/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #9360116

581KiB, 1024x768, 1476223740021.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 21:23:19 2017 No.9360116 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>9360129 >>9360135 >>9360323 >>9360330 >>9360361 >>9360673 >>9360680 >>9360685 >>9360707 >>9361261 >>9361945

>information is never lost, there is LITERALLY no way to destroy the entirety of your physical self in a way where you completely cease to exist

>~10^93 years from now when the last black holes in the universe evaporate, the quantum field fluctuations of what were once the electrochemical processes which resulted in your consciousness will still be around somewhere floating in an empty universe for-LITERALLY-ever, without end, as in counting nanoseconds in ticks of 10^93 years and ALWAYS having more time ahead of you than behind you

G-guys, I want off this ride...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 2017 21:28:10 No.9360129 Report

Quoted By: >>9360180

>>9360116
Your "self" isn't information. I can have all the information in the world and it still won't make "you" present if you're under an oversized dose of anesthesia.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 2017 21:32:02 No.9360135 Report

Quoted By:

>>9360116
Get back on the ride, fuckmother.

>>9358514

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 2017 21:34:42 No.9360141 Report

Quoted By: >>9360213

Deep time is a helluva thing. On timescales that make even black hole lifespans look like attoseconds, it's thought that quantum fluctuations could produce a new Big bang. The interesting point here is that our concept of "nothing" might simply be impossible in the same way a four sided triangle is-the closest thing you can get to nothing still seems to have a kind of intrinsic potential for change. It could also be that the net energy of the universe is zero and everything we see is just a transitory instability that will nullify itself on unimaginable timescales to a state of formlessness again.

But always back to the whys.....There's no escaping whys except inthe arms of philosophy,and all those answers feel like cop-outs to me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 2017 21:49:15 No.9360180 Report

Quoted By: >>9360191 >>9360242 >>9361619

>>9360129
I get that a perfect clone, down to each subatomic particle, isn't the "me" that exists right now, not without continuity of consciousness.

But the perturbations in the fields of the fundamental forces that the particles responsible for my consciousness are emitting at the speed of causality every moment, in their current configuration which results in said consciousness, will float forever.

I mean am I being retarded or is that essentially a ghost being imprinted in the fundamental fields for all time?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 2017 21:53:02 No.9360191 Report

Quoted By: >>9360208

>>9360180
The truth is "you" don't exist in the first place. Self is a convenient narrative device for behaving around. It's just like Gautama Buddha told everyone, there is no genuine self to be found anywhere on closer inspection of the bodily aggregates.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 2017 21:58:45 No.9360208 Report

Quoted By: >>9361699

>>9360191
You might be correct. I've considered the concept a lot.

I'm Christian, but I think the Buddha saw truths about reality.

Fasting seems to bring wisdom.

I wrote a conceptualization of our physical universe. I think the concepts describe everything.

Check it:
http://www.peelified.com/index.php?topic=23582.msg1469805#msg1469805

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 2017 22:00:15 No.9360213 Report

Quoted By:

>>9360141
I explained the whys and the how's.
Check it:

http://www.peelified.com/index.php?topic=23582.msg1469805#msg1469805

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 2017 22:14:45 No.9360242 Report

Quoted By: >>9363046

>>9360180
>I get that a perfect clone, down to each subatomic particle, isn't the "me" that exists right now
That's where you're wrong bucko. All those neural associations and connections will be intact. If it was possible to birth an exact you as you are now, all your memories and learned knowledge would be there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 2017 22:48:50 No.9360297 Report

Quoted By: >>9360315 >>9360732

The philosophical questions like why or whatever are pointless and masturbatory. Like trying to find a "reason" for quantum mechanics.

It's like "Gravity is just like this massive pull of a god-like being showing us how we need to connect together"

You are over-complicating and wanting to relate to such patterns through an emotional or romantic context. Similar to how people humanize animals or birds.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 2017 22:54:18 No.9360315 Report

Quoted By: >>9360346

>>9360297
I wasn't using why from that reference point.

I used why from a causal relationship perspective. Cause -> Effect.

The why of the effect is because cause.

I wrote out concepts that describe our universe in a complete or almost complete manner.

Check it:

http://www.peelified.com/index.php?topic=23582.msg1469805#msg1469805

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO PoI.jpg, 24KiB, 260x412

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 2017 22:59:04 No.9360323 Report

Quoted By: >>9360702

>>9360116

Read pic related and prepare to have your world view permanently shaken.

Haven't viewed life the same since I read it 20 years ago.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 2017 23:01:27 No.9360330 Report

Quoted By:

>>9360116
congrats, you have terrified yourself with the law of conservation of energy

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 2017 23:05:27 No.9360346 Report

Quoted By: >>9360371

>>9360315
I just mean what's the point with hypothesizing things like this with no way to prove or disprove?

Is there manyworlds? Is there not? Are we immortal?

