"information" ghosts

[Graviphoton]

Chapter and page?

 

I'll look it out tomorrow. Promise.

 

Proof?

 

as far as I'm concerned, thoughts are the product of electrical currents through our brains. That means that their 'objectiveness' isn't as much physical (hence, the 'observer effect') but rather objective in the interpretational sense - hence, your brain interprets the signals objectively.

 

The current science supports my hypothesis (you see these differences in a plain CT, through different "stimuli") Thoughts seem to be a physical-biological response.

 

 

How does it support yours?

 

 

 

Your hypothesis seems to require that thoughts are external to the brain, hence that something exists EXTERNAL to our physiology. So to speak. I don't see that being proven in observation or any other way, specifically not in this thread.

 

So. Proof?

 

Proof:

 

How about the fact that you never observe the outside world, but it is some projection or illusory of the mind? It's not enough to say that we experience the objective, no matter what form, because in the end, we don't ever observe objective world, but a world possibly almost identical to it, created by an internal structure: The subjective.

 

This CANNOT be refuted, without resigning thoughts to grandure and dillusional inspiration.

[mooeypoo]

Proof:

 

How about the fact that you never observe the outside world, but it is some projection or illusory of the mind? It's not enough to say that we experience the objective, no matter what form, because in the end, we don't ever observe objective world, but a world possibly almost identical to it, created by an internal structure: The subjective.

That's philosophy, not physics. It's a philosophical thought excercise, and as I pointed out in another thread (whichever it was on the same point), it's a very interesting thought exercise in philosophy. It's utterly irrelevant as a scientific theory, though.

 

These are issues that are being discussed in philosophy and metaphysics, but none have been proven. I am not sure there is a way to prove it, either. It's an opinion. I share a different one, to be honest, one that cannot be disproven or proven either. that's the point. There doesn't seem to be a way to "pick" between YOUR opinion and MINE in this issue.

 

That's why it's not scientific.

 

That's why it's unproven.

 

Nice try, though.

 

This CANNOT be refuted, without resigning thoughts to grandure and dillusional inspiration.

Actually, that acts AGAINST your theory, since a VALID theory needs to be refutable. There must be something - that if happens/discovered, refutes the theory. Otherwise it's not a scientific theory.

 

Other than that, the idea (NOT a fact.. IDAE... philosophy! not science!) that we observe things objectively and hence see the world as an objective experience is not, in itself, enough for this theory. What does it mean, exactly, that we experience the world objectively? Is it just a matter of perspective, or do we ACTUALLY create things we see? If we both see a horse - we both see it differently, but --HOW SO? Do you see a horse one way and me another, or do you just see it in a different angle? What is responsible for this 'difference'? "Quantum Physics" or just our subjective and individual TRANSLATION of the neural data fired in our PHYSICAL brains?

 

These things are unproven, or, at the very least, uncertain.

 

If you think you can set these straight - you need to explain the BASIS of your conclusions on this matter.

 

It's not enough just to share your opinion and state a conclusion on it.

 

~moo

[Edtharan]

Information cannot be destroyed. This is a commonly accepted tenet. What the problem is here is that the definition of information has not been standardised in this thread. Of course if you write something down on the piece of paper, and then you burn the piece of paper, you can't get back what was on the paper without the proper equipment.

Ok, Try this one:

 

Get your self and Abacus. Set it so that the number it represents is your birthday.

 

You now have some information on the abacus. Now tip it upside down and then back upright. This will "erase" the information (your birthday) from the abacus.

 

Now, get it back. It leaves no trace that can be recovered, so no machine will be able to put it back together.

 

Or:

 

Set up a sequence of Atoms that have their spins aligned up or down. Use these to represent a binary value (lets use your birthday again).

 

Now, rearrange their spins randomly. There is no way that you can recover that information it is destroyed completely.

 

Information can be destroyed. It is not like Matter or energy, it is only a pattern of matter or energy. Change the pattern and you loose the information.

[Klaynos]

The second one the information will be moved because depending on the posision of the beads will make a small difference to the energy require to tip it as they move the centre of mass.

 

Second one, they'd heat up the system, give of photons probably, that would contain the information.

 

Look up the theory of Erasure.

[iNow]

Thoughts are improbable, whilst speeds are of the by-product of the improbable, whilst energy exists as something which requires the two. This as i am sure you will know as the Observer Effect.

 

In other words, the thoughts we have exist niether in real space, or imaginary time, when in reference to observing a system, displaying improbable actions which are evidently, probable. The electrochemical activity, is just a conduit for this information.

 

 

Cite?

 

 

 

 

Just physics for you.

 

An observation made on the external world, can only be made in real time.

