Information is never lost...

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:

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

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.

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

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.

>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.

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:

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:

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

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!!!

>information is never lost meme

Thats not correct
It just isn't.

I wrote what you're describing.

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.

>>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.

>Frank Tipler
Nice bait m8

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

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

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

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"

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.)

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 Veeky Forums. If I don't believe in the Luminiferous Ether (impalpable, undetectable) why should I take other undemonstratable entities any more seriously?

>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.

>Asking "why"
Asking "how"

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.

PURGE THIS USER

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

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?

>I'll be a brainlet throughout all eternity

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?

They all float down here

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.

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.

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?

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.

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."

>Christian

The Problem

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?

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.

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