Hi John:
Three questions:
1. I'm having difficulty resolving the following sentence... is there a
typo it it?
Essentially that means
there can be no information in a
one-atom universe, and so knowledge anywhere in that universe that it
can exist.
2. Does it matter what kind of atom the one-atom universe comprises?
3. I agree that "information" and "intelligence" are words that are
frequently used without much precision as to their conceptual
referents, but for the purpose of understanding your message, I only
need to know how you define
them. Can you provide definitions of those terms that would help me
understand what you mean by them?
Best regards,
Pete
John Kineman wrote:
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
|