subject:"Information conservation and irreversibility"

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-29 Thread Lawrence Crowell

I think physics fundamentally constrains causal rules to obey the 
Church-Turing thesis. That is, computable dynamics are computable on a 
Turing machine. However, there is some form of axiomatic incompleteness 
such as Gödel's theorem or Turing's result on universal Turing machines. We 
have then has a universal form of event horizon, of which the quantum 
uncertainty principle and spacetime event horizons are examples of. In a 
full quantum gravitational setting we may then have the CT thesis upheld so 
there are no physical hypercomputations (I wonder what happened to Phill 
Thrift?) that skirt the Gödel theorem or Turing's result. 

As a result physics is "Turing computable" with a minimal number of oracle 
inputs. These oracle inputs could be things such as what we call the 
collapse of a wave function or the incomplete description of gravitational 
collapse behind the horizon. Nature just gives these oracle in puts 
randomly. There is no dynamics behind them that we can ever compute. In 
other words, chasing after a solution to the so called measurement problem 
in QM is a fool's errand. 

This universal event horizon goes into our inability to measure anything 
concerning the nature of things beyond inflation or the quantum 
gravitational amplitude, or vacuum expected value etc, leading to 
inflation. Ideas of cyclic cosmologies or the universe comes from a black 
hole or the multiverse or ... , may simply be unattainable. These may be 
similar to the interpretations of QM, which are axiomatic input, oracle 
outputs if you will, that we impose. These things may be fundamentally 
unobservable and formally undecidable.

LC

On Sunday, August 28, 2022 at 6:04:16 PM UTC-5 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

> Exactly.  That's why I wrote "...our part of universe".  Whether the 
> part of the system that we can never interact with is relevant is a 
> question for metaphysics. 
>
> Brent 
>
> On 8/28/2022 11:58 AM, smitra wrote: 
> > But then you are describing only part of the system using QM. The 
> > whole system includes the universe itself, this is described by a 
> > wavefunctional that assigns amplitudes to entire space-time 
> > configurations and the fields in it. 
> > 
> > Saibal 
> > 
> > 
> > On 28-08-2022 20:42, Brent Meeker wrote: 
> >> But in the mean time the expansion of the universe has moved lots of 
> >> what the wave function of the universe beyond our horizon. And what we 
> >> can access is not the unitary evolution of what we could earlier. 
> >> 
> >> Brent 
> >> 
> >> On 8/28/2022 1:34 AM, smitra wrote: 
> >>> It's a unitary map, it will evolve the past state into a 
> >>> superposition of many different states. One may argue that this is 
> >>> meaningless, as one has to choose a basis. But this is essentially 
> >>> what time evolution operator does for you. If you work in a 
> >>> particular basis then applying the time evolution operator amounts 
> >>> to changing that basis into another basis without affecting the 
> >>> state of the system in any way. 
> >>> 
> >>> Saibal 
> >>> 
> >>> On 28-08-2022 00:41, Brent Meeker wrote: 
>  Why do you think the evolution is deterministic of our part of 
>  universe? 
>  
>  Brent 
>  
>  On 8/27/2022 9:17 AM, smitra wrote: 
> > The time evolution operator maps past states of our universe to 
> > present states. So, the present state of the universe, which 
> > includes our conscious experience of the present state was also 
> > present in the early universe in a nonlocal way where there would 
> > be no obvious sign of us existing at all. 
> > 
> > Saibal 
> > 
> > On 27-08-2022 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote: 
> >> Even if it were sentient its thoughts would be incomprehensible to 
> >> us. 
> >> 
> >> Brent 
> >> 
> >> On 8/26/2022 2:52 AM, John Clark wrote: 
> >> 
> >>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 5:41 AM Lawrence Crowell 
> >>>  wrote: 
> >>> 
>  _> I do not think much of this idea that the universe is 
>  sentient._ 
> >>> 
> >>> I think the idea is a bit silly because I don't see any way to 
> >>> prove 
> >>> or disprove it even in theory. And in the entire universe the only 
> >>> thing that I know with absolute certainty is sentient is the 3 
> >>> pounds of gray goo inside a bone vat that is sitting on my 
> >>> shoulders. 
> >>> 
> >>> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis [1] 
> >>> 
> >>> ibv 
> >>> 
> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the 
> >>> Google 
> >>> Groups "Everything List" group. 
> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
> >>> send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. 
> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> >>> 
> >> 
>

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-28 Thread Brent Meeker

Exactly. That's why I wrote "...our part of universe". Whether the
part of the system that we can never interact with is relevant is a
question for metaphysics.

Brent

On 8/28/2022 11:58 AM, smitra wrote:
But then you are describing only part of the system using QM. The
whole system includes the universe itself, this is described by a
wavefunctional that assigns amplitudes to entire space-time
configurations and the fields in it.

Saibal

On 28-08-2022 20:42, Brent Meeker wrote:

But in the mean time the expansion of the universe has moved lots of
what the wave function of the universe beyond our horizon. And what we
can access is not the unitary evolution of what we could earlier.

Brent

On 8/28/2022 1:34 AM, smitra wrote:
It's a unitary map, it will evolve the past state into a
superposition of many different states. One may argue that this is
meaningless, as one has to choose a basis. But this is essentially
what time evolution operator does for you. If you work in a
particular basis then applying the time evolution operator amounts
to changing that basis into another basis without affecting the
state of the system in any way.

Saibal

On 28-08-2022 00:41, Brent Meeker wrote:
Why do you think the evolution is deterministic of our part of
universe?

Brent

On 8/27/2022 9:17 AM, smitra wrote:
The time evolution operator maps past states of our universe to
present states. So, the present state of the universe, which
includes our conscious experience of the present state was also
present in the early universe in a nonlocal way where there would
be no obvious sign of us existing at all.

Saibal

On 27-08-2022 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote:

Even if it were sentient its thoughts would be incomprehensible to
us.

Brent

On 8/26/2022 2:52 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 5:41 AM Lawrence Crowell
wrote:

_> I do not think much of this idea that the universe is
sentient._

I think the idea is a bit silly because I don't see any way to
prove

or disprove it even in theory. And in the entire universe the only
thing that I know with absolute certainty is sentient is the 3
pounds of gray goo inside a bone vat that is sitting on my
shoulders.

John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis [1]

ibv

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google

Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2kQ_tSW8HT5bb2BSh%3Dm3gjcqV-NB8zbZFwTg8CejdFew%40mail.gmail.com

[2].

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send

an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/17ec80e2-08aa-5174-6f3f-9c807f946441%40gmail.com
[3].

Links:
--
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis
[2]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2kQ_tSW8HT5bb2BSh%3Dm3gjcqV-NB8zbZFwTg8CejdFew%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=emailutm_source=footer
[3]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/17ec80e2-08aa-5174-6f3f-9c807f946441%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f1602ed6-8df8-511b-8a83-ec01cece88c4%40gmail.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-28 Thread smitra

But then you are describing only part of the system using QM. The whole
system includes the universe itself, this is described by a
wavefunctional that assigns amplitudes to entire space-time
configurations and the fields in it.

Saibal

On 28-08-2022 20:42, Brent Meeker wrote:

Brent

On 8/28/2022 1:34 AM, smitra wrote:
It's a unitary map, it will evolve the past state into a superposition
of many different states. One may argue that this is meaningless, as
one has to choose a basis. But this is essentially what time evolution
operator does for you. If you work in a particular basis then applying
the time evolution operator amounts to changing that basis into
another basis without affecting the state of the system in any way.

Saibal

On 28-08-2022 00:41, Brent Meeker wrote:
Why do you think the evolution is deterministic of our part of
universe?

Brent

Saibal

On 27-08-2022 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote:

Even if it were sentient its thoughts would be incomprehensible to
us.

Brent

On 8/26/2022 2:52 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 5:41 AM Lawrence Crowell
wrote:

_> I do not think much of this idea that the universe is
sentient._

I think the idea is a bit silly because I don't see any way to
prove

or disprove it even in theory. And in the entire universe the only
thing that I know with absolute certainty is sentient is the 3
pounds of gray goo inside a bone vat that is sitting on my
shoulders.

John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis [1]

ibv

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2kQ_tSW8HT5bb2BSh%3Dm3gjcqV-NB8zbZFwTg8CejdFew%40mail.gmail.com

[2].

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/17ec80e2-08aa-5174-6f3f-9c807f946441%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-28 Thread Brent Meeker

Brent

On 8/28/2022 1:34 AM, smitra wrote:
It's a unitary map, it will evolve the past state into a superposition
of many different states. One may argue that this is meaningless, as
one has to choose a basis. But this is essentially what time evolution
operator does for you. If you work in a particular basis then applying
the time evolution operator amounts to changing that basis into
another basis without affecting the state of the system in any way.

Saibal

On 28-08-2022 00:41, Brent Meeker wrote:

Why do you think the evolution is deterministic of our part of universe?

Brent

Saibal

On 27-08-2022 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote:

Even if it were sentient its thoughts would be incomprehensible to
us.

Brent

On 8/26/2022 2:52 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 5:41 AM Lawrence Crowell
wrote:

_> I do not think much of this idea that the universe is
sentient._

I think the idea is a bit silly because I don't see any way to prove
or disprove it even in theory. And in the entire universe the only
thing that I know with absolute certainty is sentient is the 3
pounds of gray goo inside a bone vat that is sitting on my
shoulders.

John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis [1]

ibv

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2kQ_tSW8HT5bb2BSh%3Dm3gjcqV-NB8zbZFwTg8CejdFew%40mail.gmail.com

[2].

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/17ec80e2-08aa-5174-6f3f-9c807f946441%40gmail.com
[3].

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-28 Thread smitra

It's a unitary map, it will evolve the past state into a superposition
of many different states. One may argue that this is meaningless, as one
has to choose a basis. But this is essentially what time evolution
operator does for you. If you work in a particular basis then applying
the time evolution operator amounts to changing that basis into another
basis without affecting the state of the system in any way.

Saibal

On 28-08-2022 00:41, Brent Meeker wrote:
Why do you think the evolution is deterministic of our part of
universe?

Brent

On 8/27/2022 9:17 AM, smitra wrote:
The time evolution operator maps past states of our universe to
present states. So, the present state of the universe, which includes
our conscious experience of the present state was also present in the
early universe in a nonlocal way where there would be no obvious sign
of us existing at all.

Saibal

On 27-08-2022 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote:

Even if it were sentient its thoughts would be incomprehensible to
us.

Brent

On 8/26/2022 2:52 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 5:41 AM Lawrence Crowell
wrote:

_> I do not think much of this idea that the universe is
sentient._

John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis [1]

ibv

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2kQ_tSW8HT5bb2BSh%3Dm3gjcqV-NB8zbZFwTg8CejdFew%40mail.gmail.com

[2].

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/17ec80e2-08aa-5174-6f3f-9c807f946441%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-27 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

It cannot be tested in our age, me thinks, but there are different flavors of 
panpsychism too. My way of thinking relates more to the philosopher, John 
Leslie, who wrote often about his version of Panpsychism.  

Works by John Leslie - PhilPapers
or-
John Leslie - Does Cosmology Provide Meaning? - YouTube

and-
John Leslie - Alternative Concepts of God? - YouTube

5 years ago-
John Leslie - Immortality and Personal Consciousness? - YouTube

Nobody has to believe, because we all of us have our own path. Mil atheism is 
as messed up as mil religions. Reject as desired. It's ok fine. As da' Buddha 
is quoted, "if you are walking down a path, and the Buddha stands in your way, 
strike him down!" Meaning, if you got a better way, Rock On!  
My suspicion? The universe acts as a big database. 500 years ago somebody may 
as asked, "Do you mean an abacus, a ledger??" Me? "Not exactly see the 
mathematicians.." Random standbyer would yell, "Witch! Burn the witch!" 
I am not a follower exclusively of John Leslie. There's Moravec, and Tipler, 
Turchin and Chernyakov, Prisco. I also have recently acquired the Autodidactic 
Universe's authors as well. Works for me, and may not work for Thee! 
[2104.03902] The Autodidactic Universe (arxiv.org)





-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2022 7:57 pm
Subject: Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 4:53:15 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 5:41 AM Lawrence Crowell  
wrote:


> I do not think much of this idea that the universe is sentient.

