What is wrong with this statement...?

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

What is wrong with this statement...?

Postby kensaundm31 on March 4th, 2012, 6:32 pm 

Reality is information. I am a pattern of information. Information can never be destroyed.

Can Laplace's demon put me back together in 100 trillion years?



(P.S. Hello).
kensaundm31
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 3
Joined: 13 Aug 2011


Re: What is wrong with this statement...?

Postby flannel jesus on March 4th, 2012, 7:36 pm 

If we assume that reality is completely deterministic (as I do) then the intuitive answer would be yes. However, given our current knowledge of quantum mechanics, chaos, entropy, etc., it would seem as though the intuitive answer is the wrong one. Even if you limit it to a deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics (again, which I do).
User avatar
flannel jesus
Member
 
Posts: 346
Joined: 29 Jan 2012


Re: What is wrong with this statement...?

Postby kangs79 on March 9th, 2012, 2:44 pm 

Reality is infinite in its size. Complete reality can only be turned into information buy someone 'who is the entirity of reality'. None else can absorb the total reality because they are incapable of handeling it. The real self is the only one that can put you back together after eons of time.
User avatar
kangs79
Member
 
Posts: 108
Joined: 23 Apr 2011


Re: What is wrong with this statement...?

Postby owleye on March 10th, 2012, 12:43 pm 

Responding to the topic question, what I find wrong is that 'information' leaves almost as much unspecified as does the 'reality' it anticipates being equated with. One possible interpretation is that because 'information' implies a duality, reality is therefore dual, not one.

James
owleye
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5229
Joined: 19 Sep 2009
Likes received:65


Re: What is wrong with this statement...?

Postby PrayerReason on March 13th, 2012, 12:17 pm 

Information can never be destroyed.
That's false. If I have a image file in my SD card of my camera. I captured information. If I erase this data, I lose information...
Of course, you think probably something specific for "Information" but that enough to show you the sentence is not "per se" true, so wrong.
PrayerReason
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 18
Joined: 06 Mar 2012


Re: What is wrong with this statement...?

Postby neuro on March 14th, 2012, 5:36 am 

and by the way, wasn't the demon Maxwell's ?

Your point is equivocal:
- are you asking is there a non-zero probability? - I would say yes, but so negligible it is not worth considering (still possible, why not)
- or are you asking Maxwell's demon to do it? - in that case the amount of information /(and therefore energy) needed to do the job would be phantasmagoric!
User avatar
neuro
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1810
Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Location: italy
Likes received:89


Re: What is wrong with this statement...?

Postby kensaundm31 on March 17th, 2012, 9:45 pm 

lol yeah, it would take a lot of forensic accounting for sure!

It occured to me after listening to seth Lloyd (reality is info/ the universe is computing) and I heard Len Susskind say that the law that info can never be destroyed was the -1st law, in that it was more fundamental than the other thermodynamic laws.

I'm not religious but I sometimes think that what more worthwhile thing could you do as a 'god' than to set in motion the universe(s) and absorb all the information from all the interactions that occurred.

But I figured maybe you dont need a god, I wondered if what sentient beings can become over the course of 100 trillion years of the stelliferous era, could they re construct us?

To be fair Susskind did say that the term 'information' in this sense was very loose.

And yes, im just getting a sense of how many particle interactions that would need to reverse-engineered. I nevber actually thought about it taking energy to do as well.

Well, anyway thanks for the input.
kensaundm31
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 3
Joined: 13 Aug 2011



Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests