I would love to get your interpretation on how this fits in with the Universe-Solved concept. It sounds very familiar.


Spacetime--Continuous and Discrete.

This is actually a really interesting article and idea. For a little clarity, Shannon's theorem has to do with the encoding of information in various ways. In information theory, signals in the time domain can be represented by data in the frequency domain and vice versa. They are just two different ways of encoding information. For example, let's take a pure sine wave of frequency 1000 Hz and amplitude 1. There are only two numbers needed in the frequency domain (1000 (frequency) and 1 (amplitude)) to completely encode that waveform in the time domain. That is, if I know those two numbers, I can say what the value of the sine wave is at time t=.124 seconds, for example. Also, at t=.125 seconds, and any value of t in between. Therefore, while that signal is continuous in the time domain, it is discrete in the frequency domain, since it only has to be described by two numbers. Interestingly, this works in reverse. A discrete function in the time domain corresponds to a continuous function in the frequency domain. To go from one domain to the other, one uses either a Fourier transform (time to frequency) or in Inverse Fourier Transform (frequency to time). [Note: this stuff brings back lots of memories, as it was my concentration for my Master's degree]

So what does this have to do with the nature of reality? According to Achim Kempf, who authored the referenced paper, one could consider the discrete nature of reality in the time and space domains to have a corresponding continuous nature of reality in a different domain, such as the frequency domain. Or, in simpler terms, our discrete world may be continuous in terms of vibrational levels. There are actually a lot of preceding ideas that are similar. For example, there is the idea of reality being a holographic projection on the surface of a black hole (see http://www.theuniversesolved.com/theuniversesolved/yetanotherforum/yaf_postst492_Worlds-Most-Precise-Clocks-Could-Reveal-Universe-Is-a-Hologram.aspx). Also, in Michael Talbot's "Holographic Universe", the idea of reality being described in the frequency domain is discussed.

My take is this:

We live in the time and space domain. Time and space are either continuous or they are not. If they are, depending on the nature of the "reality signal", it may be described, or encoded in a discrete manner. Specifically this would work, if the reality signal repeats. Max Tegmark calculates how often our reality might repeat in the multiverse, so theoretically, this could be the case. If so, programmed reality still has a possible place in terms of encoding space and time. However, if time and space are continuous and do not repeat over arbitrarily large distances, then there can not even be a discrete representation of reality in any domain, and we would have to concede that programmed reality would be false. On the other hand, if space and time are discrete, as they appear to be, programmed reality continues to be the only logical explanation.

I'm ignorant about all of this.
I was watching a youtube vid on fractals, Arthur C. Clarke described fractals as, "infinitely complex."
Sounds continuous to me.
Quantized or fractal?
Discrete or continuous?
Both seem rather 'holographic' to me.
Other threads around here discussing experiments aimed at determining if reality is quantized, I wouldn't be at all surprised if these experiments conclude that reality is "continuously quantized."

RedDog:

That damned duality complicates everything.

Are you really as "self-aware" as you think?

Time-space is a funny thing. If you speak, it takes a time (a small amount of time) for the words to travel to the ear of the receiver. If you shine a laser light at the moon, it takes a couple of seconds for it to reach the moon and bounce back to you. If you had a friend who traveled in space to a distant planet in a distant galaxy and as you looked at him into your futuristic and powerful light telescope (and you could see that far) at the same “time” he looked into his futuristic and powerful light telescope (and he could see that far) you would be seeing his planet thousands of years ago and he would be seeing your planet earth, thousands of years ago. Yet, in a fully “real” and spiritual sense, you would be looking at each other at the same “time.” And if “real” is only the physical that we touch, see, or hear; then, what is “real?”

When you experience something, you really cannot ever exactly be experiencing anything in the time-space sense since there is no real "now" -- and only a then. But is any "then" really real at all.

There is always a small delay (even if minuscule) in every sensation that you believe is real. We believe that entropy increases toward the future and decreases toward the past. In the quantum world, frequency and amplitude of an "analog" sine wave can not be measured to any precision beyond any system of the natural units of the Planck Planck length of 10^−35 m or beyond the Planck time of 5.39124(27) x 10^-44 seconds. This is assuming that the speed of light is not infinite, therefor once we attempt to measure something beyond the limit for its carrier (light) to transmit it, is too fast or too short for it to exist in our reality.

This idea is similar to the concept of "light cones" in the macro world.

So, when you say that time-space is both continuous and discrete -- well maybe it is continuous, but as for any reality we can experience (or measure) it is discrete.

Our perceivable world is granular (i.e. discrete). The entire possibility of existence is continuous, but only if you "believe" it to be so.

I call this "cognitive causality" and if you happen to google search that term, my blog has been the number 1 hit for over 3 years.

(Of course when you "invent' your own terms, there is not likely to be any other weblogs using it. Thus, proving my point about cognitive causality.)

Heck, I can't even figure out the user id, password combination.

The newsreel bit in that last vid, great stuff!

jdlaw:

I used to be interested in this sort of thing as a child, less so as I grew older. Until I heard an interview with Jim on C2C, and then read his book. Liked the book so much I had to get a copy for a friend. Since reading The Universe Solved, the subject has become a bit of an obsession with me, I think this stuff all the time.
The vid, I've seen parts of it before. And youtube vids with some of the people in it. Like what's his name, Jon Hague? The one who talks about the Unified Field Of Consciousness? Other parts of that video I haven't seen before, so I've been watching, over and over again.
That whole part about how the brain processes 400 billion bits of information, and we're only aware of something on the order of 2,000 bits, crazy. I think about that bit about the Shaman and how he couldn't see the ships at first, and how we're like that.
Another poster here, Neo, has posted about the next industrial revolution. I think this may happen over the next few years, by 2010.
When it happens it will be driven by a shift in consciousness.

Got it. Thank you.
Fascinating stuff.

Sorry I got the wrong link connected to Fabric of the Cosmos.

I meant it to go to a wiki link about the book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabric_of_the_Cosmos