I think the idea is a bit silly because I don't see any way to prove or 
disprove it even in theory. And in the entire universe the only thing that I 
know with absolute certainty is sentient is the 3 pounds of gray goo inside a 
bone vat that is sitting on my shoulders.   
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
ibv

The idea is similar to panpsychism, which cannot be tested. If everything is 
conscious, where is a reference frame without consciousness to test whether 
consciousness exists? The idea the universe is conscious also would suggest the 
universe is subMarkovian in some way, which would require a hell of a lot of 
explaining. It is silly, and it comes down to somebody having a sort of 
brain-fart that sounded really deep and then writing an article on it.
LC -- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c9a87f0b-ecc1-4267-a8d0-9b4793302888n%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1044068531.406726.1661640288673%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-27 Thread Brent Meeker

Why do you think the evolution is deterministic of our part of universe?

Brent

On 8/27/2022 9:17 AM, smitra wrote:
The time evolution operator maps past states of our universe to
present states. So, the present state of the universe, which includes
our conscious experience of the present state was also present in the
early universe in a nonlocal way where there would be no obvious sign
of us existing at all.

Saibal

On 27-08-2022 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote:

Even if it were sentient its thoughts would be incomprehensible to
us.

Brent

On 8/26/2022 2:52 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 5:41 AM Lawrence Crowell
wrote:

_> I do not think much of this idea that the universe is
sentient._

John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis [1]

ibv

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2kQ_tSW8HT5bb2BSh%3Dm3gjcqV-NB8zbZFwTg8CejdFew%40mail.gmail.com

[2].

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/17ec80e2-08aa-5174-6f3f-9c807f946441%40gmail.com

[3].

[3]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/17ec80e2-08aa-5174-6f3f-9c807f946441%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-27 Thread smitra

The time evolution operator maps past states of our universe to present
states. So, the present state of the universe, which includes our
conscious experience of the present state was also present in the early
universe in a nonlocal way where there would be no obvious sign of us
existing at all.

Saibal

On 27-08-2022 02:44, Brent Meeker wrote:

Even if it were sentient its thoughts would be incomprehensible to
us.

Brent

On 8/26/2022 2:52 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 5:41 AM Lawrence Crowell
wrote:

_> I do not think much of this idea that the universe is
sentient._

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at Extropolis [1]

ibv

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2kQ_tSW8HT5bb2BSh%3Dm3gjcqV-NB8zbZFwTg8CejdFew%40mail.gmail.com

[2].

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/17ec80e2-08aa-5174-6f3f-9c807f946441%40gmail.com
[3].

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-26 Thread Brent Meeker


Even if it were sentient its thoughts would be incomprehensible to us.

Brent

On 8/26/2022 2:52 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 5:41 AM Lawrence Crowell 
 wrote:


/> I do not think much of this idea that the universe is sentient./


I think the idea is a bit silly becauseI don't see any way to prove or 
disprove it even in theory. And in the entire universe the only thing 
that I know with absolute certainty is sentient is the 3 pounds of 
gray goo inside a bone vat that is sitting on my shoulders.


John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis 


ibv

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2kQ_tSW8HT5bb2BSh%3Dm3gjcqV-NB8zbZFwTg8CejdFew%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/17ec80e2-08aa-5174-6f3f-9c807f946441%40gmail.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-26 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Friday, August 26, 2022 at 4:53:15 AM UTC-5 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 5:41 AM Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
>
> *> I do not think much of this idea that the universe is sentient.*
>
>
> I think the idea is a bit silly because I don't see any way to prove or 
> disprove it even in theory. And in the entire universe the only thing 
> that I know with absolute certainty is sentient is the 3 pounds of gray goo 
> inside a bone vat that is sitting on my shoulders.   
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> ibv
>

The idea is similar to panpsychism, which cannot be tested. If everything 
is conscious, where is a reference frame without consciousness to test 
whether consciousness exists? The idea the universe is conscious also would 
suggest the universe is subMarkovian in some way, which would require a 
hell of a lot of explaining. It is silly, and it comes down to somebody 
having a sort of brain-fart that sounded really deep and then writing an 
article on it.

LC 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c9a87f0b-ecc1-4267-a8d0-9b4793302888n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-26 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Ah! I tend to agree, but I do ponder of intelligence is way different than 
occurs on planet earth? I mean you love twiddling about Schrodinger & Wigner, 
and "Observers," so who's to say all observers must apply to earth life? 
Maybe there's something to boltzmann brains, after all? Or not? Mayve.  


-Original Message-
From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2022 5:52 am
Subject: Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 5:41 AM Lawrence Crowell 
 wrote:


> I do not think much of this idea that the universe is sentient.

I think the idea is a bit silly because I don't see any way to prove or 
disprove it even in theory. And in the entire universe the only thing that I 
know with absolute certainty is sentient is the 3 pounds of gray goo inside a 
bone vat that is sitting on my shoulders.   
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
ibv
 -- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2kQ_tSW8HT5bb2BSh%3Dm3gjcqV-NB8zbZFwTg8CejdFew%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1281817870.230104.1661543945648%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-26 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Now this, I fully expected LC. My point is not a personal sales pitch to 
yourself, but rather a n acknowledgement that Autodidactic is getting a review. 
I couldn't even set the parameters on how we'd test this? I like crap like this 
because it has something more for the serfs, rather than only the doyens of 
physics and mathematics. I never thought it would thrill you or Dr. Sabine for 
that matter. 


-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Fri, Aug 26, 2022 5:41 am
Subject: Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

I do not think much of this idea that the universe is sentient.
LC

On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 8:53:01 PM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

Ah, LC, your colleague Sabine Hossenfelder has given forth on the autodidactic 
universe. She doesn't hold with it but still enriches the knowledge base. 

https://time.com/6208174/maybe-the-universe-thinks/


-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Aug 22, 2022 6:34 am
Subject: Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 2:03:41 PM UTC-5 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

 
 
 On 8/21/2022 4:22 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
  
  On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:14:42 PM UTC-5 Bruce wrote:
  
   On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 7:54 AM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
  
 Why do you say it's irreversible in principle? Wouldn't the time-reverse of 
that just be a photon traveling towards an atom and being absorbed, which is 
permitted by the laws of physics given a different set of initial boundary 
conditions? 
 
  The laws of physics are invariant under the time-reversal operation. That 
does not imply that irreversible processes are impossible. Brent has pointed 
out that sending a photon out into an expanding universe is a process that is 
irreversible in principle. The time invariance of the laws means that a photon 
coming in from outer space is consistent with the laws. But that cannot be the 
same photon. The idea that you can surround everything with a perfectly 
reflecting mirror, so that all emitted photons are returned, is just a fanciful 
diversionary tactic -- no such reflective surrounds exist. Besides, reflecting 
photons back is not a process reversal in an expanding universe. The red shift 
induced by the expansion means that the returning photon inevitably has lower 
energy than the emitted photon. 
  Bruce   
 
  It is the case of a billiard ball impacting another vs a set of racked 
billiard balls. If I were to take a video of a billiard ball impacting another, 
framed this in the center of mass of the balls and mask any perception of the 
rotation of the balls, the video run backwards and forwards would by very 
similar. There would be nothing to distinguish the forwards and backwards 
video. It is perfectly time reverse invariant. Now consider the racked balls 
impacted by the cue-ball. It is pretty easy to see which is forwards in time, 
as we do not expect balls to rush inwards and align themselves in an ordered 
set and eject another. However, if the table were "perfect," it had 
frictionless surface and the balls reflected off the sides perfectly, if we 
wait long enough it will return to its original state. This is Poincare 
recurrence. You have to wait a lot longer than the duration of the universe so 
far.  
  The same happens with quantum mechanics. There is a Poincare recurrence, 
given by the exponential of the Euclideanized action. However, there is an 
additional phase, which defines the quantum complexity and the recurrence time 
on that is the exponential of the Poincare recurrence time.   
 
 Is that in some thermodynamic limit?  There is no chaos in QM so I would 
expect the recurrence time to be bounded by that.  Do you have a reference?
 
 Brent
 


Look up Susskind arXiv:1810.11563v1 [hep-th] 27 Oct 2018 .
LC
 
 


  Quantum complexity is interesting, and I think it involves the Hilbert-Polya 
conjecture concerning the Riemann zeta function and the zeros being mapped to 
the eigenvalues of a Hermitian operator. In this case the recurrence is a vast 
period of time, as long as the stability of the de Sitter manifold of the 
cosmos.  
  In effect we have limitations on what we can observe and account for, but 
ultimately the universe may have an accounting of quantum information, at least 
for unitary systems and quantum gravitation with Petrov types that have Killing 
vectors. When it comes to the universe at large, that may be a different 
matter. Such ideas may turn out to be false. 
  LC   

 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.


 To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f2cf6a7e-a90f-4f22-9f88-84bf08417581n%40googlegroups.com.
 
 
 
-- 
You received this

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-26 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 5:41 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

*> I do not think much of this idea that the universe is sentient.*


I think the idea is a bit silly because I don't see any way to prove or
disprove it even in theory. And in the entire universe the only thing that
I know with absolute certainty is sentient is the 3 pounds of gray goo
inside a bone vat that is sitting on my shoulders.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

ibv

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2kQ_tSW8HT5bb2BSh%3Dm3gjcqV-NB8zbZFwTg8CejdFew%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-26 Thread Lawrence Crowell

I do not think much of this idea that the universe is sentient.

LC

On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 8:53:01 PM UTC-5 spudb...@aol.com wrote:

