Information cannot be destroyed, so what happens to our minds when we die?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Dis i like
The microstate of a system is ultimately given by its quantum mechanical description, i.e. something like a wave function, or a state vector (or, more accurately, an equivalence class thereof) in a Hilbert space. The important feature of quantum mechanics then is that time evolution is unitary, i.e. the transformation of a state at some time into the state at a later time is effected by some quantity U, for which there always exists a quantity U* such that U*U = 1, where 1 is the identity transformation, i.e. the transformation that 'does nothing'. So that if the state of the system is described by ψ, at a later time it will be described by φ = Uψ, and there exists U* such that U*φ = U*Uψ = 1ψ = ψ, i.e. the original state can always be recovered.
So its a bit like what I said in two sentences and plain english then?
Original post by james22
This does not mean the the information turns into anything of substance.
I never said it did. My argument is merely that information cannot be destroyed.
Original post by green.tea
Not if you could perfectly understand how each particle was moved and then perfectly move them back again.
Nice logic.
I swear I read something about this in the New Scientist.
It was talking about how living organisms appear to break the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as they do things which concentrate all their energy in themselves and therefore aren't losing heat to their surroundings (Personally, I can see some flaws in the argument that I just made, but it's over a month since I read the article, so I've probably forgotten a lot of it..).
It then said that the reason that this didn't break the law was that the energy was stored as information, as we remember the things which we do, and then when we die, we give this information/energy to our surroundings, hence satisfying the law.
It said something like what I just said, but probably in a more correct way, haha.
It was talking about how living organisms appear to break the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as they do things which concentrate all their energy in themselves and therefore aren't losing heat to their surroundings (Personally, I can see some flaws in the argument that I just made, but it's over a month since I read the article, so I've probably forgotten a lot of it..).
It then said that the reason that this didn't break the law was that the energy was stored as information, as we remember the things which we do, and then when we die, we give this information/energy to our surroundings, hence satisfying the law.
It said something like what I just said, but probably in a more correct way, haha.
Original post by Occams Chainsaw
Nice logic.
Ta.
Original post by green.tea
So its a bit like what I said in two sentences and plain english then?
Essentially, yes. But I was attempting to address the question posed about why I had assumed a function f^-1.
You're equating thermodynamic entropy with information content. Thermodynamic entropy is the logarithm of the number of microstates a system can be in given it's macrostate, i.e. it tells you how much information is required to distinguish the microstates from one another. So it's effectively a measure of information capacity rather than of content. The laws of thermodynamics offer statements about the number of bits, but nothing about the state of those bits.
One classic analogy for the increase of entropy is if I jumble up the pieces of a jigsaw. The information capacity increases because the position and orientation of the individual pieces becomes significant, but the usable information content decreases because I can no longer see the picture.
One classic analogy for the increase of entropy is if I jumble up the pieces of a jigsaw. The information capacity increases because the position and orientation of the individual pieces becomes significant, but the usable information content decreases because I can no longer see the picture.
What you're saying is akin to "Oh, we can't destroy the number three, so what happens to a piece of a paper containing the number 3 written on it when we burn it?" The answer is; it burns.
Information is a concept, our mind is the product of our brain working very hard, which is a tangible object. The idea of destroying something tangible is defined, but the idea of destroying a concept is undefined. I'm finding it hard to explain what I mean, but think of it as some kind of mathematical object, and think of destruction as some kind of mathematical operation, then the destruction operation is undefinable on the concept object. Just like how division is undefined on a matrix (unless you defined in terms of multiplicative inverses).
It's like the word punch. I can punch a piece of communist propaganda, but I can't punch the ideology, the concept, the idea of communism itself. Same goes for fascism as a concept, I can punch an EDL supporter (and enjoy it) but it won't be punching the concept itself. The same even goes for my beloved classical liberalism and everything non-tangible.
Is any of this making sense or do I sound like some kind of spaced out crazy guy?
