Okay I think I can see the 'holographic argument' now.

Black_hole_thermodynamics And it came from this "The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which implies that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected. In the case of a black hole, the insight was that the description of all the objects which have fallen in can be entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon. The holographic principle resolves the black hole information paradox within the framework of string theory."

And the idea it builds on is 'information density' of that holographic interface. That introduces a philosophical aspect of the theory to me. Here is a simple explanation using the idea of throwing coins to watch their outcome. First we have to define if the coin is 'fair' or 'crocked'

From ->

Entropy (information theory) and

Holographic_principle#Black_hole_information_paradox (So, now you got most of the info I've have, for now:)

"A fair coin has an entropy of one bit. However, if the coin is not fair, then the uncertainty is lower (if asked to bet on the next outcome, we would bet preferentially on the most frequent result)" like a crooked roulette table, okay?

"Consider tossing a coin with known, not necessarily fair, probabilities of coming up heads or tails.

The entropy of the unknown result of the next toss of the coin is maximized if the coin is fair (that is, if heads and tails both have equal probability 1/2). This is the situation of maximum uncertainty as it is most difficult to predict the outcome of the next toss; the result of each toss of the coin delivers a full 1 bit of information.

However, if we know the coin is not fair, but comes up heads or tails with probabilities p and q, then there is less uncertainty. Every time it is tossed, one side is more likely to come up than the other. The reduced uncertainty is quantified in a lower entropy: on average each toss of the coin delivers less than a full 1 bit of information.

The extreme case is that of a double-headed coin which never comes up tails. Then there is no uncertainty. The entropy is zero: each toss of the coin delivers no information."

But here is my question, where are the limits for this kind of observation? Can you by stating 'I start now' ignore the coin throws you did before? It seems to me that you can't. And if you draw out that conclusion to its limits, considering all coins thrown in human time

How do you construct your 'system' of observation?

Thinking of it it has a clear relation to how time works, won't you agree?

As if we assume that by defining a freely chosen 'point in time' as our 'start' we will get different results from our coin throwing?

==

Graham I think it's with you like with me, the more I look at it the more I seem to remember

It's just that I haven't put it together his way. But to me it's more or less the same idea that I've had, except I'm sort of allergic to a 'holographic universe', as that sounds too much as something ethereal to me. I'm sure GoodElf could give us some input on this paper too. He's been thinking some time about a holographic approach.

I guess it's all about definitions though, and that what I react to now will make more sense when I understands that 'holographic idea' better..