> Ah, LC, your colleague Sabine Hossenfelder has given forth on the 
> autodidactic universe. She doesn't hold with it but still enriches the 
> knowledge base. 
>
> https://time.com/6208174/maybe-the-universe-thinks/
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence Crowell 
> To: Everything List 
> Sent: Mon, Aug 22, 2022 6:34 am
> Subject: Re: Information conservation and irreversibility
>
> On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 2:03:41 PM UTC-5 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/21/2022 4:22 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:14:42 PM UTC-5 Bruce wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 7:54 AM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>
> Why do you say it's irreversible in principle? Wouldn't the time-reverse 
> of that just be a photon traveling towards an atom and being absorbed, 
> which is permitted by the laws of physics given a different set of initial 
> boundary conditions?
>
>
> The laws of physics are invariant under the time-reversal operation. That 
> does not imply that irreversible processes are impossible. Brent has 
> pointed out that sending a photon out into an expanding universe is a 
> process that is irreversible in principle. The time invariance of the laws 
> means that a photon coming in from outer space is consistent with the laws. 
> But that cannot be the same photon. The idea that you can surround 
> everything with a perfectly reflecting mirror, so that all emitted photons 
> are returned, is just a fanciful diversionary tactic -- no such 
> reflective surrounds exist. Besides, reflecting photons back is not a 
> process reversal in an expanding universe. The red shift induced by the 
> expansion means that the returning photon inevitably has lower energy than 
> the emitted photon.
>
> Bruce
>
>
> It is the case of a billiard ball impacting another vs a set of racked 
> billiard balls. If I were to take a video of a billiard ball impacting 
> another, framed this in the center of mass of the balls and mask any 
> perception of the rotation of the balls, the video run backwards and 
> forwards would by very similar. There would be nothing to distinguish the 
> forwards and backwards video. It is perfectly time reverse invariant. Now 
> consider the racked balls impacted by the cue-ball. It is pretty easy to 
> see which is forwards in time, as we do not expect balls to rush inwards 
> and align themselves in an ordered set and eject another. However, if the 
> table were "perfect," it had frictionless surface and the balls reflected 
> off the sides perfectly, if we wait long enough it will return to its 
> original state. This is Poincare recurrence. You have to wait a lot longer 
> than the duration of the universe so far. 
>
> The same happens with quantum mechanics. There is a Poincare recurrence, 
> given by the exponential of the Euclideanized action. However, there is an 
> additional phase, which defines the quantum complexity and the recurrence 
> time on that is the exponential of the Poincare recurrence time. 
>
>
> Is that in some thermodynamic limit?  There is no chaos in QM so I would 
> expect the recurrence time to be bounded by that.  Do you have a reference?
>
> Brent
>
>
> Look up Susskind arXiv:1810.11563v1 [hep-th] 27 Oct 2018 .
>
> LC
>
>  
>
> Quantum complexity is interesting, and I think it involves the 
> Hilbert-Polya conjecture concerning the Riemann zeta function and the zeros 
> being mapped to the eigenvalues of a Hermitian operator. In this case the 
> recurrence is a vast period of time, as long as the stability of the de 
> Sitter manifold of the cosmos. 
>
> In effect we have limitations on what we can observe and account for, but 
> ultimately the universe may have an accounting of quantum information, at 
> least for unitary systems and quantum gravitation with Petrov types that 
> have Killing vectors. When it comes to the universe at large, that may be a 
> different matter. Such ideas may turn out to be false.
>
> LC
>  
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. 
>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f2cf6a7e-a90f-4f22-9f88-84bf08417581n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f2cf6a7e-a90f-4f22-9f88-84bf08417581n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>
> .
>
>
>

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-25 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Ah, LC, your colleague Sabine Hossenfelder has given forth on the autodidactic 
universe. She doesn't hold with it but still enriches the knowledge base. 

https://time.com/6208174/maybe-the-universe-thinks/

-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Mon, Aug 22, 2022 6:34 am
Subject: Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 2:03:41 PM UTC-5 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 8/21/2022 4:22 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

  On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:14:42 PM UTC-5 Bruce wrote:

   On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 7:54 AM Jesse Mazer  wrote:

 Why do you say it's irreversible in principle? Wouldn't the time-reverse of 
that just be a photon traveling towards an atom and being absorbed, which is 
permitted by the laws of physics given a different set of initial boundary 
conditions? 

  The laws of physics are invariant under the time-reversal operation. That 
does not imply that irreversible processes are impossible. Brent has pointed 
out that sending a photon out into an expanding universe is a process that is 
irreversible in principle. The time invariance of the laws means that a photon 
coming in from outer space is consistent with the laws. But that cannot be the 
same photon. The idea that you can surround everything with a perfectly 
reflecting mirror, so that all emitted photons are returned, is just a fanciful 
diversionary tactic -- no such reflective surrounds exist. Besides, reflecting 
photons back is not a process reversal in an expanding universe. The red shift 
induced by the expansion means that the returning photon inevitably has lower 
energy than the emitted photon. 
  Bruce   

  It is the case of a billiard ball impacting another vs a set of racked 
billiard balls. If I were to take a video of a billiard ball impacting another, 
framed this in the center of mass of the balls and mask any perception of the 
rotation of the balls, the video run backwards and forwards would by very 
similar. There would be nothing to distinguish the forwards and backwards 
video. It is perfectly time reverse invariant. Now consider the racked balls 
impacted by the cue-ball. It is pretty easy to see which is forwards in time, 
as we do not expect balls to rush inwards and align themselves in an ordered 
set and eject another. However, if the table were "perfect," it had 
frictionless surface and the balls reflected off the sides perfectly, if we 
wait long enough it will return to its original state. This is Poincare 
recurrence. You have to wait a lot longer than the duration of the universe so 
far.  
  The same happens with quantum mechanics. There is a Poincare recurrence, 
given by the exponential of the Euclideanized action. However, there is an 
additional phase, which defines the quantum complexity and the recurrence time 
on that is the exponential of the Poincare recurrence time.   

 Is that in some thermodynamic limit?  There is no chaos in QM so I would 
expect the recurrence time to be bounded by that.  Do you have a reference?

 Brent

Look up Susskind arXiv:1810.11563v1 [hep-th] 27 Oct 2018 .
LC

  Quantum complexity is interesting, and I think it involves the Hilbert-Polya 
conjecture concerning the Riemann zeta function and the zeros being mapped to 
the eigenvalues of a Hermitian operator. In this case the recurrence is a vast 
period of time, as long as the stability of the de Sitter manifold of the 
cosmos.  
  In effect we have limitations on what we can observe and account for, but 
ultimately the universe may have an accounting of quantum information, at least 
for unitary systems and quantum gravitation with Petrov types that have Killing 
vectors. When it comes to the universe at large, that may be a different 
matter. Such ideas may turn out to be false. 
  LC   

 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

 To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f2cf6a7e-a90f-4f22-9f88-84bf08417581n%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2e92f31f-9d08-4ed1-9d90-42c4dfd63ef2n%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/436721896.33925.1661478775078%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-22 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Sunday, August 21, 2022 at 2:03:41 PM UTC-5 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On 8/21/2022 4:22 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:14:42 PM UTC-5 Bruce wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 7:54 AM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you say it's irreversible in principle? Wouldn't the time-reverse 
>>> of that just be a photon traveling towards an atom and being absorbed, 
>>> which is permitted by the laws of physics given a different set of initial 
>>> boundary conditions?
>>>
>>
>> The laws of physics are invariant under the time-reversal operation. That 
>> does not imply that irreversible processes are impossible. Brent has 
>> pointed out that sending a photon out into an expanding universe is a 
>> process that is irreversible in principle. The time invariance of the laws 
>> means that a photon coming in from outer space is consistent with the laws. 
>> But that cannot be the same photon. The idea that you can surround 
>> everything with a perfectly reflecting mirror, so that all emitted photons 
>> are returned, is just a fanciful diversionary tactic -- no such 
>> reflective surrounds exist. Besides, reflecting photons back is not a 
>> process reversal in an expanding universe. The red shift induced by the 
>> expansion means that the returning photon inevitably has lower energy than 
>> the emitted photon.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> It is the case of a billiard ball impacting another vs a set of racked 
> billiard balls. If I were to take a video of a billiard ball impacting 
> another, framed this in the center of mass of the balls and mask any 
> perception of the rotation of the balls, the video run backwards and 
> forwards would by very similar. There would be nothing to distinguish the 
> forwards and backwards video. It is perfectly time reverse invariant. Now 
> consider the racked balls impacted by the cue-ball. It is pretty easy to 
> see which is forwards in time, as we do not expect balls to rush inwards 
> and align themselves in an ordered set and eject another. However, if the 
> table were "perfect," it had frictionless surface and the balls reflected 
> off the sides perfectly, if we wait long enough it will return to its 
> original state. This is Poincare recurrence. You have to wait a lot longer 
> than the duration of the universe so far. 
>
> The same happens with quantum mechanics. There is a Poincare recurrence, 
> given by the exponential of the Euclideanized action. However, there is an 
> additional phase, which defines the quantum complexity and the recurrence 
> time on that is the exponential of the Poincare recurrence time. 
>
>
> Is that in some thermodynamic limit?  There is no chaos in QM so I would 
> expect the recurrence time to be bounded by that.  Do you have a reference?
>
> Brent
>
>
Look up Susskind arXiv:1810.11563v1 [hep-th] 27 Oct 2018 .

LC

 

> Quantum complexity is interesting, and I think it involves the 
> Hilbert-Polya conjecture concerning the Riemann zeta function and the zeros 
> being mapped to the eigenvalues of a Hermitian operator. In this case the 
> recurrence is a vast period of time, as long as the stability of the de 
> Sitter manifold of the cosmos. 
>
> In effect we have limitations on what we can observe and account for, but 
> ultimately the universe may have an accounting of quantum information, at 
> least for unitary systems and quantum gravitation with Petrov types that 
> have Killing vectors. When it comes to the universe at large, that may be a 
> different matter. Such ideas may turn out to be false.
>
> LC
>  
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f2cf6a7e-a90f-4f22-9f88-84bf08417581n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2e92f31f-9d08-4ed1-9d90-42c4dfd63ef2n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-21 Thread Brent Meeker

On 8/21/2022 4:22 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:14:42 PM UTC-5 Bruce wrote:

On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 7:54 AM Jesse Mazer wrote:

Why do you say it's irreversible in principle? Wouldn't the
time-reverse of that just be a photon traveling towards an
atom and being absorbed, which is permitted by the laws of
physics given a different set of initial boundary conditions?

The laws of physics are invariant under the time-reversal
operation. That does not imply that irreversible processes are
impossible. Brent has pointed out that sending a photon out into
an expanding universe is a process that is irreversible in
principle. The time invariance of the laws means that a photon
coming in from outer space is consistent with the laws. But that
cannot be the same photon. The idea that you can surround
everything with a perfectly reflecting mirror, so that all emitted
photons are returned, is just a fanciful diversionary tactic -- no
such reflective surrounds exist. Besides, reflecting photons back
is not a process reversal in an expanding universe. The red shift
induced by the expansion means that the returning photon
inevitably has lower energy than the emitted photon.

Bruce

It is the case of a billiard ball impacting another vs a set of racked
billiard balls. If I were to take a video of a billiard ball impacting
another, framed this in the center of mass of the balls and mask any
perception of the rotation of the balls, the video run backwards and
forwards would by very similar. There would be nothing to distinguish
the forwards and backwards video. It is perfectly time reverse
invariant. Now consider the racked balls impacted by the cue-ball. It
is pretty easy to see which is forwards in time, as we do not expect
balls to rush inwards and align themselves in an ordered set and eject
another. However, if the table were "perfect," it had frictionless
surface and the balls reflected off the sides perfectly, if we wait
long enough it will return to its original state. This is Poincare
recurrence. You have to wait a lot longer than the duration of the
universe so far.

The same happens with quantum mechanics. There is a Poincare
recurrence, given by the exponential of the Euclideanized action.
However, there is an additional phase, which defines the quantum
complexity and the recurrence time on that is the exponential of the
Poincare recurrence time.

Is that in some thermodynamic limit? There is no chaos in QM so I would
expect the recurrence time to be bounded by that. Do you have a reference?

Brent

Quantum complexity is interesting, and I think it involves the
Hilbert-Polya conjecture concerning the Riemann zeta function and the
zeros being mapped to the eigenvalues of a Hermitian operator. In this
case the recurrence is a vast period of time, as long as the stability
of the de Sitter manifold of the cosmos.

In effect we have limitations on what we can observe and account for,
but ultimately the universe may have an accounting of quantum
information, at least for unitary systems and quantum gravitation with
Petrov types that have Killing vectors. When it comes to the universe
at large, that may be a different matter. Such ideas may turn out to
be false.

LC
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f2cf6a7e-a90f-4f22-9f88-84bf08417581n%40googlegroups.com
.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-21 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 7:23 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

*> The same happens with quantum mechanics. There is a Poincare recurrence,
> given by the exponential of the Euclideanized action. However, there is an
> additional phase, which defines the quantum complexity and the recurrence
> time on that is the exponential of the Poincare recurrence time. Quantum
> complexity is interesting, and I think it involves the Hilbert-Polya
> conjecture concerning the Riemann zeta function and the zeros being mapped
> to the eigenvalues of a Hermitian operator. In this case the recurrence is
> a vast period of time, as long as the stability of the de Sitter manifold
> of the cosmos. *


But doesn't quantum recurrence and complexity depend on if time and space
are continuous or not?