Information is a concept, our mind is the product of our brain working very hard, which is a tangible object. The idea of destroying something tangible is defined, but the idea of destroying a concept is undefined. I'm finding it hard to explain what I mean, but think of it as some kind of mathematical object, and think of destruction as some kind of mathematical operation, then the destruction operation is undefinable on the concept object. Just like how division is undefined on a matrix (unless you defined in terms of multiplicative inverses).
It's like the word punch. I can punch a piece of communist propaganda, but I can't punch the ideology, the concept, the idea of communism itself. Same goes for fascism as a concept, I can punch an EDL supporter (and enjoy it) but it won't be punching the concept itself. The same even goes for my beloved classical liberalism and everything non-tangible.
Is any of this making sense or do I sound like some kind of spaced out crazy guy?
(edited 11 years ago)
I don't like it when people say "information can't die", because really it can, at least in the everyday sense. Information "can't die" only in the sense that it's possible to create a replica of something after the original has been destroyed (through chance or accident). Shakespeare's plays will always 'exist' (keep or subtract quotes depending on your degree of epistemological scepticism) as a certain configuration of information, whether actualised in reality (e.g. by pen on paper) or not. That doesn't mean that all copies of his plays can't be destroyed - if that happened, we'd have no way of knowing anymore what he wrote, and if we set up those famous monkeys typing randomly on typewriters for eternity, we'd get his plays as an eventual output, only we wouldn't know it when we saw it.
It's the same for you. You can die and a copy of you could theoretically be 'resurrected', but whether that counts as 'you' or not depends on your definition of 'you'. Certainly, it's tremendously unlikely.
What physicists mean when they say that energy can't be destroyed is that physical energy can't be destroyed - i.e. the net amount of energy in the universe is constant. Information, as with energy and matter, tends towards entropy - this is essentially because it's harder to store information than it is to mess it up.
It's the same for you. You can die and a copy of you could theoretically be 'resurrected', but whether that counts as 'you' or not depends on your definition of 'you'. Certainly, it's tremendously unlikely.
What physicists mean when they say that energy can't be destroyed is that physical energy can't be destroyed - i.e. the net amount of energy in the universe is constant. Information, as with energy and matter, tends towards entropy - this is essentially because it's harder to store information than it is to mess it up.
Holy **** this is not philosophy this is physics, I think my brain melted.
Original post by Dis i like
You realise that by making this claim you are challenging the validity of the third law of thermodynamics?
"The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches zero." How?
Do you not mean the first law?
Original post by james22
A few dusk particles moving caoticlly could hold all the info from my mind.
How so? The brain is comprised of 100,000,000,000 neurons with each neuron forming an average of 1000 connections, I cannot conceive of a way in which "a few dust particles moving caoticlly [sic]" could hold all the information in a human mind.
Original post by Dis i like
My argument is merely that information cannot be destroyed.
Hawking thinks so, but I don't think this is accepted by all physicists. There is plenty of confusion between conserved energy and its relation to information. (says bassoprofundo) I certainly don't get it! Energy is the totality of potential stuff plus the little bit of actual stuff we see (you can quote me on that ;D ). Information is the sum of all the physical relation from the quantum level all the way up to my deepest wishes, hopes, and superstitions. Hawking thinks that all information is conserved in a physical sense, but not necessarily in a simple, retrievable form, the way we think of information. After I die, worms will inherit 'me' and my memories, and will probably continue to post here in the philosophy section.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by green.tea
I just smashed a battery with a hammer.
Talk to me when you've smashed a hammer with a AAA battery brah
Original post by marcus2001
Talk to me when you've smashed a hammer with a AAA battery brah
I can confirm the energy is destroyed. Battery will no longer operate Wii remote.
Surely there are multiple types of information, and the type of information which cannot be destroyed (as with energy) is not necessarily comparable to information held within our brain. They are two different things.
But I'll do my best to explain it.
Information in our brain comes about through patterning, the patterns of the various substances which make up the brain (right from quarks, all the way up to areas of the brain), the state in which everything is arranged represents the information it holds. When our brain dies, the amount of substance decreases, and thus can hold less information: the information isn't destroyed, it's moved.