 

If the very notion of our beings are improbable, such as the statistical improbable nature of life occuring in these statistical averages in the state vector of the universe, then in reference, the thoughts we conjure up about the outside world, remains totally improbable as well. Just logic here.

 

As for thoughts and emotions not existing in spacetime, read Goswami's book, ''How Consciousness Creates Reality.''

 

And you will also find reference to this in

 

Mind into Matter, Dr Wolf

 

 

Chapter and page?

 

 

 

I'll look it out tomorrow. Promise.

 

 

 

Proof:

 

How about the fact that you never observe the outside world, but it is some projection or illusory of the mind? It's not enough to say that we experience the objective, no matter what form, because in the end, we don't ever observe objective world, but a world possibly almost identical to it, created by an internal structure: The subjective.

 

This CANNOT be refuted, without resigning thoughts to grandure and dillusional inspiration.

 

 

Just a gentle reminder for you. Enjoy.

[Graviphoton]

Oh my God... Does anyone here know anything about physics? Information CANNOT be destroyed. Its set in stone in physics.

 

Mooey

 

Its not philosophy at all. Its all down to chemistry and qauntum actions. No one except you will deny this FACT OF SCIENCE.

[iNow]

Yup. Troll.

[Klaynos]

I'd again suggest everyone here reads about erasure...

 

# Harvey S. Leff and Andrew F. Rex, editors. Maxwell's Demon: Entropy, Information, Computing, Princeton University Press, 1990.

 

* Chapter 4: Maxwell's Demon, Information Erasure, and Computing

 

Is a good resource...

 

You wont find much about it on wp, it's a bit too high level, it is the theory of destorying/removing information in logical systems....

[ydoaPs]

Oh my God... Does anyone here know anything about physics? Information CANNOT be destroyed. Its set in stone in physics.

How do you define information. Does a written note have information on it? If so, what happens to that information when the paper is burned?

 

Ever play the "telephone" game as a child? It almost always results in information being added and/or removed from the original message.

 

Again, I ask, how is this conserved information defined?

[Klaynos]

Ah defining information is also explained in erasure theory...

 

It's all explained to a small extent in this course:

 

http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~mpf/physlim/

 

Although that has an obvious slant...

[Graviphoton]

I think the general view is that information is ethereal. It exists, only as a statistical ghost rusing through the imaginary dimension, or real space, which are the same thing.

 

But this is quantum information, and this is the only way i think it can be defined, unless we are talking about an exchange of energy, or quantum entanglement.

[Klaynos]

I think the general view is that information is ethereal. It exists, only as a statistical ghost rusing through the imaginary dimension, or real space, which are the same thing.

 

But this is quantum information, and this is the only way i think it can be defined, unless we are talking about an exchange of energy, or quantum entanglement.

 

I don't quite know what you mean here at all...

[ydoaPs]

You really didn't define anything there. How can you say it is conserved if you can't even say what it is?

[mooeypoo]

I think the general view is that information is ethereal. It exists, only as a statistical ghost rusing through the imaginary dimension, or real space, which are the same thing.

Yes, you think therefore you are.

 

Now prove it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it just me who is wondering why you chose to post in a SCIENTIFIC ORIENTED FORUM when you clearly don't read the rules or wish to follow the EMPIRICAL (ahem. Empirical. E-M-P-I-R-I-C-A-L...) scientific method..?

 

Just wondering. Really. Seriously now. Gobblygook. Hello? Rules..?

 

~moo

[Graviphoton]

Well, things that move below lightspeed, move in real time, or imaginary space. A photon moves through nothing, and goes no where. And a thing that moves faster than lightspeed, moves through imaginary time, or real space. Basic Physics Mooey.

[Klaynos]

So urmmm photons don't move so must have a 0 speed?

 

Are you talking about the positions of i's in the wave functions of objects?

 

Because you're not making much sense...

[mooeypoo]

Well, things that move below lightspeed, move in real time, or imaginary space.

Why is real time imaginary space? Where does that come from, I don't understand.. it's based on what?

 

A photon moves through nothing, and goes no where.

... why are you saying this? Based on what? Proof? Substantiation? Reasoning? Anything?

 

And a thing that moves faster than lightspeed, moves through imaginary time, or real space. Basic Physics Mooey.

Uh.. ooookay. I guess I'll tell my Dean to hold off on my degree, then, ah?

 

~moo

[Kyrisch]

Ok, Try this one:

 

Get your self and Abacus. Set it so that the number it represents is your birthday.

 

You now have some information on the abacus. Now tip it upside down and then back upright. This will "erase" the information (your birthday) from the abacus.

 

Now, get it back. It leaves no trace that can be recovered, so no machine will be able to put it back together.

