From: Tommy McCabe (rocketjet314@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Feb 12 2004 - 14:52:22 MST
--- Tomaz Kristan <me2icq@icqmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:37:26 -0800 (PST), Tommy
> McCabe
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, and I suppose the heliocentric solar system
> has
> > to be wrong because it is quite obvious that the
> stars
> > and planets and what-not quite clearly move
> through
> > the sky.
>
> Do you think, that the (Beckenstein's limit) maximal
> amount of information, inside a closed area, has the
> same status, as the "apparent moving of the stars on
> the sky"? Are you suggesting, that the modern
> physics
> is nothing more, than the intuition of the ancients?
>
>
> > The Earth can't be round because people would
> > fall off the bottom end.
>
> Here you go again. Against the straw man.
>
> > You can probably show interplanetary flight to be
> > impossible because of the
> > low specific-impulse of black powder.
>
> > Flight is impossible because calculations have
> > shown that the human arm-muscles can't power a
> flight
> machine.
>
> Show me those calculations! Flight is possible, be
> cause any such calculation is either wrong, either
> doesn't exit at all.
>
> > Evolution is impossible because
> > (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html
>
> Straw man again.
>
>
>
> Now, what I do say is this: Any closed area around a
> planet or a solar system is quite rapidly optimized
> to
> a maximal computation level. I say that -- if the
> Beckenstein is right -- we don't have an infinite
> computation field inside a drop of water. It _is_
> huge,
> but not infinite.
>
> Therefore, any Singularity must go outward for new
> computing opportunities. NOT inward.
>
I was merely presenting a list of 'unbreakable limits'
that have turned out to have simple-in-retrospect
solutions. If any are wrong, I'm sure you could find
more. And yes, at this point, our theories as to how
much information you can squish in to X amount of
space are the same as ancient cultures's theories as
to why the sun goes across the sky. Any question as to
'how much information can you squeeze in X amount of
space' reduces to 'how much information can you
squeeze in an atom' which reduces to 'how much
information can you put in the smallest possible area
of space, and how small is the smallest possible area
of space'. Even string theory, which gets rid
completely of point particles, invokes strings of a
length of 10^-33 cm. (I may be wrong by a few orders
of magnitude- if so, simply put in the right numbers
and continue reading). There is no experimental
evidence at what happens on those scales, so our
theories are kind of useless. There is a huge rift
between quantum mechanics and relativity, which will
have to be mended before we can understand everything
that happens on that scale. And, yes, everything,
because the only way to seal off all possible
loopholes is to check everything. Here's a loophole:
point particles have not been disproven, and if they
exist, you could just make surface area for a given
mass go to infinity by chopping things up into smaller
and smaller pieces. That I thought of in five minutes
at my desk- imagine what a transhuman could do! Anyone
care to provide me with a more detailed explanation of
Beckenstein's bound?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:45 MDT