It's not really all that interesting to hypothesize on these things unless you at least have some way to test or are searching for testable ways.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 2017 23:13:29 No.9360361 Report

Quoted By:

>>9360116
>Live forever, and keep living forever in nothingness after the heat death.
I would take the deal, i'll have an enormous amount of time to come up with something before heat death happens, and if nothing can be done, after a bit i think it wouldn't be different than to be dead.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 11 Dec 2017 23:18:06 No.9360371 Report

Quoted By:

>>9360346
I didn't say they were untestable.

I explained them using macroscopic analogies.

The macroscopic analogies are larger versions of what happens at the smallest scales.

Electrons rotate about an axis and revolve around a central point.

The Earth rotates about an axis and revolves around a central point.

I explained these concepts simply.

Check it:

http://www.peelified.com/index.php?topic=23582.msg1469805#msg1469805

The math should work on it, but the mathematicians will be pissed that some idiot on the internet described it first.

The macro world is just doing what the micro world is doing at a larger scale.

Why does time seem to stop at the edge of a black hole? Because there are too many collisions to process.

Seriously, check it:

http://www.peelified.com/index.php?topic=23582.msg1469805#msg1469805

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 01:34:25 No.9360673 Report

Quoted By: >>9360683

>>9360116
I understand the information paradox.
What comes out of a hole as Hawking radiation has a thermal spectrum -- which means it carries no information except the mass of the hole, which we already knew.
So what became of the information about the objects which fell in? Encoded in Planck-length sized squared on the surface of the event horizon?

I don't know.
But if I write something important on a piece of paper, fold it, and then burn the paper to CO2 and free atoms of whatever was in the ink.
Nothing material has been lost. The atoms are all there, floating in air. And they're all moving a trifle faster, having absorbed the energy of the flame and stashed it away as relativistic mass.

But I defy anyone to reconstruct that what I wrote was ""Pay to the bearer $1,000,000." and my signature.

Classically, information is ALWAYS being lost. Most processes are not reversible.
"I have a rectangular garden, 5 meters by 8 meters. What is its area?"
The answer must be "in there". If it wasn't you couldn't solve the problem. You add nothing to what I've told you except the rules of arithmetic.
But if I say "I have a rectangular garden with an area of 40 square meters. What are its dimensions?" You are stuck! Information has been lost!!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 01:36:42 No.9360680 Report

Quoted By:

>>9360116
>information is never lost meme

Thats not correct
It just isn't.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 01:38:16 No.9360683 Report

Quoted By:

>>9360673
I wrote what you're describing.

http://www.peelified.com/index.php?topic=23582.msg1469911#msg1469911

Check all the posts in a row by "winna".

Read it and tell me it's not what you're talking about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 01:39:44 No.9360685 Report

Quoted By: >>9360728

>>9360116
>>information is never lost, there is LITERALLY no way to destroy the entirety of your ... self in a way where you completely cease to exist

This is true but that information isn't necessarily stored in the physical universe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 01:45:33 No.9360702 Report

Quoted By:

>>9360323
>Frank Tipler
Nice bait m8

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 01:48:16 No.9360707 Report

Quoted By: >>9360713 >>9360727 >>9360728

>>9360116
>information is never lost,
E N T R O P Y
N
T
R
O
P
Y

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1512897367691.png, 62KiB, 555x555

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 01:51:51 No.9360713 Report

Quoted By:

>>9360707
>yadda yadda I seriously believe when I burn shit its information is lost

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 01:57:18 No.9360719 Report

Quoted By: >>9363068

there's no guarantee you won't accidentally reassemble by sheer coincidence after you die.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 02:02:50 No.9360727 Report

Quoted By: >>9360744

>>9360707
Isn't entropy just a consequence of great probability vs small probability ? I don't feel like entropy is a real "force"
When I drop a plate full of fries, they will end up not looking "ordered" because the conformation of fries looking "disordered" is far greater that the number of conformation of fries looking "ordered"

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 02:04:41 No.9360728 Report

Quoted By:

>>9360707
Entropy can be defined (roughly) as the negative log of how much information it take to describe the microstate. An unshuffled card deck can be describe in a few words. Low entropy. A shuffled deck can't be described in (much) less than listing each card, in order. Entropy has increased and information has been lost (There's a lot more that you DON'T know about the deck.)

>>9360685
If the information isn't in the physical universe, where is it? Please don't introduce non-physical entities like "souls" unless you are prepared to show me yours. This is _supposed_ to be a board about /sci/. If I don't believe in the Luminiferous Ether (impalpable, undetectable) why should I take other undemonstratable entities any more seriously?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 02:07:47 No.9360732 Report

Quoted By: >>9360734

>>9360297
>The philosophical questions like why or whatever are pointless and masturbatory. Like trying to find a "reason" for quantum mechanics.