 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis


pqr








>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3M4p%2B0xSZ6uR5_Ggtf6_9rTyLPfeqX3%3DDWiqr%3DV5tYhQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-21 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 6:14:42 PM UTC-5 Bruce wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 7:54 AM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>
>> Why do you say it's irreversible in principle? Wouldn't the time-reverse 
>> of that just be a photon traveling towards an atom and being absorbed, 
>> which is permitted by the laws of physics given a different set of initial 
>> boundary conditions?
>>
>
> The laws of physics are invariant under the time-reversal operation. That 
> does not imply that irreversible processes are impossible. Brent has 
> pointed out that sending a photon out into an expanding universe is a 
> process that is irreversible in principle. The time invariance of the laws 
> means that a photon coming in from outer space is consistent with the laws. 
> But that cannot be the same photon. The idea that you can surround 
> everything with a perfectly reflecting mirror, so that all emitted photons 
> are returned, is just a fanciful diversionary tactic -- no such 
> reflective surrounds exist. Besides, reflecting photons back is not a 
> process reversal in an expanding universe. The red shift induced by the 
> expansion means that the returning photon inevitably has lower energy than 
> the emitted photon.
>
> Bruce
>

It is the case of a billiard ball impacting another vs a set of racked 
billiard balls. If I were to take a video of a billiard ball impacting 
another, framed this in the center of mass of the balls and mask any 
perception of the rotation of the balls, the video run backwards and 
forwards would by very similar. There would be nothing to distinguish the 
forwards and backwards video. It is perfectly time reverse invariant. Now 
consider the racked balls impacted by the cue-ball. It is pretty easy to 
see which is forwards in time, as we do not expect balls to rush inwards 
and align themselves in an ordered set and eject another. However, if the 
table were "perfect," it had frictionless surface and the balls reflected 
off the sides perfectly, if we wait long enough it will return to its 
original state. This is Poincare recurrence. You have to wait a lot longer 
than the duration of the universe so far. 

The same happens with quantum mechanics. There is a Poincare recurrence, 
given by the exponential of the Euclideanized action. However, there is an 
additional phase, which defines the quantum complexity and the recurrence 
time on that is the exponential of the Poincare recurrence time. Quantum 
complexity is interesting, and I think it involves the Hilbert-Polya 
conjecture concerning the Riemann zeta function and the zeros being mapped 
to the eigenvalues of a Hermitian operator. In this case the recurrence is 
a vast period of time, as long as the stability of the de Sitter manifold 
of the cosmos. 

In effect we have limitations on what we can observe and account for, but 
ultimately the universe may have an accounting of quantum information, at 
least for unitary systems and quantum gravitation with Petrov types that 
have Killing vectors. When it comes to the universe at large, that may be a 
different matter. Such ideas may turn out to be false.

LC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f2cf6a7e-a90f-4f22-9f88-84bf08417581n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-15 Thread Alan Grayson

It's puzzling why Bruce and Clark affirm IR-reversible in principle in the 
context of the collapse model of the CI, when they should know that this is 
the source of the error. If the apparatus is treated quantum mechanically, 
we are left SOLELY with IR-reversible FAPP. But this is still an unproven, 
and likely unprovable result of decoherence theory. AG

On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:40:13 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

> I was referring to IRREVERSIBLIY IN PRINCIPLE, which is an artifact of the 
> collapse hypothesis of the CI. What remains, for sure, is IRREVERSIBILITY 
> FAPP.  AG
>
> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 9:07:04 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>> IRREVERSIBILITY is an artifact of the CI, where collapse occurs to an 
>> eigenstate of the observable being measured. But if the measuring apparatus 
>> is treated quantum mechanically, all processes associated with measurements 
>> are unitary and reversible. 
>>
>> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 12:47:06 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>> That's defining IRREVERSIBLE FAPP.  OTOH, if X and Y produce Z at any 
>>> time, I don't see any way to reverse the process, so it's IRREVERSIBLE IN 
>>> PRINCIPLE. Do you agree? AG
>>>
>>> On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 5:02:17 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 6:47 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:

 *> But when physicists say that a given system's dynamics are 
> "reversible" doesn't this generally involve an appeal to different 
> initial 
> boundary conditions?*
>

 If at the time of the Big Bang the universe was it in an extremely low 
 entropy state then even if the laws of physics were 100% deterministic 
 and even if X and Y always produced Z and nothing except X and Y could 
 produce Z the second law of thermodynamics would still insist that things 
 are irreversible because there are an astronomical number to an 
 astronomical power more ways for something to have high entropy than low 
 entropy.

 John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

 2le

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/c0715c2e-4b00-4935-9229-c9a838c4f05dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-14 Thread Alan Grayson

I was referring to IRREVERSIBLIY IN PRINCIPLE, which is an artifact of the 
collapse hypothesis of the CI. What remains, for sure, is IRREVERSIBILITY 
FAPP.  AG

On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 9:07:04 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

> IRREVERSIBILITY is an artifact of the CI, where collapse occurs to an 
> eigenstate of the observable being measured. But if the measuring apparatus 
> is treated quantum mechanically, all processes associated with measurements 
> are unitary and reversible. 
>
> On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 12:47:06 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>> That's defining IRREVERSIBLE FAPP.  OTOH, if X and Y produce Z at any 
>> time, I don't see any way to reverse the process, so it's IRREVERSIBLE IN 
>> PRINCIPLE. Do you agree? AG
>>
>> On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 5:02:17 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 6:47 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>>>
>>> *> But when physicists say that a given system's dynamics are 
 "reversible" doesn't this generally involve an appeal to different initial 
 boundary conditions?*

>>>
>>> If at the time of the Big Bang the universe was it in an extremely low 
>>> entropy state then even if the laws of physics were 100% deterministic 
>>> and even if X and Y always produced Z and nothing except X and Y could 
>>> produce Z the second law of thermodynamics would still insist that things 
>>> are irreversible because there are an astronomical number to an 
>>> astronomical power more ways for something to have high entropy than low 
>>> entropy.
>>>
>>> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>>> 
>>> 2le
>>>
>>>
>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3b54a9c4-1a4a-4794-a9eb-55d3698f9281n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-13 Thread Alan Grayson

IRREVERSIBILITY is an artifact of the CI, where collapse occurs to an 
eigenstate of the observable being measured. But if the measuring apparatus 
is treated quantum mechanically, all processes associated with measurements 
are unitary and reversible. 

On Saturday, August 13, 2022 at 12:47:06 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

> That's defining IRREVERSIBLE FAPP.  OTOH, if X and Y produce Z at any 
> time, I don't see any way to reverse the process, so it's IRREVERSIBLE IN 
> PRINCIPLE. Do you agree? AG
>
> On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 5:02:17 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 6:47 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>>
>> *> But when physicists say that a given system's dynamics are 
>>> "reversible" doesn't this generally involve an appeal to different initial 
>>> boundary conditions?*
>>>
>>
>> If at the time of the Big Bang the universe was it in an extremely low 
>> entropy state then even if the laws of physics were 100% deterministic 
>> and even if X and Y always produced Z and nothing except X and Y could 
>> produce Z the second law of thermodynamics would still insist that things 
>> are irreversible because there are an astronomical number to an 
>> astronomical power more ways for something to have high entropy than low 
>> entropy.
>>
>> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
>> 
>> 2le
>>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d204cad9-caff-415d-ad92-9972a2862b1bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-13 Thread Alan Grayson

That's defining IRREVERSIBLE FAPP.  OTOH, if X and Y produce Z at any time, 
I don't see any way to reverse the process, so it's IRREVERSIBLE IN 
PRINCIPLE. Do you agree? AG

On Saturday, August 6, 2022 at 5:02:17 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 6:47 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>
> *> But when physicists say that a given system's dynamics are "reversible" 
>> doesn't this generally involve an appeal to different initial boundary 
>> conditions?*
>>
>
> If at the time of the Big Bang the universe was it in an extremely low 
> entropy state then even if the laws of physics were 100% deterministic 
> and even if X and Y always produced Z and nothing except X and Y could 
> produce Z the second law of thermodynamics would still insist that things 
> are irreversible because there are an astronomical number to an 
> astronomical power more ways for something to have high entropy than low 
> entropy.
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis 
> 
> 2le
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/605f3ec1-1476-489e-afff-5a02b8b165ban%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-06 Thread Brent Meeker

What you're leaving out is that there are boundary conditions that are
impossible to realize, not just because they are too complex, like a
high entropy state, but because they require infinite specifications.

Brent

On 8/6/2022 6:25 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Physicists may distinguish between time-reversibility of the dynamics,
also called "microscopic reversibility" at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microscopic_reversibility , vs.
"macroscopic" or "thermodynamic" irreversibility, which as you say is
ultimately thought to be a statistical consequence of the low-entropy
conditions at around the time of the Big Bang. But from the dynamical
point of view you could have a valid solution with a universe that's
been eternally contracting towards a Big Crunch, with a low-entropy
state near the Big Crunch, which would be the time-reverse of our
universe's evolution. Huw Price's book Time's Arrow and Archimedes'
Point has a good discussion of the issues surrounding microscopic
reversibility vs. thermodynamic irreversibility, and the role of
low-entropy boundary conditions.

On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 7:02 AM John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 6:47 PM Jesse Mazer
wrote:

/> But when physicists say that a given system's dynamics are
"reversible" doesn't this generally involve an appeal to
different initial boundary conditions?/

If at the time of the Big Bang the universe was it in an extremely
low entropy state then even if the laws of physics were 100%
deterministic and even if X and Y always produced Z and nothing
except X and Y could produce Z the second law of thermodynamics
would still insist that things are irreversible because there are
an astronomical number to an astronomical power more ways for
something to have high entropy than low entropy.

John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis

2le

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2PdgHraMf-NMt0%3Dhs-QXw4nqC6BMv%2BEWMWO8zbsDLCFg%40mail.gmail.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3K%2BvXBVVc1p9cXr6yAh1Q8j9DxU79DcyvzUTknhXKs%2Byw%40mail.gmail.com
.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-06 Thread Brent Meeker





On 8/6/2022 5:16 AM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
The question of whether a process happening to particular bits of 
matter can be reversed in those same bits of matter may be an 
interesting one worth thinking about, but I think it creates 
unnecessary confusion to use the term "reversibility" to talk about 
this, since that isn't what physicists mean by reversibility. They're 
talking about whether, if you have a solution to the equations of 
motion, the reversed version is also a solution--the identity of the 
bits of matter involved isn't relevant,


I agree with that, but a solution of the equations of motion depends on 
boundary conditions, not just the equations of motion.  So some boundary 
are nomologically impossible to realize in reverse and some are only 
FAPP impossible to realize in reverse.


Brent



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e33a4ff9-5824-af09-b259-87ca940c9663%40gmail.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-06 Thread Jesse Mazer

Physicists may distinguish between time-reversibility of the dynamics, also
called "microscopic reversibility" at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microscopic_reversibility , vs. "macroscopic"
or "thermodynamic" irreversibility, which as you say is ultimately thought
to be a statistical consequence of the low-entropy conditions at around the
time of the Big Bang. But from the dynamical point of view you could have a
valid solution with a universe that's been eternally contracting towards a
Big Crunch, with a low-entropy state near the Big Crunch, which would be
the time-reverse of our universe's evolution. Huw Price's book Time's Arrow
and Archimedes' Point has a good discussion of the issues surrounding
microscopic reversibility vs. thermodynamic irreversibility, and the role
of low-entropy boundary conditions.

