Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on February 05, 2018, 09:32:33 AM
-
Does discovery increase the amount of information in the universe,
Does invention or artistic creation create more information in the universe.
Does learning increase the amount of information in the universe.
-
Does discovery increase the amount of information in the universe,
Does invention or artistic creation create more information in the universe.
Does learning increase the amount of information in the universe.
It is learning and discovery wot does it, not mere belief.
-
Does discovery increase the amount of information in the universe,
Does invention or artistic creation create more information in the universe.
Does learning increase the amount of information in the universe.
What is your definition of "information"?
-
Does discovery increase the amount of information in the universe,
Does invention or artistic creation create more information in the universe.
Does learning increase the amount of information in the universe.
In an everyday sense of the word, probably, yes.
In a fundamental sense, as in physics, probably no. Learning, as what might be going on in a human head, is redistribution, or repatterning, of existing information; information cannot be created or destroyed, normally.
-
In a fundamental sense, as in physics, probably no. Learning, as what might be going on in a human head, is redistribution, or repatterning, of existing information; information cannot be created or destroyed, normally.
As you said: probably.
Conservation of information (in that sense of 'information') depends on the laws of physics being deterministic and reversible in time. If we take quantum mechanical state reduction (wave function collapse) to be a real, physical phenomenon (as argued, for example, by Penrose), that would mean that information is not conserved. There is also the question of black holes and (possible) information destruction; the so called "Black hole information paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox)".
-
In an everyday sense of the word, probably, yes.
In a fundamental sense, as in physics, probably no. Learning, as what might be going on in a human head, is redistribution, or repatterning, of existing information; information cannot be created or destroyed, normally.
There's a problem ere though. Since by repatterning we could take the example of the alphabet at it's simplest 26 units of information fro which billions more unique information patterns can be created.
Take one example of a new information pattern the national anthem. What if this is known by millions could it not be said that the amount of information has been multiplied or is there just one national anthem existing in it's own universe which each mind accesses?
Has the national anthem always existed because it is what could be termed information? Do we discover it in a platonistic kind of way?
You seem to be conflating information with energy which is affected by entropy. Mathematics a form of information is not affected by entropy, after all there is mathematics which has no physical expression in our universe (Tegmark.)
I can see therefore energy being a type of information but not visa versa.
Finally we come to substratism whereby information is merely kind of recorded on the medium of matter energy. Hasn't it been found that there isn't enough substrate in the universe to hold the information?
-
There's a problem ere though.
Yes, the problem is that you haven't defined what you mean by 'information' - hence your confusion.
-
Yes, the problem is that you haven't defined what you mean by 'information' - hence your confusion.
What confusion is that?
-
What confusion is that?
you don't understand your own question !
-
What confusion is that?
This (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15144.msg716737#msg716737) and this (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15144.msg717286#msg717286).
Also, you can't expect other people to know in what sense you are using the word, and therefore be able to answer your questions, unless you define what you mean.
-
This (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15144.msg716737#msg716737) and this (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15144.msg717286#msg717286).
Also, you can't expect other people to know in what sense you are using the word, and therefore be able to answer your questions, unless you define what you mean.
I mean in the sense of a conveyed property. For example on or off spinning up or spinning down, beautiful, unity.
I think some are trying to quantise information here and reduce, fittingly, something to ''bits''. However every pattern yields a different but very real property and has information which is not drawn from it's component.
-
I mean in the sense of a conveyed property. For example on or off spinning up or spinning down, beautiful, unity.
I think some are trying to quantise information here and reduce, fittingly, something to ''bits''. However every pattern yields a different but very real property and has information which is not drawn from it's component.
And for those of us that don't speak gibberish...?
-
This reminds me of creationists, who are forever parroting that evolution can't cause an increase in information, while carefully not defining information in that context.