Pre-Big Bang Theory and A Holographic Universe-Ideas About the One

Intelligent design wasn’t the topic I was going for regarding Shannon entropy and pre-big bang metaphysics. Information content of the universe along the binary bits of information such as Shannon devised in the invention of information theory need not have particular patterns to prove information theory veracity.

Information as an omniscient field of God would not require a reduction to ‘design’. An implicit motion of will would occur for some unknown reason. We would have the Parmenides-Heraclitus sort of debates about the One or Pluralism in that regard. I think that when the Universe is regarded as information, and the mind as a specialized form of information structure in existence, then we are closer to appreciating a spiritual paradigm for the interpretation of quanta phenomenally at any rate, though it is not necessary to do so.  

Because the Universe exists and it has information regarding its structure that can be replicated by computers or human beings in various respects, and following along the lines of cosmological physical theories towards the origin of information comprising the Universe, it is possible to regard various logical relationships metaphysically or theologically to a certain extent in the pre-big bang era. That is a difficult task for me presently with limited time for that contemplation. I have considered that a little elsewhere, yet here prefer to point out the Shannon and holographic universe criteria somewhat. You may form your own ideas about what the ultimate limit to the compaction of information is and how it is contingent upon the criteria of manifestation. If we consider quanta as having an ultimately spiritual foundation then the spatial-temporal paradigm for dimensional actualization shifts a little from that of relativistic pre-big bang quantifications of given, nominal constants. The second url has an August 2003 featured article in scientific American by the physicist Jacob Berkenstein that reaches a discussion of the Generalized Second Law–GSL and its reconciliation of the second laws’ apparent irrelevance when matter is lost in to black holes and no longer become more disorganized with increased entropy.  

A calculation is made that a centimeter sized device could have a theoretical maximum amount of information at 10 to the 66th bits, and the visible Universe has a minimum of 10 to the 100th bits of data. The article by Berkenstein raises several questions and interesting points especially when added to contemplation of pre-big bang universe criteria. If there is a maximum rate of theoretical packing of information that is tied to particles, size and space-time itself-why? That is a problem of the substance criterion isn’t it? In making photon computers and quantum computers the reduction in processor size is vast in comparison with that of silicon chips.What occurs with zero dimensional information processors such are better suited for considering the Plotinian dimensional scale of The One? 

There are innumerable interesting points on this subject to consider. I will post a paragraph on the idea of free will in thought from an essay on determinism I posted recently. “Thought as a physical process–all of those trillions of molecular configurations comprising memory, knowledge, reasoning, active thinking and self-awareness, are like the infinitesimal processes of quarks within atoms undergoing stellar synthesis, a part of the physical history of the universe. Free thought has the capacity to select how some of these processes eventuate locally in ways that non-sentient mass does not.  

Thought in its potential for freedom in some respects is like all possible worlds states simultaneously existed in article-waves of quantum uncertainty. Free thought may select via a number of criteria which macro-state collapse will occur such that it becomes actual rather than others. Individuals may choose to restrict their use of free will and allow external conditions largely to impose their force determinations upon oneself and inhibit one’s own freedom to think creatively.”