On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 7:02 AM John Clark  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 6:47 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>
> *> But when physicists say that a given system's dynamics are "reversible"
>> doesn't this generally involve an appeal to different initial boundary
>> conditions?*
>>
>
> If at the time of the Big Bang the universe was it in an extremely low
> entropy state then even if the laws of physics were 100% deterministic
> and even if X and Y always produced Z and nothing except X and Y could
> produce Z the second law of thermodynamics would still insist that things
> are irreversible because there are an astronomical number to an
> astronomical power more ways for something to have high entropy than low
> entropy.
>
> John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis
> 
> 2le
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2PdgHraMf-NMt0%3Dhs-QXw4nqC6BMv%2BEWMWO8zbsDLCFg%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3K%2BvXBVVc1p9cXr6yAh1Q8j9DxU79DcyvzUTknhXKs%2Byw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-06 Thread Jesse Mazer

The question of whether a process happening to particular bits of matter
can be reversed in those same bits of matter may be an interesting one
worth thinking about, but I think it creates unnecessary confusion to use
the term "reversibility" to talk about this, since that isn't what
physicists mean by reversibility. They're talking about whether, if you
have a solution to the equations of motion, the reversed version is also a
solution--the identity of the bits of matter involved isn't relevant, and
there's no notion of a single time-evolution where the system evolves a
certain way for the first half, then there's some kind of intervention and
the subsequent evolution for the second half looks like a reversed version
of the first half.

On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 1:38 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:

> Can't your argument be extended to the question of whether time is
> irreversible FAPP,  or IRREVERSIBLE IN PRINCIPLE. For example, consider a
> gas at some temperature in an enclosure which is cooling. We might conclude
> the time is irreversible FAPP,  but quantum theory does not give any
> information about the direction of the emitted thermal photons. So I
> conclude, based on present theory, that time is strictly irreversible, that
> is, IRREVERSIBLE IN PRINCIPLE. AG
>
> On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:35:18 PM UTC-6 Bruce wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 12:10 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>>
>>> Are you defining "process" as a *pattern* of behavior which can be
>>> duplicated with different bits of matter, or as something that refers to
>>> some specific bits of matter, so that reversing a process would require
>>> doing it to the same bits of matter that underwent the original process? I
>>> think if a physicist talked about a "process" being reversible or not, they
>>> would be referring to the pattern-based notion. For example, take the
>>> process of a rogue planet coming close to a planetary system and getting
>>> captured by its gravitational interactions with the star and the planets in
>>> the system. With a pattern-based notion of process, that process is
>>> reversible in the sense that one could have a different star and different
>>> planets with identical masses, where the initial conditions were such that
>>> the planet got ejected from the system in a perfect time-reversed version
>>> of the behavior of the first system.
>>>
>>
>> I think I was drawing a distinction between time reversible laws and
>>  processes as things that happen to particular "bits of matter". The laws
>> might be time reversal invariant, but particular processes might not be
>> reversible. It makes little sense to restrict one's attention to
>> reversible laws when one is asked whether a particular process can be
>> reversed or not. There are clearly processes that cannot be reversed, in
>> principle and not just FAPP. The emission of photons into an expanding
>> universe is just one example, even though the emission process might be
>> governed by reversible laws. The emitted photon cannot be caught and
>> returned. That is all that is meant by saying that it is not reversible.
>> This is relevant to the question as to whether a quantum measurement is
>> reversible or not. Quantum evolution is unitary, but generally the process
>> of measurement is not reversible, even in principle. Take the spin
>> measurement of a spin-half particle. Given an "up" result for instance, one
>> cannot reverse this to determine the spin state of the particle prior to
>> the measurement. Many worlds do not help here, because one has no access to
>> other worlds.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/07e5261b-df34-488d-8ffc-6af4c50d3452n%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3%2Bg4hSm1nVerAg649xtPm46rgHYPhE33U%3DFqf39LZL2CQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-06 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 6:47 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:

*> But when physicists say that a given system's dynamics are "reversible"
> doesn't this generally involve an appeal to different initial boundary
> conditions?*
>

If at the time of the Big Bang the universe was it in an extremely low
entropy state then even if the laws of physics were 100% deterministic and
even if X and Y always produced Z and nothing except X and Y could produce
Z the second law of thermodynamics would still insist that things are
irreversible because there are an astronomical number to an astronomical
power more ways for something to have high entropy than low entropy.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

2le

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2PdgHraMf-NMt0%3Dhs-QXw4nqC6BMv%2BEWMWO8zbsDLCFg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-05 Thread Alan Grayson

Can't your argument be extended to the question of whether time is 
irreversible FAPP,  or IRREVERSIBLE IN PRINCIPLE. For example, consider a 
gas at some temperature in an enclosure which is cooling. We might conclude 
the time is irreversible FAPP,  but quantum theory does not give any 
information about the direction of the emitted thermal photons. So I 
conclude, based on present theory, that time is strictly irreversible, that 
is, IRREVERSIBLE IN PRINCIPLE. AG

On Friday, August 5, 2022 at 10:35:18 PM UTC-6 Bruce wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 12:10 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>
>> Are you defining "process" as a *pattern* of behavior which can be 
>> duplicated with different bits of matter, or as something that refers to 
>> some specific bits of matter, so that reversing a process would require 
>> doing it to the same bits of matter that underwent the original process? I 
>> think if a physicist talked about a "process" being reversible or not, they 
>> would be referring to the pattern-based notion. For example, take the 
>> process of a rogue planet coming close to a planetary system and getting 
>> captured by its gravitational interactions with the star and the planets in 
>> the system. With a pattern-based notion of process, that process is 
>> reversible in the sense that one could have a different star and different 
>> planets with identical masses, where the initial conditions were such that 
>> the planet got ejected from the system in a perfect time-reversed version 
>> of the behavior of the first system.
>>
>
> I think I was drawing a distinction between time reversible laws and 
>  processes as things that happen to particular "bits of matter". The laws 
> might be time reversal invariant, but particular processes might not be 
> reversible. It makes little sense to restrict one's attention to 
> reversible laws when one is asked whether a particular process can be 
> reversed or not. There are clearly processes that cannot be reversed, in 
> principle and not just FAPP. The emission of photons into an expanding 
> universe is just one example, even though the emission process might be 
> governed by reversible laws. The emitted photon cannot be caught and 
> returned. That is all that is meant by saying that it is not reversible. 
> This is relevant to the question as to whether a quantum measurement is 
> reversible or not. Quantum evolution is unitary, but generally the process 
> of measurement is not reversible, even in principle. Take the spin 
> measurement of a spin-half particle. Given an "up" result for instance, one 
> cannot reverse this to determine the spin state of the particle prior to 
> the measurement. Many worlds do not help here, because one has no access to 
> other worlds.
>
> Bruce
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/07e5261b-df34-488d-8ffc-6af4c50d3452n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-05 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 12:10 PM Jesse Mazer  wrote:

> Are you defining "process" as a *pattern* of behavior which can be
> duplicated with different bits of matter, or as something that refers to
> some specific bits of matter, so that reversing a process would require
> doing it to the same bits of matter that underwent the original process? I
> think if a physicist talked about a "process" being reversible or not, they
> would be referring to the pattern-based notion. For example, take the
> process of a rogue planet coming close to a planetary system and getting
> captured by its gravitational interactions with the star and the planets in
> the system. With a pattern-based notion of process, that process is
> reversible in the sense that one could have a different star and different
> planets with identical masses, where the initial conditions were such that
> the planet got ejected from the system in a perfect time-reversed version
> of the behavior of the first system.
>

I think I was drawing a distinction between time reversible laws and
 processes as things that happen to particular "bits of matter". The laws
might be time reversal invariant, but particular processes might not be
reversible. It makes little sense to restrict one's attention to
reversible laws when one is asked whether a particular process can be
reversed or not. There are clearly processes that cannot be reversed, in
principle and not just FAPP. The emission of photons into an expanding
universe is just one example, even though the emission process might be
governed by reversible laws. The emitted photon cannot be caught and
returned. That is all that is meant by saying that it is not reversible.
This is relevant to the question as to whether a quantum measurement is
reversible or not. Quantum evolution is unitary, but generally the process
of measurement is not reversible, even in principle. Take the spin
measurement of a spin-half particle. Given an "up" result for instance, one
cannot reverse this to determine the spin state of the particle prior to
the measurement. Many worlds do not help here, because one has no access to
other worlds.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRYyce4WSSWJ5VQoskX%3DEXU4Y5CdANKA2e24ZXwKWT%3DtA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-05 Thread Jesse Mazer

Are you defining "process" as a *pattern* of behavior which can be
duplicated with different bits of matter, or as something that refers to
some specific bits of matter, so that reversing a process would require
doing it to the same bits of matter that underwent the original process? I
think if a physicist talked about a "process" being reversible or not, they
would be referring to the pattern-based notion. For example, take the
process of a rogue planet coming close to a planetary system and getting
captured by its gravitational interactions with the star and the planets in
the system. With a pattern-based notion of process, that process is
reversible in the sense that one could have a different star and different
planets with identical masses, where the initial conditions were such that
the planet got ejected from the system in a perfect time-reversed version
of the behavior of the first system.

On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 7:44 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 9:29 AM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>
>> "The time invariance of the laws means that a photon coming in from outer
>> space is consistent with the laws. But that cannot be the same photon."
>>
>> But "reversibility" as physicists define it has nothing to do with
>> actually causing the same system to reverse itself, it's a more abstract
>> notion that you could have a different system obeying the same dynamical
>> laws whose behavior over time would be a perfectly time-reversed mirror of
>> the first system's behavior. If you think it's about a single system
>> evolving one way for some period of time and suddenly reversing itself so
>> that its subsequent behavior looks like a reversed version of its initial
>> behavior, that's just a misunderstanding of the concept.
>>
>
> You are talking about the time-reversal invariance of the laws of physics.
> That is one thing, but when people ask whether irreversible processes are
> possible, then the emphasis is on the process, not the underlying laws. So
> the issue is whether there are individual processes that cannot be
> reversed, not whether there can exist separate processes that look like the
> original process in reverse.
>
> This is important in the context of unitary evolution in quantum
> mechanics. Unitary time evolution obeys time symmetric laws, but the
> emission of a photon into an expanding universe, while consistent with
> unitary evolution, is not a reversible process.
>
> Bruce
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 7:14 PM Bruce Kellett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 7:54 AM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>>>
 Why do you say it's irreversible in principle? Wouldn't the
 time-reverse of that just be a photon traveling towards an atom and being
 absorbed, which is permitted by the laws of physics given a different set
 of initial boundary conditions?

>>>
>>> The laws of physics are invariant under the time-reversal operation.
>>> That does not imply that irreversible processes are impossible. Brent has
>>> pointed out that sending a photon out into an expanding universe is a
>>> process that is irreversible in principle. The time invariance of the laws
>>> means that a photon coming in from outer space is consistent with the laws.
>>> But that cannot be the same photon. The idea that you can surround
>>> everything with a perfectly reflecting mirror, so that all emitted photons
>>> are returned, is just a fanciful diversionary tactic -- no such
>>> reflective surrounds exist. Besides, reflecting photons back is not a
>>> process reversal in an expanding universe. The red shift induced by the
>>> expansion means that the returning photon inevitably has lower energy than
>>> the emitted photon.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQEa1Xt7Q0sGMHUy7crGB4G5NJQvbdD7FEbzuxmhjD1Tg%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3Lei1xd4rzjWSkUpLH%3DRGA%3DsSY8X0TFXGbKSJLnzg%2BWLQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-05 Thread Jesse Mazer

But reversibility as understood by physicists isn't about whether you could
"create" the appropriate type of system with advanced technology or
whatever, it's about the abstract question of whether the time-reversed
version is a valid solution to the same dynamical laws of physics. One
could imagine a god who can create multiple universes, with the only
constraint that they all obey the same laws of physics--if the laws and
dynamics are reversible, that implies that for any given universe, the god
can also create a distinct universe that behaves like a time-reversed
version of the first one.