The same amount of information exists in the same amount of substance (which is now scattered over a larger distance), but our ability the relevance of that information to us has decreased.
But I'll do my best to explain it.
Information in our brain comes about through patterning, the patterns of the various substances which make up the brain (right from quarks, all the way up to areas of the brain), the state in which everything is arranged represents the information it holds. When our brain dies, the amount of substance decreases, and thus can hold less information: the information isn't destroyed, it's moved.
The same amount of information exists in the same amount of substance (which is now scattered over a larger distance), but our ability the relevance of that information to us has decreased.
It all depends on your definition of 'information'. In Physics terms, information is just the configuration of millions upon millions of subatomic particles. Should you die, the configuration remains the same, until natural processes of decay change this configuration - in which case the information is transformed, but not destroyed.
It's also a fascinating philosophical question depending on whether you consider a fact to be 'destroyed' if nobody knows about it. Let's say Freddie the people-watcher collates statistics about how many people in red-coats passed his cafe on a certain day. He then dies of loneliness, and that information is 'lost' - but does it still exist? After all, the same number of people still passed Freddie's cafe, regardless of whether anyone remembers it or not. If it doesn't exist (because no human consciousness holds that information) - would it exist if it could be determined from CCTV records? Would wiping the tape 'destroy' the information, or watching it 'unlock' the information?
I could keep asking questions along these lines all day
It's also a fascinating philosophical question depending on whether you consider a fact to be 'destroyed' if nobody knows about it. Let's say Freddie the people-watcher collates statistics about how many people in red-coats passed his cafe on a certain day. He then dies of loneliness, and that information is 'lost' - but does it still exist? After all, the same number of people still passed Freddie's cafe, regardless of whether anyone remembers it or not. If it doesn't exist (because no human consciousness holds that information) - would it exist if it could be determined from CCTV records? Would wiping the tape 'destroy' the information, or watching it 'unlock' the information?
I could keep asking questions along these lines all day
Original post by W-Three
Surely there are multiple types of information, and the type of information which cannot be destroyed (as with energy) is not necessarily comparable to information held within our brain. They are two different things....
[after death,]
The same amount of information exists in the same amount of substance (which is now scattered over a larger distance), but our ability the relevance of that information to us has decreased.
[after death,]
The same amount of information exists in the same amount of substance (which is now scattered over a larger distance), but our ability the relevance of that information to us has decreased.
and
Original post by bugsuper
It all depends on your definition of 'information'. In Physics terms, information is just the configuration of millions upon millions of subatomic particles.
...Let's say Freddie the people-watcher collates statistics about how many people in red-coats passed his cafe on a certain day. He then dies of loneliness, and that information is 'lost' - but does it still exist?
...Let's say Freddie the people-watcher collates statistics about how many people in red-coats passed his cafe on a certain day. He then dies of loneliness, and that information is 'lost' - but does it still exist?
I think you're both on to something that's missing.
There are two types of information: the scientific one is factual, the personal information is not. The first one is what is observed, the second one is relative to the observer. When Hawking starts saying that information is relative rather than fixed, unlike conserved energy, then I'll start taking him more seriously.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Could it be possible that you are everyone that has ever lived, and that will live
- Ban on single-use plastic cutlery comes into force in England
- we're all going to die, soon
- Reincarnation?
- Why do I feel like this?
- What is the meaning of life?
- Clearing FAQ's - Here to help you (:
- Applicant Frequently Asked Questions
- Huge problem. Please help
- A Level Results Day 2022 - Peterhouse Admissions' FAQ
- I feel very depressed and Lonely?
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- AQA GCSE Biology Paper 1 (Higher Tier) 2022
- Could anyone mark this essay and give me a mark out of 30, English Lit Paper 1 AQA
- Remembrance Day . . . remembering what?
- about marriage
- AQA GCSE Biology Paper 1 (Higher Tier) 8461/1H - 17 May 2022 [Unofficial Mark Scheme]
- Relationships and ethnicity
- lost my mbbs offer
- A guide to Clearing
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
