 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> And I'm still not convinced you can actually destroy information. At the
> quantum level, time is reversible, which means that information at that
> level does *not* get destroyed.
I don't understand how time could be reversible, because that would imply
that an increase in entropy (of an isolated system) would also be reversible,
which is against the law.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
bart wrote:
> On 11/04/2010 04:59 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> bart wrote:
>>> > I think you can be conscious without being self-aware. I'm pretty sure
>>>> that, for example, chickens would be considered conscious, even tho
>>>> they're probably not self-aware.
>>
>>> Yes, it is convenient to think so, but on the other hand they probably
>>> are.
>>
>> No, they probably aren't. You can test such things, you know. Dolphins,
>> gorillas, a few others probably are, including some birds.
>>
>> Chickens and fish probably aren't.
>>
> You are right, it would be difficult to eat them otherwise.
Yes, certainly, because it's all a big conspiracy to let you eat such
creatures with a clear conscience.
If you weren't trolling, you'd instead say "Gee, that's interesting, tell me
how you can possibly measure such a thing?"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
bart wrote:
> I'd like to, but the language is a very limiting tool for this purpose.
Not really.
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/DIASPORA/01/Orphanogenesis.html
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Time must exist, or else it would be impossible to postulate essential
> > properties of physics such as the second law of thermodynamics.
> The second law is statistical.
It still states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases.
> > You can unambiguously distinguish if a closed system is going forward in
> > time by measuring its entropy.)
> No you can't, because time is reversible.
That would mean that entropy is also reversible, which would break the
second law.
> Note that QM has no arrow of time. Reactions going forward are identical
> (altho inverted) to reactions going backwards.
The sourced wikipedia text seems to disagree with that assessment.
"For isolated systems, entropy never decreases. This fact has several
important consequences in science: first, it prohibits "perpetual
motion" machines; and second, it suggests an arrow of time. Increases
in entropy correspond to irreversible changes in a system, because
some energy must be expended as waste heat, limiting the amount of
work a system can do."
> > Space must exist, or else it would be impossible to postulate essential
> > properties of physics, such as the Pauli exclusion principle.
> The Pauli exclusion principle is not part of GR. It's part of QM. :-)
How does that change the claim "space must exist"?
If you accept the Pauli exclusion principle as one of the fundamental
laws of nature, then you have to accept space existing (or explain the
law in question in the case that space does not really exist).
> > Just because space and time are relative doesn't mean they don't exist.
> Maybe I'm misinterpreting stuff like this:
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/background.html
> It seems to be saying that GR says that space and time exist because matter
> and energy exist. You can't have space or time without energy to be
> experiencing them, just like you can't have sound without air to carry it.
Even if spacetime couldn't exist without energy, does that mean that
spacetime *is* energy?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/04/2010 07:29 PM, Darren New wrote:
> bart wrote:
>> On 11/04/2010 04:59 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> bart wrote:
>>>> > I think you can be conscious without being self-aware. I'm pretty
>>>> sure
>>>>> that, for example, chickens would be considered conscious, even tho
>>>>> they're probably not self-aware.
>>>
>>>> Yes, it is convenient to think so, but on the other hand they probably
>>>> are.
>>>
>>> No, they probably aren't. You can test such things, you know. Dolphins,
>>> gorillas, a few others probably are, including some birds.
>>>
>>> Chickens and fish probably aren't.
>>>
This is a funny one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/03/clever-chicken-hides-out_n_148133.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/4/2010 12:52 PM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Time must exist, or else it would be impossible to postulate essential
>>> properties of physics such as the second law of thermodynamics.
>
>> The second law is statistical.
>
> It still states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases.
>
>>> You can unambiguously distinguish if a closed system is going forward in
>>> time by measuring its entropy.)
>
>> No you can't, because time is reversible.
>
> That would mean that entropy is also reversible, which would break the
> second law.
>
Well, in point of fact, Hawkins has proposed that time is an artifact of
probability, in a sense. I.e., *now* is not a strict result of then, but
rather than now is a product of all possible "thens" that could have
produced this moment. This means that time does pass, but the state of
the universe at any moment is merely the constrained result of the
statistical probabilities of the prior moment. So.. How do you reverse
time, if the further back you go, the greater the degree of variance you
end up with, with respect to what *could have* happened prior, and still
have the same "now" as a result? Basically, you can't, since you can't
know what of the N number of possible "exact" conditions existed in the
last moment, so the farther back you end up, the more likely you are to
land at a state where the odds or 50/50 that you can get back to now, or
worse, slightly in favor of *never* getting back to the same point at all.
At least I think that is what he was getting at, but the article
mentioned the concept in like 2-3 sentences...
