On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 10:24:05PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell,
my apologies for the approximate typing. I don't assign to your not
following my comments to that awful new keyboard I tried to use (light grey
letters on a slightly less light grey base - not visible and I am not a
PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: why can't we erase information?
On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 10:24:05PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russell,
my apologies for the approximate typing. I don't assign to your not
following my comments
On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:28:44AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks, Russell,
I really do not want to continue - seems side-line to you and side line to
me.
I just cannot keep my mouse shut.
Seems I'm the same :)
1. The 'nonequilibrium' topics still identify a certain 'cut'
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:04:40AM -0700, John M wrote:
Russell,
thanks for your fime and effort to reply. 3 things:
1. You picked my Hawkng typo, I have many more. I do
recall that post and it gives me while writing, the
subconscious vacillation: which version is the right
and which
This thread is still alive! It seems that information can't be erased in
this thread either :)
I think that information can't be erased because of the way time is (or
should be) defined. If you take the observer moment approach to the
multiverse, then you have to define a notion of time. That
answers and I doubt them.
John
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: why can't we erase information?
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:04:40AM -0700, John M wrote:
Russell
Tom Caylor wrote:
Actually, in reviewing the definition of Turing machine (it's been over
2 decades since I studied it) I agree with you. The Turing machine
leaves behind a memory of its past through its writes to the tape.
Maybe I don't understand what Wei Dai was saying with his setting of
Le 03-mai-06, à 16:34, Tom Caylor a écrit :
I am beside myself ;) Perhaps the interactive step-by-step approach
that you've used in the past would be easier for you and more
profitable for us.
Thanks for the suggestion. I will give it a try asap.
Speaking of impasse with myself
Russell,
thanks for your fime and effort to reply. 3 things:
1. You picked my Hawkng typo, I have many more. I do
recall that post and it gives me while writing, the
subconscious vacillation: which version is the right
and which the left? Very rarely do I wright his name.
2. You use usable
How many angels can you fit on a drawing pin? ;)
Kim J
On 03/05/2006, at 6:17 AM, John M wrote:
Does that entire topic really make sense? Or is it
just a straw-man debate to get it right? Sometimes I
wonder.
John M
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this
Le 02-mai-06, à 00:18, Tom Caylor a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 25-avr.-06, à 17:37, Tom Caylor a écrit :
In fact, closed system and meta element seem to be contradictory.
Not necessarily. It could depend of what you mean exactly by closed.
Closure for the diagonalization
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 02-mai-06, à 00:18, Tom Caylor a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 25-avr.-06, à 17:37, Tom Caylor a écrit :
In fact, closed system and meta element seem to be contradictory.
Not necessarily. It could depend of what you mean exactly by closed.
Closure
Kim,
you picked a side-remark, although an important one.
In the heat of the debates it seems healthy somtimes
to rake a breather and look at the topics with an oprn
and unbiased (strangers'? outsiders'?) eye to restore
some sanity lost to emotional discourse.
Otherwise it is easy to get carried
Tom Caylor wrote:
I am beside myself ;) Perhaps the interactive step-by-step approach
that you've used in the past would be easier for you and more
profitable for us.
Bruno,
My beside myself statement was a punny reference to self-reference.
I meant that I am looking forward to your
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 01:33:37PM -0700, John M wrote:
Russell, you 'opem' and 'close' a system? Why woulod
you close it, once it is already open? and how would
you find it again, when it is closed?
Usually because it doesn't move :) Consider something inside a
shielded container in a
: why can't we erase information?
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 25-avr.-06, à 17:37, Tom Caylor a écrit :
In fact, closed system and meta element seem
to be contradictory.
Not necessarily. It could depend of what you mean
exactly by closed.
Closure for the diagonalization procedure
: why can't we erase information?
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 25-avr.-06, à 17:37, Tom Caylor a écrit :
In fact, closed system and meta element
seem
to be contradictory.
Not necessarily. It could depend of what you
mean
exactly by closed.
Closure
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 25-avr.-06, à 17:37, Tom Caylor a écrit :
In fact, closed system and meta element seem to be contradictory.
Not necessarily. It could depend of what you mean exactly by closed.
Closure for the diagonalization procedure is the key. Diagonalization
is the key of
I notice that erasure of information on a goto instruction occurs
only for goto instructions which send the Turing machine to an
instruction already executed. Thus the self-reference is a reference
to the *past* self of the Turing machine, which in a sense is the only
self the Turing machine
-
From: Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: why can't we erase information?
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 25-avr.-06, à 17:37, Tom Caylor a écrit :
In fact, closed system and meta element seem
Le 25-avr.-06, à 17:37, Tom Caylor a écrit :
Tom Toffoli's paper, Nothing makes sense in computing except in the
light of evolution, gives support to the idea that there needs to be
some meta element to give meaning or design to this whole swirl of
information we see around us. I think
Any conclusion about information erasure, or entropy, in a given system
seems to depend on the particular meaning assigned to the information.
Note that assigned is a verb. What I mean when I say this is that
I'm pointed to the fact that it takes someone to do it.
There's a recurring thought in
My first sentence looks like I was equating information erasure with
entropy, but further down I hope it's clear that I'm treating them as
two different concepts.
