Telmo, No, that was Brent's claim. I'm asking him to tell us how it works. Where is all that additional information about past states stored if he thinks none of it is lost?
Edgar On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:32:48 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Telmo, >> >> No, compression is totally unable to explain the storage of total >> information in a universe which continually doubles its amount of >> information from one Planck time to the next and continually adds that >> amount to the cumulative total. >> > > So you're essentially claiming that the universe is increasing > exponentially in complexity? > > >> >> Edgar >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:17:28 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Brent, >>>> >>>> If information is not being lost then the amount of information in the >>>> universe is increasing at a tremendous rate as new events occur, and has >>>> been since the beginning. So where is all that new information being >>>> stored? How can ever increasing amounts of information be being stored in >>>> the SAME amount of matter states? >>>> >>> >>> By an increase in Shannon entropy, up to a point. >>> This is why you can compress computer files, for example. >>> >>> Telmo. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Presumably you do agree that information can't just float around >>>> somehow without actually being encoded in actual matter states? >>>> >>>> I think I know the answer but would like to hear your take on it >>>> first.... >>>> >>>> Edgar >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 8:57:57 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 3/18/2014 5:07 PM, LizR wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 19 March 2014 12:47, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> But in general that would mean knowing the state of everything the >>>>>> system had interacted with in the past, since it is now entangled with >>>>>> them. So even if you suppose there is no collapse of the wavefunction, >>>>>> decoherence has the same effect. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I was only asking about the theoretical possibility, given >>>>> unrealistically perfect information about the state of the system. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The universe (assuming unitary QM) is reversible. In fact from the >>>>> standpoint of QM there is no arrow of time - it's deterministic, just >>>>> like >>>>> Laplace's universe. So, as always, when the word "possibility" is used >>>>> there has to be some context. To *calculate* a history of the universe >>>>> from it's present state would require knowing its *complete* present >>>>> state, >>>>> including your mental state. Is that "theoretically possible"? I think >>>>> it >>>>> involves a paradox of self-reference. >>>>> >>>>> To put it another way, in the Game of Life, even with perfect >>>>> information, you can't trace the state of the system backwards because it >>>>> loses information. So even the laws of physics couldn't work backwards in >>>>> a >>>>> universe based on the GOL. QM, I'm informed, doesn't lose information, so >>>>> (very much in theory) you could work backwards - or (less in theory) the >>>>> laws of physics could. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes the universe doesn't lose information like the GoL. But relative >>>>> to any point it loses information across spacetime horizons. So there's >>>>> no >>>>> way to gather that information up into a calculation unless you have some >>>>> God's eye view from outside the universe, in which case you could see the >>>>> past anyway. >>>>> >>>>> There's a couple of nice papers about this by Yasunori Nomura: >>>>> arXiv:1205.267v2 is a popular exposition and arXiv:1205.5550v2 is a more >>>>> technical paper. >>>>> >>>>> Brent >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I wasn't asking whether I could build a chronoscope and watch the >>>>> past happening on TV. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> >>>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> 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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >> 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 <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- 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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