Biggest issue though is, there is probably nearly absolute zero
probability of events, i.e., entropy (since it is one of the constraints
itself) actually changing in a way that would result in the prior
moment, instead of the next one. Now.. Whether or not you could create
some sort of "local" change is another matter, but.. just guessing, you
might end up with something more like the Stargate SG1 case where some
guy tried to go back in time using a huge mass of linked gates, and time
reversed "locally", but only from the perspective of those inside the
resulting bubble. To change events such that the rest of the universe
didn't protest the anomaly...
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/4/2010 12:27 PM, Darren New wrote:
> bart wrote:
>> >You're trolling, right?
>> Not at all; the question is interesting and
>> I just don't get it why you limit it the the air?
>> We can easily make and hear sounds under water, can't we?
>
> Of course, in which case the sound is made out of water molecules.
>
> I'm not limiting sound to only be in air. I'm making an analogy.
>
Bad one I think. Sound, etc. isn't made up of air, water, or whatever.
It would be more accurate to say that it is made up of what those things
are "doing". This is not *that* different than words on a page. The
words are not ink on paper, they are the arrangement of those things, in
a specific way, which produces a recognizable pattern. We define that
pattern. Something that either didn't see it as a pattern, or commonly
saw similar natural patterns (unlikely, since the point of such patterns
is to make them distinct enough you *don't* generally see them every
place), wouldn't recognize them as anything other than random
arrangements. This is much like sound. White noise, in principle,
doesn't have any arrangement that we recognize as relevant, while speech
does, *but* there are nuts that claim to *hear* real things in white
noise, because sometimes, by shear chance, such noise produces things
that can be mistaken for recognized patterns, just as you can find a
letter A in a rock, or entire Chinese concepts, in similar rocks, by
shear accident. Mind, like the twits hearing "ghost" voices, the odds of
it being an exact match decreases, the more complex the pattern, to the
point where you may "see" or "hear" something that less subjective
analysis shows **isn't there**.
Never quite got why ghosts can "talk to people" via random noise, but
they never manage to do so in a way that matches "any" computer
analysis, based on the phonetics, sounds, or patterns in the actual
language they are supposedly speaking. Apparently, they can only
communicate with sounds that are **not** used in speech, but that the
human brain "mistakes" as sounding similar. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Time must exist, or else it would be impossible to postulate essential
>>> properties of physics such as the second law of thermodynamics.
>
>> The second law is statistical.
>
> It still states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases.
But that's wrong. It's just very, very unlikely to decrease.
Are you saying it's literally impossible to take a random deck of cards and
shuffle it and wind up with it in order?
>>> You can unambiguously distinguish if a closed system is going forward in
>>> time by measuring its entropy.)
>
>> No you can't, because time is reversible.
>
> That would mean that entropy is also reversible, which would break the
> second law.
No, it means that entropy is a statistical property.
>> Note that QM has no arrow of time. Reactions going forward are identical
>> (altho inverted) to reactions going backwards.
>
> The sourced wikipedia text seems to disagree with that assessment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time
There are lots of "arrows of time". That's the problem.
> "For isolated systems, entropy never decreases.
This is simply untrue. Entropy is a statistical property, just like the
electrostatic "force" is.
>>> Space must exist, or else it would be impossible to postulate essential
>>> properties of physics, such as the Pauli exclusion principle.
>
>> The Pauli exclusion principle is not part of GR. It's part of QM. :-)
>
> How does that change the claim "space must exist"?
I was saying that you're arguing that in GR space must exist, and using QM
to prove it, and those are incompatible theories.
> If you accept the Pauli exclusion principle as one of the fundamental
> laws of nature, then you have to accept space existing (or explain the
> law in question in the case that space does not really exist).
And if you accept general relativity and the identity of acceleration and
gravity, you have to throw away space as existing.
That's my point. I'm not saying "space doesn't exist." I'm saying
"physicists are unable to determine yet if space exists, and that's what the
GUT is supposed to determine. Does space exist as a separate thing, or is it
just information?"
I'm saying "it's still up in the air", and you're trying to disprove by
picking half the arguments that the other half are wrong.
> Even if spacetime couldn't exist without energy, does that mean that
> spacetime *is* energy?
My understanding is that this is saying that spacetime is the relationship
between pieces of energy. So space is "information", in some sense.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> If you accept the Pauli exclusion principle as one of the fundamental
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loschmidt%27s_paradox
In other words, I'm saying "It's a paradox", and you're using one half of
the paradox to argue that the other half of the paradox isn't true.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Bad one I think. Sound, etc. isn't made up of air, water, or whatever.
> It would be more accurate to say that it is made up of what those things
> are "doing". This is not *that* different than words on a page.
Yep. And the point is that (as I understand it) according to GR, spacetime
is made up out of what energy is doing. You got it on the first try.
There's nothing in the universe except energy, and everything else (force,
space, time, etc) is just what energy is doing.
Whether you want to argue that means there *is* something besides energy is
arguing over whether sound *is* something besides the atoms and their behavior.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