 

Or:

 

Set up a sequence of Atoms that have their spins aligned up or down. Use these to represent a binary value (lets use your birthday again).

 

Now, rearrange their spins randomly. There is no way that you can recover that information it is destroyed completely.

 

Information can be destroyed. It is not like Matter or energy, it is only a pattern of matter or energy. Change the pattern and you loose the information.

 

In the first case, as the beads slide down they will transfer the information of their former position into a heat signature on the shafts that, with the right instruments, can be used to determine exactly how many beads had fallen because of energy conservation. The energy is transferred, not destroyed.

 

In the second case, whatever method you used to "rearrange the spins randomly" will leave traces that will be the information of the former spins transferred into another form.

 

Spin, charge, location, and velocity are all forms of information.

[Edtharan]

In the first case, as the beads slide down they will transfer the information of their former position into a heat signature on the shafts that, with the right instruments, can be used to determine exactly how many beads had fallen because of energy conservation. The energy is transferred, not destroyed.

But if you were also to then heat and cool the shafts, this would erase that information too. The only signal left would be the radiant heat travelling outwards. But then you would have to travel faster than light to "read" it. You would in effect have to travel backwards in time to get the information back.

 

In the second case, whatever method you used to "rearrange the spins randomly" will leave traces that will be the information of the former spins transferred into another form.

Yes, as photons. But again, you have the problem of having to travel faster than light to read it.

 

If you are free to violate the laws of physics, then sure, you can construct a scenario to "recover" the information.

 

As a pre-emptive response:

If you were to set up a device that would intercept this out going "information" of radiation and record it, you are introducing a new element into the system. Namely that you are copying the information before it is erased.

 

Of course, if you copy the information before you erase it you can get it back, but if you think about it, that ignores the point I was making.

 

As far as any observer of the erasure event is concerned, the information is irretrievably lost to them. If you were to travel faster than light (travel backwards in time) you can then view the information. But after that erasure event, the information is lost to all future observers of the system.

[Kyrisch]

But if you were also to then heat and cool the shafts, this would erase that information too. The only signal left would be the radiant heat travelling outwards. But then you would have to travel faster than light to "read" it. You would in effect have to travel backwards in time to get the information back.

 

Not true. The process of cooling the residual heat just moves it. Heat energy doesn't go away. Again you are just moving the information.

 

Yes, as photons. But again, you have the problem of having to travel faster than light to read it.

 

Not if you're far enough away that you have apparatus ready by the time the light reaches you. And the point is not that you would have to "travel faster than the speed of light to retrieve the information". The point is the information still exists in the direction, wavelength, intensity, et cetera of the light waves produced. That is, knowing the laws of physics and collecting all the relevant information will allow one to theoretically figure out the original birthdate information.

[BumFluff]

I don't think when people say "information canot be destroyed" they were talking about information written on a piece of paper or something you thought about yesterday. I think what they are talking about is on the quantum level is it not?

 

Regardless... everyone has a different belief in what ghosts are or what makes a ghost. One possibility I posted on another forum is perhaps all matter in a specific spot reacts to energy around it. If there is enough energy (I'm talking about the electric currents inside your brain when you think) that energy will flow and be stored in that particular form of matter. At specific times that information is played back from that particular piece of matter.

 

Another thought I had about a year ago is this. I pictures time like a ribbon that was folded over and over ontop of itself. Every once in awhile along that ribbon it's depth lessons so much that another part of the ribbon seeps through and the matter within that ribbon of time momentarily shows itself to that ribbon whos depth lessened.

 

Anyways I'm probably making very little sense to everyone and after reading my post I'm making very little sense to myself so I think I'll just stop here for now.

[Edtharan]

Not true. The process of cooling the residual heat just moves it. Heat energy doesn't go away. Again you are just moving the information.

As I said, you can have the "information" stored in the radiative emissions.

 

Not if you're far enough away that you have apparatus ready by the time the light reaches you. And the point is not that you would have to "travel faster than the speed of light to retrieve the information". The point is the information still exists in the direction, wavelength, intensity, et cetera of the light waves produced. That is, knowing the laws of physics and collecting all the relevant information will allow one to theoretically figure out the original birthdate information.

The thing is you are forgetting Relativity.

 

When you plot the events in space time, that "apparatus", at the point it takes the reading is in the past of the information deletion event. It is not recovering the information it is storing it when it is still there. So in effect, you don't actually erase the information (only one copy of it).

 

It is no different than if I write something on a piece of paper, photocopy the paper, burn the original and then claim that I was able to retrieve the information from the burnt paper (when I haven't, I have just made a copy before I destroyed the original).

 

It is all about Simultaneity.