The concept demands entanglement, invaniant frames of reference, inverse mapping and at lest two three spaces ( I don’t personally care for the word “brane” ).

These realities of existence combined with the permanence of existence produce a sytem of stored, embedded information which phylogenically evolves over eternity- single process time being the one infinite dimension of existence.

The result…an imperfect universe, very good and very impressive, but always falling short of perfection in some way…very much the universe we live in…

To be sure, if the universe is finite in mass, random quantum fluctuations MUST HAVE an absolute eternity, with no beginning or end to produce information and developing complexity of the kind we observe.

Eternity is beyond our comprehension. Speculation about a beginning, or ending is very much antithetical to the concept.

Because of entanglement, invariance and yet the existence of a time concept, a phylogenically developing universe does leave room for a “God” concept.

Having access to this information(close to the beginning as Quark Gluon perceptions) is not of course without, what could indicate “information loss” from microstate blackhole creation? We sent our measures down to this level?

Entanglement Interpretation of Black Hole Entropy in String Theory

This allows the comparison of the entanglement entropy with the entropy of the field theory dual, and thus, with the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the black hole. As an example, we discuss in detail the case of the five dimensional anti-de Sitter, black hole spacetime

Measurement would be very important, as well, secondary particle emissions from cosmic partice collisions? So we look for the conditions, RHIC, LHC or otherwise? Alice.:)

I think language is algorithmic, in the same sense that physics, math and other sciences are. It has a 26-symbol code base, and can be assembled in sequences such as everyone has done in this post to convey incredibly complex concepts with relatively few symbol choices.

I’ve been working on a system that is based on interpreting a letter shape as a significant part of each letter’s communicative purpose (drawing from information theory). The combination of letter shapes found within a word are used to store it’s context and entropic value, whereas currently we generally just have definition associated with letter sequence, allowing for multiple definitions, ambiguity and misunderstanding.

The intent is that scientific concepts can be captured and encapsulated with the combinations of letter shapes chosen to represent them. It accomplishes two things. It introduces a common language of communication between researchers of varied disciplines, and it provides a coded structure of familiarity to manipulate in search of new discovery.

What’s this got to do with this discussion thread? Perhaps nothing, and I apologize if I’m butting in…as I said, I don’t have a scientific background, I’m simply intrigued by all this.

Finally, in query of “Concerned Scientist’s” observation above: ‘It’s brilliant, but it’s not science’, I ask simply, why the assumption that science is the sole scion of truth?

Gellman:

The name that I propose for our subject is “plectics,” derived, like mathematics, ethics, politics, economics, and so on, from the Greek. Since plektos with no prefix comes from *plek- , but without any commitment to the notion of “once” as in “simple” or to the notion of “together” as in “complex,” the derived word “plectics” can cover both simplicity and complexity.

It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, since entanglement is a key feature of the way complexity arises out of simplicity, making our subject worth studying.

You WILL hear about this!…but I’m truly happy to see you bravely attempting to seriously or manybe not so seriously attack the problem of complexity in the universe. In fact, complexity is so embedded, even (and necessarily) in the inorganic universe, this reality must be systematically addressed if modern physics is to be credible.

In a universe of finite mass, eternal time (the one infinite dimension of a hyperspherical universe) and higher dimensionality are the two keys to understanding complexity. Although the universe is finite and spatially closed, it has had forever to develop complexity….Best Wishes, Sam Cox

adam, I did foundations of quantum theory as a physics undergraduate before doing a Ph.D. in quantum information. I think foundations of QT was a very good starting point for learning quantum information, because you study quantum theory in a very formal way (nowadays we have specialised courses and research groups). So I have no problem when the foundations people try to eat from this trough. They have a small appetite anyway.

There are other areas in physics that take the mickey much more when it comes to grant applications. I won’t say who, but you know who you are…

PS. Too bad the sup tag did not work in my earlier comment (it did in the preview). I meant of course hbar^3N.

Also re: complexity I think I have mentioned the work of Stuart Kauffman on this blog before. He is a very smart guy with an interesting view of the emergence of complexity. Also at one point a compatriot of Lee Smolin.

I am not necessarily quite ready to say the universe IS a quantum computer but that model may provide some insights into some of the outstanding cosmological mysteries and therefore should be considered at “least ;)” as valuable as any anthropic arguments.

Some tries to define appropriate complexity measures. One such is found in http://www.striz.org/docs/tononi-complexity.pdf with the situation vs Kolmogorov described in the Fig in Box 2, and the definition in Box 1. (Note: The paper is from “Trends in Cognitive Sciences”. I haven’t found the original.)

I agree with you about the serendipitous nature of one of the few exponential speedups belonging to an algorithm that can attack public-key encryption techniques. I would also say that quantum communications are more useful than quantum computers in the short term.

Every grant proposal now tries to make a connection to quantum computing, because that is where the money is. Some people are very cynical about this, but it has ensured a healthy level of funding for all branches of physics that concentrate on manipulating quantum systems. A lot of interesting results have come out of this (some nothing to do with quantum computing), and today we can do things that were wild dreams five years ago. I am convinced (as is David Deutsch) that we will have a working prototype of a quantum computer within a decade. What we’ll do with it once the codes are cracked is a different matter. Don’t forget that transistors were invented to make hearing aides.

Finally, we are slowly gaining a better understanding of what is quantum about quantum information theory. We have a flurry of beautiful results, but right now I would say that we’re at the point electromagnetism was in a decade before Maxwell. Quantum information needs its own James Clerk Maxwell to extract the essence of it all and condense it into a coherent theory. Personally, I believe that this theory will have something to say about quantum gravity, possibly via the holographic principle.

We will see…

Think of it this way: how much information does it take to describe the air spread evenly throughout the room? Well, if you insist that we specify the exact microstate, the position and momentum of every single molecule, it would require a huge amount of information. From that point of view, the state is zero entropy and very complex. But if we coarse-grain our description, paying attention only to the macroscopic variables, it’s a very high-entropy state, and also very simple.

Indeed, high-entropy states are always “simple” in that sense. But low-entropy states may or may not be. Having all the air molecules located in one corner of the room is low-entropy (there aren’t many microstates that would correspond to such a macrostate, compared to all of the total set available), but it does have a simple description. If the molecules were organized into some complex structure, it would be both low-entropy and low-simplicity.

Experts are welcome to chime in. The notion of simplicity I’m using here doesn’t correspond to any technical concept of which I’m aware.