|
I'm also cross posting to the Rosen list, as we entered a discussion
about time there... Just to add to Jamie's comments: I did a paper (actually two) in 2000 on the nature of space-time and information which I believe revealed some interesting systemic possibilities. These are based on a consideration of what light is (Einstein admitted at the end of his life that he still didn't know), and what information is (also poorly defined by science). For the sake of argument, lets say "intelligence" (another poorly defined concept) in the most rudimentary form suggested by James' "one-atom / nanosecond" question, and "information" might be roughly equated for the purposes of this question (or at least be equally interesting in this regard). Then we can ask: "can information exist in such a universe?" First some brief background: The paper suggests that space (distance) and time are mutually defined (basic relativity); there being no other "standard" available for either. That being the case, the speed of light is clearly the relationship between these relative measures. We also have no standard for the speed of light, except that inside local space-time (units calibrated by the apparent speed of light), we must measure a constant ratio of distance to time. This means, nowever, that we have no means of ascertaining any absolute scale of space. It turns out that this reasoning leads to a model where the scale of intrinsic space-time (and light) is a log relation to observed time, and this establishes a hyperbolic space time (similar to E.A. Milne's kinematic relativity) that is fully consistent with special relativity (and general relativity, although not as commonly calibrated). In such a model, the light path becomes the means of connecting separate local space-times, and when graphed properly it looks like a logistic spiral, with no origin. Now back to the question: The above cosmology applies to current astronomy quite well, but also to the idealized case of two objects in space-time. It is not possible to define a one-atom universe logically, because there would then not be any reference point to establish or "know" about its existence. It would be like having "up" without "down." Essentially that means there can be no information in a one-atom universe, and so knowledge anywhere in that universe that it can exist. But if there are two objects, the above universal reference frame is immediately implied, and light becomes not just the conversion constant between local distance and time measures, but the medium of carrying information between the two separated local space-times (or objects), so that they can "know" about each other's existence, and thus have a basis to claim existence. I think of this as the most primitive act of perception, and percepts seem to be at least necessary for intelligence. Perhaps that is at least a relevant speculation??? John Kineman James N Rose wrote: On another listserv [avoidl] where scientific and semi-scientific cosmologies are debated, I wrote the following today (4 Nov 2003). I cc my posting to this listserv because it is relevant to properties which are most likely involved or present in systems generally, and in complex relationships. Information corresponce capacity. Within levels of organization, among nested levels of emerged organization, between companioned members of organization. Thank you for reading. Jamie Rose ==================================================== 11/4/03 Jonathan Colvin [avoidl-list] wrote: |