On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 8:18 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> I'm pointing out that in some cases creating the reverse boundary
> conditions is impossible in principle because they are at infinity.
>
> Brent
>
> On 8/5/2022 3:47 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> But when physicists say that a given system's dynamics are "reversible"
> doesn't this generally involve an appeal to different initial boundary
> conditions? (The end conditions with all the velocities reversed and
> treated as a new system's initial conditions, for example.) Are you using
> reversible/irreversible in a more colloquial sense?
>
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 5:57 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>> That's why I wrote, "The arrow of time comes from the boundary condition."
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> On 8/5/2022 2:54 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>>
>> Why do you say it's irreversible in principle? Wouldn't the time-reverse
>> of that just be a photon traveling towards an atom and being absorbed,
>> which is permitted by the laws of physics given a different set of initial
>> boundary conditions?
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 5:10 PM Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> If a photon is emitted into an infinite universe it is irreversible in
>>> principle, not just FAPP.  But it doesn't mean the physical theory is
>>> irreversible.  The arrow of time comes from the boundary condition.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>> On 8/4/2022 8:47 AM, smitra wrote:
>>> > On 04-08-2022 17:41, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>> >> I recall Bruce giving an example of an irreversible process, but I
>>> >> can't recall the details. AG
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Probably a FAPP irreversible process.
>>> >
>>> > Saibal
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:39:04 AM UTC-6 Jason wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022, 5:23 AM Alan Grayson 
>>> >>> wrote:
>>>  I meant to write that information conservation depends on
>>> >>> reversibility! How solid is that assumption? AG
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I think it is pretty good.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I think reversibility is part of it. Certainly in a reversable
>>> >>> Newtonian kind of physics (no GR and no QM, full determinism),
>>> >>> reversability would imply an inability to destroy information.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> In reversible computers, information can't be deleted, only shuffled
>>> >>> around, so in this simplistic model, reversibility (in a Turing
>>> >>> machine) implies conservation of information.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> In GR, matter falling into black holes was originally thought to be
>>> >>> an irreversible process. This led to the "black hole war".
>>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Hole_War which was
>>> >>> eventually settled by concluding information isn't destroyed in a
>>> >>> black hole, therefore the pattern of black hole radiation must
>>> >>> somehow indicate or encode what has fallen in to it.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> In QM, wave function collapse was thought to be an example of an
>>> >>> irreversible process. Yet from the global view of all the branches
>>> >>> and many world's it is not.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> But moreover, despite the apparent irreversibility if collapse from
>>> >>> the confines of any one branch, the information available within any
>>> >>> single branch still seems to be conserved (just as matter and energy
>>> >>> are). This lead to a kind of: energy-matter-information equivalence.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Energy,_matter,_and_information_equivalence
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> This question, I think, probes at the very deepest levels of
>>> >>> physics. I have some more thoughts on this written here:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Information_as_Fundamental
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Jason
>>> >>
>>> >>  --
>>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> >> Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> >> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> >>
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c5ab1b8-fef6-4a5c-bd88-fb7b24d0e4b8n%40googlegroups.com
>>> >>
>>> >> [1].
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Links:
>>> >> --
>>> >> [1]
>>> >>
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c5ab1b8-fef6-4a5c-bd88-fb7b24d0e4b8n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>> --
>>> You

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-05 Thread Brent Meeker

I'm pointing out that in some cases creating the reverse boundary 
conditions is impossible in principle because they are at infinity.


Brent

On 8/5/2022 3:47 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
But when physicists say that a given system's dynamics are 
"reversible" doesn't this generally involve an appeal to different 
initial boundary conditions? (The end conditions with all the 
velocities reversed and treated as a new system's initial conditions, 
for example.) Are you using reversible/irreversible in a more 
colloquial sense?


On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 5:57 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

That's why I wrote, "The arrow of time comes from the boundary
condition."

Brent

On 8/5/2022 2:54 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:

Why do you say it's irreversible in principle? Wouldn't the
time-reverse of that just be a photon traveling towards an atom
and being absorbed, which is permitted by the laws of physics
given a different set of initial boundary conditions?

On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 5:10 PM Brent Meeker
 wrote:

If a photon is emitted into an infinite universe it is
irreversible in
principle, not just FAPP.  But it doesn't mean the physical
theory is
irreversible.  The arrow of time comes from the boundary
condition.

Brent

On 8/4/2022 8:47 AM, smitra wrote:
> On 04-08-2022 17:41, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> I recall Bruce giving an example of an irreversible
process, but I
>> can't recall the details. AG
>>
>
> Probably a FAPP irreversible process.
>
> Saibal
>
>
>> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:39:04 AM UTC-6 Jason wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022, 5:23 AM Alan Grayson

>>> wrote:
 I meant to write that information conservation depends on
>>> reversibility! How solid is that assumption? AG
>>>
>>> I think it is pretty good.
>>>
>>> I think reversibility is part of it. Certainly in a
reversable
>>> Newtonian kind of physics (no GR and no QM, full
determinism),
>>> reversability would imply an inability to destroy
information.
>>>
>>> In reversible computers, information can't be deleted,
only shuffled
>>> around, so in this simplistic model, reversibility (in a
Turing
>>> machine) implies conservation of information.
>>>
>>> In GR, matter falling into black holes was originally
thought to be
>>> an irreversible process. This led to the "black hole war".
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Hole_War which was
>>> eventually settled by concluding information isn't
destroyed in a
>>> black hole, therefore the pattern of black hole radiation
must
>>> somehow indicate or encode what has fallen in to it.
>>>
>>> In QM, wave function collapse was thought to be an
example of an
>>> irreversible process. Yet from the global view of all the
branches
>>> and many world's it is not.
>>>
>>> But moreover, despite the apparent irreversibility if
collapse from
>>> the confines of any one branch, the information available
within any
>>> single branch still seems to be conserved (just as matter
and energy
>>> are). This lead to a kind of: energy-matter-information
equivalence.
>>>
>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Energy,_matter,_and_information_equivalence

>>
>>>
>>> This question, I think, probes at the very deepest levels of
>>> physics. I have some more thoughts on this written here:
>>>
>>>
>>

https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Information_as_Fundamental

>>
>>>
>>> Jason
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to
the Google
>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
from it, send
>> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c5ab1b8-fef6-4a5c-bd88-fb7b24d0e4b8n%40googlegroups.com

>>
>> [1].
>>
>>
>> Links:
>> --
>> [1]
>>

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c5ab1b8-fef6-4a5c-bd88-fb7b24d0e4b8n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-05 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 9:29 AM Jesse Mazer  wrote:

> "The time invariance of the laws means that a photon coming in from outer
> space is consistent with the laws. But that cannot be the same photon."
>
> But "reversibility" as physicists define it has nothing to do with
> actually causing the same system to reverse itself, it's a more abstract
> notion that you could have a different system obeying the same dynamical
> laws whose behavior over time would be a perfectly time-reversed mirror of
> the first system's behavior. If you think it's about a single system
> evolving one way for some period of time and suddenly reversing itself so
> that its subsequent behavior looks like a reversed version of its initial
> behavior, that's just a misunderstanding of the concept.
>

You are talking about the time-reversal invariance of the laws of physics.
That is one thing, but when people ask whether irreversible processes are
possible, then the emphasis is on the process, not the underlying laws. So
the issue is whether there are individual processes that cannot be
reversed, not whether there can exist separate processes that look like the
original process in reverse.

This is important in the context of unitary evolution in quantum mechanics.
Unitary time evolution obeys time symmetric laws, but the emission of a
photon into an expanding universe, while consistent with unitary evolution,
is not a reversible process.

Bruce


On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 7:14 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 7:54 AM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you say it's irreversible in principle? Wouldn't the time-reverse
>>> of that just be a photon traveling towards an atom and being absorbed,
>>> which is permitted by the laws of physics given a different set of initial
>>> boundary conditions?
>>>
>>
>> The laws of physics are invariant under the time-reversal operation. That
>> does not imply that irreversible processes are impossible. Brent has
>> pointed out that sending a photon out into an expanding universe is a
>> process that is irreversible in principle. The time invariance of the laws
>> means that a photon coming in from outer space is consistent with the laws.
>> But that cannot be the same photon. The idea that you can surround
>> everything with a perfectly reflecting mirror, so that all emitted photons
>> are returned, is just a fanciful diversionary tactic -- no such
>> reflective surrounds exist. Besides, reflecting photons back is not a
>> process reversal in an expanding universe. The red shift induced by the
>> expansion means that the returning photon inevitably has lower energy than
>> the emitted photon.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQEa1Xt7Q0sGMHUy7crGB4G5NJQvbdD7FEbzuxmhjD1Tg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-05 Thread Jesse Mazer

"The time invariance of the laws means that a photon coming in from outer
space is consistent with the laws. But that cannot be the same photon."

But "reversibility" as physicists define it has nothing to do with actually
causing the same system to reverse itself, it's a more abstract notion that
you could have a different system obeying the same dynamical laws whose
behavior over time would be a perfectly time-reversed mirror of the first
system's behavior. If you think it's about a single system evolving one way
for some period of time and suddenly reversing itself so that its
subsequent behavior looks like a reversed version of its initial behavior,
that's just a misunderstanding of the concept.

On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 7:14 PM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 7:54 AM Jesse Mazer  wrote:
>
>> Why do you say it's irreversible in principle? Wouldn't the time-reverse
>> of that just be a photon traveling towards an atom and being absorbed,
>> which is permitted by the laws of physics given a different set of initial
>> boundary conditions?
>>
>
> The laws of physics are invariant under the time-reversal operation. That
> does not imply that irreversible processes are impossible. Brent has
> pointed out that sending a photon out into an expanding universe is a
> process that is irreversible in principle. The time invariance of the laws
> means that a photon coming in from outer space is consistent with the laws.
> But that cannot be the same photon. The idea that you can surround
> everything with a perfectly reflecting mirror, so that all emitted photons
> are returned, is just a fanciful diversionary tactic -- no such
> reflective surrounds exist. Besides, reflecting photons back is not a
> process reversal in an expanding universe. The red shift induced by the
> expansion means that the returning photon inevitably has lower energy than
> the emitted photon.
>
> Bruce
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQw_%2B17D1CuCDz1%3Dn35uk2vWUhxMZmCf7hyV8ucbtDH%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3KaEhcgb%2BCRCBpkQ%3De_gs90_g4b_LJ72wbKz%3D7Q_CYbzA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-05 Thread Bruce Kellett

On Sat, Aug 6, 2022 at 7:54 AM Jesse Mazer  wrote:

> Why do you say it's irreversible in principle? Wouldn't the time-reverse
> of that just be a photon traveling towards an atom and being absorbed,
> which is permitted by the laws of physics given a different set of initial
> boundary conditions?
>

The laws of physics are invariant under the time-reversal operation. That
does not imply that irreversible processes are impossible. Brent has
pointed out that sending a photon out into an expanding universe is a
process that is irreversible in principle. The time invariance of the laws
means that a photon coming in from outer space is consistent with the laws.
But that cannot be the same photon. The idea that you can surround
everything with a perfectly reflecting mirror, so that all emitted photons
are returned, is just a fanciful diversionary tactic -- no such
reflective surrounds exist. Besides, reflecting photons back is not a
process reversal in an expanding universe. The red shift induced by the
expansion means that the returning photon inevitably has lower energy than
the emitted photon.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQw_%2B17D1CuCDz1%3Dn35uk2vWUhxMZmCf7hyV8ucbtDH%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-05 Thread Jesse Mazer

But when physicists say that a given system's dynamics are "reversible"
doesn't this generally involve an appeal to different initial boundary
conditions? (The end conditions with all the velocities reversed and
treated as a new system's initial conditions, for example.) Are you using
reversible/irreversible in a more colloquial sense?

