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.