Tom
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Jesse Mazer wrote:
As for the question of why we live in a universe that apparently has this
property, I don't think there's an anthropic explanation for it, I'd see
it
as part of the larger question of why we live in a universe whose
fundamental laws seem to be so elegant and posess so
Ti Bo wrote:
On reversibility, there is the observation (I think acredittable to Tom
Toffoli)
that most/all irreversible systems have a reversible subsystem and the
dynamics arrive in that
subsystem after some (finite) time. Thus any system that we observe a
while
after it has started
Saibal Mitra wrote:
How would an observer know he is living in a universe in which information
is lost? Information loss means that time evolution can map two different
initial states to the same final state. The observer in the final state
thus
cannot know that information really has been
From: Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: why can't we erase information?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:11:28 -0700
Jesse Mazer wrote:
As for the question of why we live in a universe that apparently has
Hi All,
I feel like a Toffoli disciple. I cannot recreate the argument right
now,
but he argues that an increase in entropy is compatible with reversible
and irreversible
processes, but a decrease in entropy is only compatible with reversible
dynamics.
The argument is interesting and
I think that this observation could explain why we see a reversible
universe:
all the irreversibility has already happened. If we think of a dynamics
with
discrete time then we have a collection of points with directed arcs
between them. As a graph, this has the structure of several cycles
Jesse Mazer:
I have a vague memory that there was some result showing the algorithmic
complexity of a string shouldn't depend too strongly on the details of the
Turing machine--that it would only differ by some constant amount for any
two different machines, maybe? Does this ring a bell with
-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 03:22 AM
Subject: Re: why can't we erase information?
Saibal Mitra wrote:
How would an observer know he is living in a universe in which
information
is lost? Information loss means that time evolution can map two different
initial states
Le 11-avr.-06, à 01:11, Wei Dai a écrit :
Jesse Mazer wrote:
As for the question of why we live in a universe that apparently has
this
property, I don't think there's an anthropic explanation for it, I'd
see
it
as part of the larger question of why we live in a universe whose
- Original Message -
From: Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 01:46 AM
Subject: Re: why can't we erase information?
Saibal Mitra wrote:
How would an observer know he is living in a universe in which
information
is lost
I'm not a physicist, so I'm asking a question. How much of this we
have no information loss in this universe prinicple are we simply
assuming at the outset? I know that a lot of it is unverified theory,
like in the case of Stephen Hawking's black hole vs. no black hole from
infinity
A few years ago I posted a speculation about Harry Potter universes,
from the Schmidhuber perspective. Schmidhuber argues that the reason
we don't see such a universe is that its program would be more complex,
hence its algorithmic-complexity measure would be less. Such a universe
would
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 09:45:50PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 12:03:47AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
Unitary evolution preserves information. It is only through
measurement by an observer that information can be
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 10:26:17PM -0400, Jesse Mazer wrote:
As I understand it, you don't need exactly need an observer, you just need
to identify various macro-variables (like pressure and temperature) which
can be used to coarse-grain the phase space of the system, with entropy
being
There would have to be some pretty major conditions and caveats on
this. A system undergoing thermodynamic stress (ie is nonequilibrium)
will exhibit a lowering of entropy compared with its state at
equilibrium. However, the process is decidedly nonreversible...
Cheers.
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at
Russell Standish wrote:
Also note that exact measurements of microstates is *in principle*
incompatible with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Well, that's why I defined microstates as detailed descriptions of the
positions and momenta of all the particles, within the limits of the
Unitary evolution preserves information. It is only through
measurement by an observer that information can be created or
destroyed. Usually, the second law is interpreted as the destruction
of information (anyone observing a closed system will over time know
less information about the system),
Russell Standish wrote:
Unitary evolution preserves information. It is only through
measurement by an observer that information can be created or
destroyed. Usually, the second law is interpreted as the destruction
of information (anyone observing a closed system will over time know
less
On reversibility, there is the observation (I think acredittable to Tom
Toffoli)
that most/all irreversible systems have a reversible subsystem and the
dynamics arrive in that
subsystem after some (finite) time. Thus any system that we observe a
while
after it has started will, with high
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 12:03:47AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
Unitary evolution preserves information. It is only through
measurement by an observer that information can be created or
destroyed. Usually, the second law is interpreted as the destruction
of
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: why can't we erase information?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:34:42 +1000
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 12:03:47AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
Russell Standish wrote
Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 12:03:47AM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
Unitary evolution preserves information. It is only through
measurement by an observer that information can be created or
destroyed. Usually, the second law is interpreted as the
If we consider our observable universe as a computation, it's rather
atypical in that it doesn't seem to make use of the erase operation (or
other any operation that irreversibly erases information). The second law of
thermodynamics is a consequence of this. In order to forget anything
]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 3:11 AM
Subject: why can't we erase information?
If we consider our observable universe as a computation, it's rather
atypical in that it doesn't seem to make use of the erase operation (or
other any operation that irreversibly erases
Wei Dai wrote:
If we consider our observable universe as a computation, it's rather
atypical in that it doesn't seem to make use of the erase operation (or
other any operation that irreversibly erases information). The second law of
thermodynamics is a consequence of this. In order to
Message -
From: Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 09:11 AM
Subject: why can't we erase information?
If we consider our observable universe as a computation, it's rather
atypical in that it doesn't seem to make use of the erase
49 matches
Mail list logo