On Fri, Aug 5, 2022 at 5:57 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> That's why I wrote, "The arrow of time comes from the boundary condition."
>
> Brent
>
> On 8/5/2022 2:54 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> Why do you say it's irreversible in principle? Wouldn't the time-reverse
> of that just be a photon traveling towards an atom and being absorbed,
> which is permitted by the laws of physics given a different set of initial
> boundary conditions?
>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 5:10 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>> If a photon is emitted into an infinite universe it is irreversible in
>> principle, not just FAPP.  But it doesn't mean the physical theory is
>> irreversible.  The arrow of time comes from the boundary condition.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> On 8/4/2022 8:47 AM, smitra wrote:
>> > On 04-08-2022 17:41, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> >> I recall Bruce giving an example of an irreversible process, but I
>> >> can't recall the details. AG
>> >>
>> >
>> > Probably a FAPP irreversible process.
>> >
>> > Saibal
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:39:04 AM UTC-6 Jason wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022, 5:23 AM Alan Grayson 
>> >>> wrote:
>>  I meant to write that information conservation depends on
>> >>> reversibility! How solid is that assumption? AG
>> >>>
>> >>> I think it is pretty good.
>> >>>
>> >>> I think reversibility is part of it. Certainly in a reversable
>> >>> Newtonian kind of physics (no GR and no QM, full determinism),
>> >>> reversability would imply an inability to destroy information.
>> >>>
>> >>> In reversible computers, information can't be deleted, only shuffled
>> >>> around, so in this simplistic model, reversibility (in a Turing
>> >>> machine) implies conservation of information.
>> >>>
>> >>> In GR, matter falling into black holes was originally thought to be
>> >>> an irreversible process. This led to the "black hole war".
>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Hole_War which was
>> >>> eventually settled by concluding information isn't destroyed in a
>> >>> black hole, therefore the pattern of black hole radiation must
>> >>> somehow indicate or encode what has fallen in to it.
>> >>>
>> >>> In QM, wave function collapse was thought to be an example of an
>> >>> irreversible process. Yet from the global view of all the branches
>> >>> and many world's it is not.
>> >>>
>> >>> But moreover, despite the apparent irreversibility if collapse from
>> >>> the confines of any one branch, the information available within any
>> >>> single branch still seems to be conserved (just as matter and energy
>> >>> are). This lead to a kind of: energy-matter-information equivalence.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Energy,_matter,_and_information_equivalence
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> This question, I think, probes at the very deepest levels of
>> >>> physics. I have some more thoughts on this written here:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Information_as_Fundamental
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Jason
>> >>
>> >>  --
>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> >> Groups "Everything List" group.
>> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> >> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> >>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c5ab1b8-fef6-4a5c-bd88-fb7b24d0e4b8n%40googlegroups.com
>> >>
>> >> [1].
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Links:
>> >> --
>> >> [1]
>> >>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c5ab1b8-fef6-4a5c-bd88-fb7b24d0e4b8n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2f8cd146-3c6d-a542-7618-75b2d05c0073%40gmail.com
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3%2BWyDWDQDNPzoXUM4gqFv0HjWQ2OrnQdPGQmgmJKqWtOw%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>
>
> --
> You

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-05 Thread Brent Meeker


That's why I wrote, "The arrow of time comes from the boundary condition."

Brent

On 8/5/2022 2:54 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Why do you say it's irreversible in principle? Wouldn't the 
time-reverse of that just be a photon traveling towards an atom and 
being absorbed, which is permitted by the laws of physics given a 
different set of initial boundary conditions?


On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 5:10 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

If a photon is emitted into an infinite universe it is
irreversible in
principle, not just FAPP.  But it doesn't mean the physical theory is
irreversible.  The arrow of time comes from the boundary condition.

Brent

On 8/4/2022 8:47 AM, smitra wrote:
> On 04-08-2022 17:41, Alan Grayson wrote:
>> I recall Bruce giving an example of an irreversible process, but I
>> can't recall the details. AG
>>
>
> Probably a FAPP irreversible process.
>
> Saibal
>
>
>> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:39:04 AM UTC-6 Jason wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022, 5:23 AM Alan Grayson 
>>> wrote:
 I meant to write that information conservation depends on
>>> reversibility! How solid is that assumption? AG
>>>
>>> I think it is pretty good.
>>>
>>> I think reversibility is part of it. Certainly in a reversable
>>> Newtonian kind of physics (no GR and no QM, full determinism),
>>> reversability would imply an inability to destroy information.
>>>
>>> In reversible computers, information can't be deleted, only
shuffled
>>> around, so in this simplistic model, reversibility (in a Turing
>>> machine) implies conservation of information.
>>>
>>> In GR, matter falling into black holes was originally thought
to be
>>> an irreversible process. This led to the "black hole war".
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Hole_War which was
>>> eventually settled by concluding information isn't destroyed in a
>>> black hole, therefore the pattern of black hole radiation must
>>> somehow indicate or encode what has fallen in to it.
>>>
>>> In QM, wave function collapse was thought to be an example of an
>>> irreversible process. Yet from the global view of all the branches
>>> and many world's it is not.
>>>
>>> But moreover, despite the apparent irreversibility if collapse
from
>>> the confines of any one branch, the information available
within any
>>> single branch still seems to be conserved (just as matter and
energy
>>> are). This lead to a kind of: energy-matter-information
equivalence.
>>>
>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Energy,_matter,_and_information_equivalence

>>
>>>
>>> This question, I think, probes at the very deepest levels of
>>> physics. I have some more thoughts on this written here:
>>>
>>>
>>
https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Information_as_Fundamental

>>
>>>
>>> Jason
>>
>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
it, send
>> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c5ab1b8-fef6-4a5c-bd88-fb7b24d0e4b8n%40googlegroups.com

>>
>> [1].
>>
>>
>> Links:
>> --
>> [1]
>>

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c5ab1b8-fef6-4a5c-bd88-fb7b24d0e4b8n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer



>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2f8cd146-3c6d-a542-7618-75b2d05c0073%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3%2BWyDWDQDNPzoXUM4gqFv0HjWQ2OrnQdPGQmgmJKqWtOw%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-05 Thread Jesse Mazer

Why do you say it's irreversible in principle? Wouldn't the time-reverse of
that just be a photon traveling towards an atom and being absorbed, which
is permitted by the laws of physics given a different set of initial
boundary conditions?

On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 5:10 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

> If a photon is emitted into an infinite universe it is irreversible in
> principle, not just FAPP.  But it doesn't mean the physical theory is
> irreversible.  The arrow of time comes from the boundary condition.
>
> Brent
>
> On 8/4/2022 8:47 AM, smitra wrote:
> > On 04-08-2022 17:41, Alan Grayson wrote:
> >> I recall Bruce giving an example of an irreversible process, but I
> >> can't recall the details. AG
> >>
> >
> > Probably a FAPP irreversible process.
> >
> > Saibal
> >
> >
> >> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:39:04 AM UTC-6 Jason wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022, 5:23 AM Alan Grayson 
> >>> wrote:
>  I meant to write that information conservation depends on
> >>> reversibility! How solid is that assumption? AG
> >>>
> >>> I think it is pretty good.
> >>>
> >>> I think reversibility is part of it. Certainly in a reversable
> >>> Newtonian kind of physics (no GR and no QM, full determinism),
> >>> reversability would imply an inability to destroy information.
> >>>
> >>> In reversible computers, information can't be deleted, only shuffled
> >>> around, so in this simplistic model, reversibility (in a Turing
> >>> machine) implies conservation of information.
> >>>
> >>> In GR, matter falling into black holes was originally thought to be
> >>> an irreversible process. This led to the "black hole war".
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Hole_War which was
> >>> eventually settled by concluding information isn't destroyed in a
> >>> black hole, therefore the pattern of black hole radiation must
> >>> somehow indicate or encode what has fallen in to it.
> >>>
> >>> In QM, wave function collapse was thought to be an example of an
> >>> irreversible process. Yet from the global view of all the branches
> >>> and many world's it is not.
> >>>
> >>> But moreover, despite the apparent irreversibility if collapse from
> >>> the confines of any one branch, the information available within any
> >>> single branch still seems to be conserved (just as matter and energy
> >>> are). This lead to a kind of: energy-matter-information equivalence.
> >>>
> >>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Energy,_matter,_and_information_equivalence
> >>
> >>>
> >>> This question, I think, probes at the very deepest levels of
> >>> physics. I have some more thoughts on this written here:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Information_as_Fundamental
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Jason
> >>
> >>  --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >> Groups "Everything List" group.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> >> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
> >>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c5ab1b8-fef6-4a5c-bd88-fb7b24d0e4b8n%40googlegroups.com
> >>
> >> [1].
> >>
> >>
> >> Links:
> >> --
> >> [1]
> >>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c5ab1b8-fef6-4a5c-bd88-fb7b24d0e4b8n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer
> >>
> >
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2f8cd146-3c6d-a542-7618-75b2d05c0073%40gmail.com
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAPCWU3%2BWyDWDQDNPzoXUM4gqFv0HjWQ2OrnQdPGQmgmJKqWtOw%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-05 Thread Dirk Van Niekerk

What do the physicists and engineers on the list think of Zurek's idea the 
quantum measurements become irreversible, in principle, once a record of 
the quantum measurement is made?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5990664/#RSTA20170315C9

Dirk 

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 2:10:47 PM UTC-7 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

> If a photon is emitted into an infinite universe it is irreversible in 
> principle, not just FAPP.  But it doesn't mean the physical theory is 
> irreversible.  The arrow of time comes from the boundary condition.
>
> Brent
>
> On 8/4/2022 8:47 AM, smitra wrote:
> > On 04-08-2022 17:41, Alan Grayson wrote:
> >> I recall Bruce giving an example of an irreversible process, but I
> >> can't recall the details. AG
> >>
> >
> > Probably a FAPP irreversible process.
> >
> > Saibal
> >
> >
> >> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:39:04 AM UTC-6 Jason wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022, 5:23 AM Alan Grayson 
> >>> wrote:
>  I meant to write that information conservation depends on
> >>> reversibility! How solid is that assumption? AG
> >>>
> >>> I think it is pretty good.
> >>>
> >>> I think reversibility is part of it. Certainly in a reversable
> >>> Newtonian kind of physics (no GR and no QM, full determinism),
> >>> reversability would imply an inability to destroy information.
> >>>
> >>> In reversible computers, information can't be deleted, only shuffled
> >>> around, so in this simplistic model, reversibility (in a Turing
> >>> machine) implies conservation of information.
> >>>
> >>> In GR, matter falling into black holes was originally thought to be
> >>> an irreversible process. This led to the "black hole war".
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Hole_War which was
> >>> eventually settled by concluding information isn't destroyed in a
> >>> black hole, therefore the pattern of black hole radiation must
> >>> somehow indicate or encode what has fallen in to it.
> >>>
> >>> In QM, wave function collapse was thought to be an example of an
> >>> irreversible process. Yet from the global view of all the branches
> >>> and many world's it is not.
> >>>
> >>> But moreover, despite the apparent irreversibility if collapse from
> >>> the confines of any one branch, the information available within any
> >>> single branch still seems to be conserved (just as matter and energy
> >>> are). This lead to a kind of: energy-matter-information equivalence.
> >>>
> >> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Energy,_matter,_and_information_equivalence
>  
> >>
> >>>
> >>> This question, I think, probes at the very deepest levels of
> >>> physics. I have some more thoughts on this written here:
> >>>
> >>>
> >> 
> https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Information_as_Fundamental 
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Jason
> >>
> >>  --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >> Groups "Everything List" group.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> >> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
> >> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c5ab1b8-fef6-4a5c-bd88-fb7b24d0e4b8n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> >>
> >> [1].
> >>
> >>
> >> Links:
> >> --
> >> [1]
> >> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c5ab1b8-fef6-4a5c-bd88-fb7b24d0e4b8n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer
>  
> >>
> >
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/af344320-fe18-414e-bab8-3c6dda1e3292n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-05 Thread Alan Grayson

