Does the universe in fact contain almost no information?

10-09-2007, 09:16 AM

I think I just broke something reading this. You'll need a postscript viewer like Ghostscript to read it. PM me if you want a PDF.

If it's valid (and maybe only Choobus is qualified to judge), I think it pretty much puts the boots to the Dembskis and the Francis-es.

Choobus · 10-09-2007, 09:37 AM

I can't see it

Kate · 10-09-2007, 09:44 AM

What, you're a watchmaker now?

10-09-2007, 10:23 AM

Quote:

schemanista wrote

I think I just broke something reading this. You'll need a postscript viewer like Ghostscript to read it. PM me if you want a PDF.

If it's valid (and maybe only Choobus is qualified to judge), I think it pretty much puts the boots to the Dembskis and the Francis-es.

I couldn't view the document either, but that really doesn't matter.

I have a problem with the statement: "If it's valid, I think it pretty much puts the boots to the Dembskis and the Francis-es."

It doesn't matter if this new hypothesis is valid or not. The hypotheses that the Dembskis and the Francis-es try to push fail on their own accord. Even positing the question "If this is valid, then this other hypothesis is cooked" implies that the hypothesis in question was still in a position of being tested... not the failed trash it already was.

These idiot creation 'theories' (read untenable hypotheses) only thrive because people debate them AS IF they had legitimacy. Don't debate these fools on their own terms... which is what happens when you start debating the legitamacy of the theological dogmas that form the basis of the hypothesis.

10-09-2007, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Kate wrote

What, you're a watchmaker now?

?

Quote:

RenaissanceMan wrote

These idiot creation 'theories' (read untenable hypotheses) only thrive because people debate them AS IF they had legitimacy. Don't debate these fools on their own terms... which is what happens when you start debating the legitamacy of the theological dogmas that form the basis of the hypothesis.

Ouch. I obviously hadn't thought about it that way.

Professor Chaos · 10-09-2007, 10:59 AM

Link fixed, try it now.

Professor Chaos · 10-09-2007, 10:59 AM

I'd be interested in seeing a pdf, btw.

Smellyoldgit · 10-09-2007, 02:05 PM

Can't see it & updated link don't open.

10-09-2007, 03:54 PM

Quote:

schemanista wrote

I think I just broke something reading this. You'll need a postscript viewer like Ghostscript to read it. PM me if you want a PDF.

If it's valid (and maybe only Choobus is qualified to judge), I think it pretty much puts the boots to the Dembskis and the Francis-es.

Hey shem,

I'm having trouble sending you a PM. Could you send me one at noahnywno@hotmail.com?

10-09-2007, 05:30 PM

Try this

10-09-2007, 08:19 PM

Quote:

schemanista wrote

Try this

Thank you sir. I'll give it a read tomorrow.

10-10-2007, 07:24 AM

It seems to me the author is laboring under the solipsistic view that the 'observer' observing waveform collapse must have purpose in it's observation.

Ergo sum, since the entire universe cannot be observed at once, then the entire universe can be compressed down to it's unobserved state.

That seems ridiculous to me. every wave function within a quantum frame (Assuming I'm using the terms correctly) is an 'observer' contributing to the state of all other wave functions in the frame.

Since it's reasonable to assume that this 'observation' of the local quantum frames comprises a continuous span of every wave function in the universe (Indirectly in some cases.... a galaxy so far away that it's traveling faster than light in relation to us in no longer in any 'quantum frame' directly accessible to a wave function proximal to ourselves.)

As such, the 'information content of the universe' is the state transitions over time for the sum total of realized wave function interactions... that's gotta be a lot of data.

But I'm just a lay-guy struggling to understand this shit... feel free to tell me how wrong my conclusion is.

Choobus · 10-10-2007, 09:33 AM

Quote:

RenaissanceMan wrote

(Indirectly in some cases.... a galaxy so far away that it's traveling faster than light in relation to us in no longer in any 'quantum frame' directly accessible to a wave function proximal to ourselves.)

???? What? Einstein would bitchslap you for that, andf I would hold his jacket while he did so. And then Bell would show you a different kind of inequality involving the radius of a rectum and a fist.

10-10-2007, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Choobus wrote

???? What? Einstein would bitchslap you for that, andf I would hold his jacket while he did so. And then Bell would show you a different kind of inequality involving the radius of a rectum and a fist.

Pray tell, why would Einstein be bitch slapping me for that? There's nothing in relativity stopping two galaxies from having a delta velocity that exceeds the speed of light. They just can't see each other anymore.

The question I would ask... is can they still interact at all? I'm going to assume not.

Choobus · 10-10-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

RenaissanceMan wrote

Pray tell, why would Einstein be bitch slapping me for that? There's nothing in relativity stopping two galaxies from having a delta velocity that exceeds the speed of light. They just can't see each other anymore.

The question I would ask... is can they still interact at all? I'm going to assume not.

what is a delta velocity?