .. he thought that the system can loose inoformation and a black hole can act like a dustbin...
I dont think he offered to say that information content has to be finite...

Let me extrapolate this thought and allow me to share an idea where the black hole does not loose its information to any other balck hole but it tranfers it wihout loosing its own memory...Which means that Information entroy increases with every interaction and thus it is sensible to believe that the aggregated information content is infinite...

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
I am truly excited by this idea that inofrmation is shared by black holes .....
The entire space(in its nothingness sense) filled with balck holes and non-blackholes....
Our Universe may itself be a giant Black hole which is having balck hole(which may iteself have black hole inside it in different dimension..typical universe creation stuff)
As the information is shared between them the total information content becomes infinite...

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
DA Morgan : The left one of your questions unanswered :
Whether the initial condition was finite or not...
As myself and Pasti dicsussed it ... we will have a infinte set of initial conditions but once a intial condition is chosen .. finite variables are chosen to express the imminent infinity....
BTW consider this from infinite no. of initial condition only one is selected .. then the probability of happening of such an event is
P= (event set)/(total event space)
= 1/(infinity) = 0!!!!
And the probability can not be zero because we exist.... and then some one will give me a quantum explanation...for the existince of quantum proability...

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2
D
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
D
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2
what did u say??? haha

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2
D
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
D
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2
i dont quite understand....

[we will have a infinte set of initial conditions but once a intial condition is chosen]

isnt sn initial condition just that?...

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
dvk, this all sounds very similar to what Tegmark has been proposing recently. I think that Tegmark is right, although it is very difficult to prove it (even in principle).

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Do you guys agree with me ?
If Tegmark and myself are correct then isnt it true that individual histories of the Universes will interact between themselves and we will end up with a non-linear history of Universe...
Guys, I need your help .. please get me into Physics history books. :-))
I am glad that I discuss such things here because it solves many of my problems.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
No answer till now...
and that is understandable...
Dont you think we spend most of our day porcessing information?
Who is he ?
What is happening?
Where are my shoes?
etc etc ...
Information is prime staple of our holy diet...
Food ,Air etc are the fuel requirements of this humanly computing machine....
If information processing and its interpretation is the only job we are doing then what the hell why do we do so? and what will be the end end result of this quest?
Is there a goal ... Is there is a finite limit to this information evolution ?
These are some of the questions we all have to answer... West who showed us the science must not take away the purpose of my existence...
Life without purpose is what i hate.
Tell me my purpose in this creation...
I know it but I want to hear from you.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
There is no scientifically discernable purpose. There may never be.

Failing to be assigned a purpose is not the same thing as not having a purpose.

If one is not assigned a purpose, one might assign a purpose to one's own life. It's a bit harder to ascribe purpose to everyone else's though.

"To be what we are and to become what we are capable of becoming is the only end of life." -- attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson (but originating, I suspect, with Spinoza).

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
"To be what we are "
REP: What are we ? Computing Machines? Living endlessly in the world of information...
We are just a piece of information for the living being...and nothing else.
Why cant I assign a divine purpose is there is no purpose at all...
And how can I criticize those who choose genocide as their purpose if there is no absolute reference frame for the purpose...
Your answer was good but not satisfactory...

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
R
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
R
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 175
Hm, seems you need to clarify "purpose" a little better. Here's a couple for you.

Our genes seem to have a programmed purpose to evolve and propagate, regardless of whether we recognise it as such. Maybe you could call it an unconscious life purpose.

The other 'purpose' is our own conscious purpose, where we choose, leaving aside issues of free will and determinism, our own fate.

Then you could ask: How much does the genetic imperative influence our own chosen paths? That is, how much do the conscious and unconscious paths intersect?

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
You have divided the deterministic (or Mechanical) and non-deterministic(Will-Power based) goals...
Deterministic goals are simple and straight forward .. our heart has to beat everymoment.. it(or he) has no option...
Can we say that this is our goal ...?
Now non-deterministic part argues in favour of stopping the heart beat...
Can we say that this is the right goal to achieve?
In a perfect mechanical world there is no Purpose.. everything is predetermined.. and even if I want I cant change it...
But we know it doesnt happen that way.. We have been given the Will Power to choose our Purpose and therefore for all discussion pupose it is better to consider only the non-deterministic part...
Let me rephrase "What should be the Purpose given the Will Power (or the degrees of freedom)?"

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5