So what's the bottom line; are physical processes reversible or not? Does 
the answer depend on whether the universe is infinite, that is, without a 
boundary condition, or not? TY. AG

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 3:10:47 PM UTC-6 meeke...@gmail.com wrote:

> If a photon is emitted into an infinite universe it is irreversible in 
> principle, not just FAPP.  But it doesn't mean the physical theory is 
> irreversible.  The arrow of time comes from the boundary condition.
>
> Brent
>
> On 8/4/2022 8:47 AM, smitra wrote:
> > On 04-08-2022 17:41, Alan Grayson wrote:
> >> I recall Bruce giving an example of an irreversible process, but I
> >> can't recall the details. AG
> >>
> >
> > Probably a FAPP irreversible process.
> >
> > Saibal
> >
> >
> >> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:39:04 AM UTC-6 Jason wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022, 5:23 AM Alan Grayson 
> >>> wrote:
>  I meant to write that information conservation depends on
> >>> reversibility! How solid is that assumption? AG
> >>>
> >>> I think it is pretty good.
> >>>
> >>> I think reversibility is part of it. Certainly in a reversable
> >>> Newtonian kind of physics (no GR and no QM, full determinism),
> >>> reversability would imply an inability to destroy information.
> >>>
> >>> In reversible computers, information can't be deleted, only shuffled
> >>> around, so in this simplistic model, reversibility (in a Turing
> >>> machine) implies conservation of information.
> >>>
> >>> In GR, matter falling into black holes was originally thought to be
> >>> an irreversible process. This led to the "black hole war".
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Hole_War which was
> >>> eventually settled by concluding information isn't destroyed in a
> >>> black hole, therefore the pattern of black hole radiation must
> >>> somehow indicate or encode what has fallen in to it.
> >>>
> >>> In QM, wave function collapse was thought to be an example of an
> >>> irreversible process. Yet from the global view of all the branches
> >>> and many world's it is not.
> >>>
> >>> But moreover, despite the apparent irreversibility if collapse from
> >>> the confines of any one branch, the information available within any
> >>> single branch still seems to be conserved (just as matter and energy
> >>> are). This lead to a kind of: energy-matter-information equivalence.
> >>>
> >> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Energy,_matter,_and_information_equivalence
>  
> >>
> >>>
> >>> This question, I think, probes at the very deepest levels of
> >>> physics. I have some more thoughts on this written here:
> >>>
> >>>
> >> 
> https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Information_as_Fundamental 
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Jason
> >>
> >>  --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >> Groups "Everything List" group.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> >> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To view this discussion on the web visit
> >> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c5ab1b8-fef6-4a5c-bd88-fb7b24d0e4b8n%40googlegroups.com
>  
> >>
> >> [1].
> >>
> >>
> >> Links:
> >> --
> >> [1]
> >> 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c5ab1b8-fef6-4a5c-bd88-fb7b24d0e4b8n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer
>  
> >>
> >
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ce37f695-fa3e-4603-a5b1-9ee4e9ecbaffn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-04 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

This group of essays led by Strominger at Harvard, a few years ago, implies the 
storage and reversibility of all data axiomatically, via the interaction of 
gravity, and infrared photons. That is my understanding of it. Now, if someone 
doesn't think this is right they can always falsify it with observation, if 
they can? Here was George Musser's op appearing in FXQI back in 2019. I haven't 
followed validation or devalidation since then, really?
https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/233


-Original Message-
From: Alan Grayson 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Thu, Aug 4, 2022 5:23 am
Subject: Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

I meant to write that information conservation depends on reversibility! How 
solid is that assumption? AG

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 1:31:31 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

I assume information conservation depends on irreversibility. How solid is the 
latter assumption? AG
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4f8d0bfe-cca4-4114-a374-e3e85d667bbcn%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1683312517.573193.1659652200478%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-04 Thread Brent Meeker

If a photon is emitted into an infinite universe it is irreversible in
principle, not just FAPP. But it doesn't mean the physical theory is
irreversible. The arrow of time comes from the boundary condition.

Brent

On 8/4/2022 8:47 AM, smitra wrote:

On 04-08-2022 17:41, Alan Grayson wrote:

I recall Bruce giving an example of an irreversible process, but I
can't recall the details. AG

Probably a FAPP irreversible process.

Saibal

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:39:04 AM UTC-6 Jason wrote:

On Thu, Aug 4, 2022, 5:23 AM Alan Grayson
wrote:

I meant to write that information conservation depends on

reversibility! How solid is that assumption? AG

I think it is pretty good.

I think reversibility is part of it. Certainly in a reversable
Newtonian kind of physics (no GR and no QM, full determinism),
reversability would imply an inability to destroy information.

In reversible computers, information can't be deleted, only shuffled
around, so in this simplistic model, reversibility (in a Turing
machine) implies conservation of information.

In GR, matter falling into black holes was originally thought to be
an irreversible process. This led to the "black hole war".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Hole_War which was
eventually settled by concluding information isn't destroyed in a
black hole, therefore the pattern of black hole radiation must
somehow indicate or encode what has fallen in to it.

In QM, wave function collapse was thought to be an example of an
irreversible process. Yet from the global view of all the branches
and many world's it is not.

But moreover, despite the apparent irreversibility if collapse from
the confines of any one branch, the information available within any
single branch still seems to be conserved (just as matter and energy
are). This lead to a kind of: energy-matter-information equivalence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Energy,_matter,_and_information_equivalence

This question, I think, probes at the very deepest levels of
physics. I have some more thoughts on this written here:

https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Information_as_Fundamental

Jason

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c5ab1b8-fef6-4a5c-bd88-fb7b24d0e4b8n%40googlegroups.com

[1].

Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c5ab1b8-fef6-4a5c-bd88-fb7b24d0e4b8n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-04 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 11:47 AM smitra  wrote:

On 04-08-2022 17:41, Alan Grayson wrote:

>> I *recall Bruce giving an example of an irreversible process, but I **can't
>> recall the details. AG*
>
>
> *> Probably a FAPP irreversible process.*
>

If states X and Y can both produce  Z then it's irreversible because if you
look at Z you have no way of knowing if the previous state was X or Y.  A
good example of that would be Conway's Game of Life, it's completely
deterministic but it's not reversible.

John K ClarkSee what's on my new list at  Extropolis

nrr

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1tn9zpZevdg9SFQC7mmnQFRLZYdY%3DdoCO8mWaZg5McXA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-04 Thread smitra

On 04-08-2022 17:41, Alan Grayson wrote:

I recall Bruce giving an example of an irreversible process, but I
can't recall the details. AG

Probably a FAPP irreversible process.

Saibal

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:39:04 AM UTC-6 Jason wrote:

On Thu, Aug 4, 2022, 5:23 AM Alan Grayson
wrote:

I meant to write that information conservation depends on

reversibility! How solid is that assumption? AG

I think it is pretty good.

I think reversibility is part of it. Certainly in a reversable
Newtonian kind of physics (no GR and no QM, full determinism),
reversability would imply an inability to destroy information.

In reversible computers, information can't be deleted, only shuffled
around, so in this simplistic model, reversibility (in a Turing
machine) implies conservation of information.

In QM, wave function collapse was thought to be an example of an
irreversible process. Yet from the global view of all the branches
and many world's it is not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Energy,_matter,_and_information_equivalence

This question, I think, probes at the very deepest levels of
physics. I have some more thoughts on this written here:

https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Information_as_Fundamental

Jason

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c5ab1b8-fef6-4a5c-bd88-fb7b24d0e4b8n%40googlegroups.com
[1].

Links:
--
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c5ab1b8-fef6-4a5c-bd88-fb7b24d0e4b8n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-04 Thread Alan Grayson

I recall Bruce giving an example of an irreversible process, but I can't 
recall the details. AG

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 6:39:04 AM UTC-6 Jason wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 4, 2022, 5:23 AM Alan Grayson  wrote:
> > I meant to write that information conservation depends on reversibility! 
> How solid is that assumption? AG
>
>
> I think it is pretty good.
>
> I think reversibility is part of it. Certainly in a reversable Newtonian 
> kind of physics (no GR and no QM, full determinism), reversability would 
> imply an inability to destroy information.
>
> In reversible computers, information can't be deleted, only shuffled 
> around, so in this simplistic model, reversibility (in a Turing machine) 
> implies conservation of information.
>
> In GR, matter falling into black holes was originally thought to be an 
> irreversible process. This led to the "black hole war".
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Hole_War which was eventually 
> settled by concluding information isn't destroyed in a black hole, 
> therefore the pattern of black hole radiation must somehow indicate or 
> encode what has fallen in to it.
>
> In QM, wave function collapse was thought to be an example of an 
> irreversible process. Yet from the global view of all the branches and many 
> world's it is not.
>
> But moreover, despite the apparent irreversibility if collapse from the 
> confines of any one branch, the information available within any single 
> branch still seems to be conserved (just as matter and energy are). This 
> lead to a kind of: energy-matter-information equivalence. 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Energy,_matter,_and_information_equivalence
>
> This question, I think, probes at the very deepest levels of physics. I 
> have some more thoughts on this written here:
>
>
> https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Information_as_Fundamental
>
> Jason
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c5ab1b8-fef6-4a5c-bd88-fb7b24d0e4b8n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-04 Thread Jason Resch

On Thu, Aug 4, 2022, 5:23 AM Alan Grayson wrote:
> I meant to write that information conservation depends on reversibility!
How solid is that assumption? AG

I think it is pretty good.

I think reversibility is part of it. Certainly in a reversable Newtonian
kind of physics (no GR and no QM, full determinism), reversability would
imply an inability to destroy information.

In reversible computers, information can't be deleted, only shuffled
around, so in this simplistic model, reversibility (in a Turing machine)
implies conservation of information.

In GR, matter falling into black holes was originally thought to be an
irreversible process. This led to the "black hole war".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Hole_War which was eventually
settled by concluding information isn't destroyed in a black hole,
therefore the pattern of black hole radiation must somehow indicate or
encode what has fallen in to it.

In QM, wave function collapse was thought to be an example of an
irreversible process. Yet from the global view of all the branches and many
world's it is not.

But moreover, despite the apparent irreversibility if collapse from the
confines of any one branch, the information available within any single
branch still seems to be conserved (just as matter and energy are). This
lead to a kind of: energy-matter-information equivalence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle#Energy,_matter,_and_information_equivalence

This question, I think, probes at the very deepest levels of physics. I
have some more thoughts on this written here:

https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Information_as_Fundamental

Jason

Re: Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-04 Thread Alan Grayson

I meant to write that information conservation depends on *reversibility! *How 
solid is that assumption? AG

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 1:31:31 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

> I assume information conservation depends on irreversibility. How solid is 
> the latter assumption? AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4f8d0bfe-cca4-4114-a374-e3e85d667bbcn%40googlegroups.com.

Information conservation and irreversibility

2022-08-04 Thread Alan Grayson

I assume information conservation depends on irreversibility. How solid is 
the latter assumption? AG

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1c89c020-8638-40c7-8de6-86933bf1a4adn%40googlegroups.com.

49 matches

Mail list logo