**From:** Mike Dougherty (*msd001@gmail.com*)

**Date:** Sat Jan 06 2007 - 10:13:13 MST

**Next message:**Jef Allbright: "RE: the end of fermi's paradox?"**Previous message:**Jef Allbright: "RE: the end of fermi's paradox?"**In reply to:**Jef Allbright: "RE: the end of fermi's paradox?"**Next in thread:**Jef Allbright: "RE: the end of fermi's paradox?"**Reply:**Jef Allbright: "RE: the end of fermi's paradox?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

On 1/6/07, Jef Allbright <jef@jefallbright.net> wrote:

*>
*

*> Considering that the surface of a sphere increases with the square of
*

*> the radius, while the volume increases with the cube, there seems to be
*

*> an inherent physical constraint on the growth of any system that defines
*

*> intentions in terms of itself.
*

*>
*

*> With increasing growth of "self", and proportionally diminishing surface
*

*> area with which to interact with the "adjacent possible", it would seem
*

*> that expansion would reach a limit and growth would necessarily become
*

*> fractal.
*

does the surface area/volume analogy extend to a hypersphere? Is there any

difference in the "adjacent possible" relationships between higher

dimensional hypersurfaces and lower? If a 4d space-time is in adjacent

contact with a higher-dimensional parent only at a single point (t=0 for

example) then wouldn't the relationship imply a one-way influence? (such

that the higher dimensional parent could easily influence the life of the

lower order universe through easily randomly accesible 'starting'

conditions, while the low-order universe would appear to be predetermined at

creation)

I visualize this not as a mathemagically complex version of a simple sphere

(like a soap bubble), but as more a foam of soap bubbles inside other soap

bubbles. The 'surface area' is the soap, which may be greater than the

surface of the largest containing bubble. A point of adjacency could be

shared between several bubbles in the foam.

It might also be interesting to consider the radiation and reflection

*> signature of a highly fractal body in space.
*

*>
*

I would google radiation and reflection, but I doubt I will find the context

in which you are using them. Do you have a link that better describes these

terms?

**Next message:**Jef Allbright: "RE: the end of fermi's paradox?"**Previous message:**Jef Allbright: "RE: the end of fermi's paradox?"**In reply to:**Jef Allbright: "RE: the end of fermi's paradox?"**Next in thread:**Jef Allbright: "RE: the end of fermi's paradox?"**Reply:**Jef Allbright: "RE: the end of fermi's paradox?"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:57 MDT
*