Not true at all. Asking 'why' leads to new discoveries and powerful ways of thinking about the world.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 02:09:07 No.9360734 Report

Quoted By:

>>9360732
>Asking "why"
Asking "how"

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 02:13:22 No.9360744 Report

Quoted By:

>>9360727
Quite so. We'll define "ordered fries" as all parallel. Lots more ways to be disordered than ordered. so disordered is more likely.
There is no physical mechanism forcing the increase in entropy. Newtonians mechanics works perfectly well if you plug negative time into the equation. The 2nd Law is only statistical.

I will quote Sir Arthur Eddington:
>The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the
>laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in
>disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations.
>If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes.
>But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope;
>there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 06:38:24 No.9361242 Report

Quoted By:

PURGE THIS USER

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 06:57:08 No.9361261 Report

Quoted By:

>>9360116
>implying such a thing matters if no one is capable of measuring the fluctuations and deducing your worthless existence

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 10:44:35 No.9361497 Report

Quoted By: >>9361627

The amount of energy in a square centimeter of space (its quantum fluctuations essentially) is higher than the amount of atoms in the universe, going by the Planck length and other factors. This is significant, no?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO wojak.jpg, 53KiB, 1600x900

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 11:09:15 No.9361520 Report

Quoted By:

>I'll be a brainlet throughout all eternity

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 11:15:58 No.9361526 Report

Quoted By: >>9361627

I don't understand. virtual pairs emerge and then annihilate, correct? Is there an energy signature they create in both processes that shows proof that the processes happened?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 12:17:59 No.9361619 Report

Quoted By:

>>9360180
They all float down here

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 12:25:26 No.9361627 Report

Quoted By: >>9361665

>>9361526
Virtual pairs cannot be observed _directly_ but they affect the behavior of real particles. The charge of, say, a proton isn't what a gross measurement says because the proton is surrounded by layers of virtual particles which partially "screen" its field. There are the same number of virtual plusses and minuses but the minuses are attracted to the proton and the plusses repelled. Being at different distances causes them to have a net effect.

In addition, the Casimir effect and Hawking radiation are both evidence.

>>9361497
In potential theory, only CHANGES in energy matter. You can't extract useful work with a device connected to two reservoirs at the same temperature. A steam engine, for example, needs not only a fire but also someplace cool to dump its waste heat. Similarly, vacuum energy could not be taken advantage of unless there were areas where its density varied.

The problem is that, in Relativity, ALL forms of matter, energy, and pressure cause space-curvature. If the vacuum really holds such a huge energy-density. the universe should have re-collapsed under its own self-gravitation an instant after the Big Bang.
Obviously, it hasn't.

The enormous vacuum energy computation is dependent on what's called the cut-off frequency. What seems to be the "obvious" cut-off yields unrealistic results.
This is quite similar to the problem facing 19th century physicists when they tried to compute the spectrum of thermal radiation. It was infinite and they called this "the ultraviolet catastrophe." Problem solved by the introduction of quantization. This did away with having to sum up an infinite number of frequencies.
Presumably, there is some effect which greatly reduces the vacuum energy density to what we observe. Thus far, no one knows what it might be.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 13:01:59 No.9361665 Report

Quoted By: >>9361675 >>9361686

>>9361627
so if a virtual pair emerges and then negates itself, what energy signatures remain? what if there is no evidence? wouldnt the information be lost? what if there was no information to begin with? does that mean it didn't happen?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 13:05:23 No.9361675 Report

Quoted By: >>9361686

>>9361665
im tripping. i just realized, if my assumption is correct that the creation and obliteration of a virtual pair creates/requires no energy, that if a virtual pair emerges then annihilates without ever interacting with matter then it never existed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 13:11:44 No.9361686 Report

Quoted By:

>>9361675
>>9361665
so now that I realized this, the op is like the anthropic principle. "I produced information (existed), therefore the information remains."

the thought that interests me is, "the uninteracting particles never existed."

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 13:21:05 No.9361699 Report

Quoted By:

>>9360208
>Christian

The Problem

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1292366520776.jpg, 9KiB, 209x215

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 16:06:48 No.9361945 Report

Quoted By:

>>9360116
I thought black holes completely separated Hawking radiation from whichever physical matter was in the black hole, destroying the information of the matter's wave function?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO image.png, 435KiB, 1045x491

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 23:17:55 No.9363046 Report

Quoted By:

>>9360242
That doesn't solve the "self" problem at all.
A perfect copy of yourself will never be you because it can't occupy the same space. So from them moment of its existence copy and original will grow apart mentally because the mind is shaped by experience.
Even if you created some kind of virtual environment that feeds identical stimuli to both the original and the copy,making them interchangable, they will still exist as independent iterations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 12 Dec 2017 23:24:48 No.9363068 Report

Quoted By:

>>9360719
Based on this assumption, can you extrapolate the probability of me having sexual intercourse with another human being before entropy renders random assembly implausible?

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches