Destruction of information

[Raymond]

We can't possibly know it anymore though.

Yep, and in the later universe, any atoms that don't fall into black holes will decay to photons over a very long time and the information will be even theoretically irretrievable.

Why would atoms decay to photons? If they would manage to stay out of black holes, they can't totally decay to photons. Say an atom contains equal amounts of electrons, protons, and neutrons. Now, a neutron, proton, and electron dont contain equal amounts of preons and anti preons, so they can't annihilate each other completely. Say we have one electron, one proton, and one neutron. An electron contains ttt a proton, TTVTTVtvv and a neutron TTVtvvtvv (where T,V are the charge 1/3, 0 preons and t,v are the
anti preons). You see that we are left with vvv, an anti neutrino. Maybe if this hits a neutrino,VVV, it can produce two photons. Anyhow, the information will be in the photons, like all photons and neutrinos evaporated from black holes, in zillions of years will contain the information of all matter once in existence. To say its retrievable is a fairytale though. It will be scrambled-up pretty badly (not to mention $%^&%$-up...). Somewhere though, the memory of your lovely dog will be still flowing then... Small solace...

[Sy Borg]

Look up proton decay.

[Raymond]

Look up proton decay.

If we consider the proton TTVTTVtvv, it's very easy to see it can decay in TTT, a positron, and TVVtvv, a neutral pion.

[Sy Borg]

Look up proton decay.

If we consider the proton TTVTTVtvv, it's very easy to see it can decay in TTT, a positron, and TVVtvv, a neutral pion.

There's also a matter of dark energy. Current models, such as they are, suggest the eventual pulling apart of baryonic matter by the accelerating expansion of space.

[Raymond]

Look up proton decay.

If we consider the proton TTVTTVtvv, it's very easy to see it can decay in TTT, a positron, and TVVtvv, a neutral pion.

There's also a matter of dark energy. Current models, such as they are, suggest the eventual pulling apart of baryonic matter by the accelerating expansion of space.

That's why photons dilute into oblivion, like I said.

[Sy Borg]

Look up proton decay.

If we consider the proton TTVTTVtvv, it's very easy to see it can decay in TTT, a positron, and TVVtvv, a neutral pion.

There's also a matter of dark energy. Current models, such as they are, suggest the eventual pulling apart of baryonic matter by the accelerating expansion of space.

That's why photons dilute into oblivion, like I said.

To be fair, I am not convinced that dark energy just keeps on becoming more extreme. Continuing with my "immature universe" thoughts, if a human continued growing at the rate that a baby does it would tear apart too. It may just be rapid growth of young phenomena.

[Raymond]

"To be fair, I am not convinced that dark energy just keeps on becoming more extreme."

I don't think it becomes more extreme. It's gravity (the opposite of dark energy, which causes repulsion and stays constant during expansion) that decreases relatively.

[Sy Borg]

"To be fair, I am not convinced that dark energy just keeps on becoming more extreme."

I don't think it becomes more extreme. It's gravity (the opposite of dark energy, which causes repulsion and stays constant during expansion) that decreases relatively. ;)

I've heard about this gravity-causes-repulsion idea. Not sure what to make of it.

[Raymond]

"To be fair, I am not convinced that dark energy just keeps on becoming more extreme."

I don't think it becomes more extreme. It's gravity (the opposite of dark energy, which causes repulsion and stays constant during expansion) that decreases relatively.

I've heard about this gravity-causes-repulsion idea. Not sure what to make of it.

I think my English grammar is not too good. I meant that dark energy is repulsive gravity. Gravity causes attraction. But since matter dilutes it gets lesser and lesser grip. Dark energy doesn't dilute.

[psyreporter]

Does anyone here know why the loss of life and consciousness are not considered to be a loss of information?

Did you already notice the website www.informationphilosopher.com and its partner-site www.metaphysicist.com concerning the subject information philosophy? It addresses your question in depth and has created a whole philosophy around it. The author is an astrophysics professor at Harvard.

The compatibilist philosopher Daniel Dennett invited Bob to take part in his graduate seminar on free will at Tufts in the Fall of 2010. He submitted many short papers to the seminar on his positions relative to Dennett's.

Bob was invited to present his two-stage model of free will at an "Experts Meeting" on Free Will at the Social Trends Institute in Barcelona, Spain in October, 2010, along with Robert Kane, editor of the Oxford Handbook on Free Will, Alfred Mele, who directed a program at Florida State University that studied free will with a $4.4 million grant from the Templeton Foundation, and Martin Heisenberg (a son of Werner Heisenberg), who claimed in Nature that even the lowest animals have a kind of "behavioral freedom."

[Raymond]

If we consider the proton TTVTTVtvv, it's very easy to see it can decay in TTT, a positron, and TVVtvv, a neutral pion.

There's also a matter of dark energy. Current models, such as they are, suggest the eventual pulling apart of baryonic matter by the accelerating expansion of space.

That's why photons dilute into oblivion, like I said.

To be fair, I am not convinced that dark energy just keeps on becoming more extreme. Continuing with my "immature universe" thoughts, if a human continued growing at the rate that a baby does it would tear apart too. It may just be rapid growth of young phenomena.

I think that's projecting human features into the universe. The fact that we don't grow further when grown up doesn't imply that the universe stops too.

What's gone when we die is the motion. This carries our memories and consciousness. Both are gone when we're dead. But the information about this motion is not gone.

[Sy Borg]

There's also a matter of dark energy. Current models, such as they are, suggest the eventual pulling apart of baryonic matter by the accelerating expansion of space.

That's why photons dilute into oblivion, like I said.

To be fair, I am not convinced that dark energy just keeps on becoming more extreme. Continuing with my "immature universe" thoughts, if a human continued growing at the rate that a baby does it would tear apart too. It may just be rapid growth of young phenomena.

I think that's projecting human features into the universe. The fact that we don't grow further when grown up doesn't imply that the universe stops too.

What's gone when we die is the motion. This carries our memories and consciousness. Both are gone when we're dead. But the information about this motion is not gone.

Humans are not the only entities that mature! For instance, the Earth/biosphere certainly seems more mature than it was when the surface consisted of only rocks, chemicals, water and microbes.

All dynamic natural systems go through the same approximate stages. Origins of natural systems tend to be to be chaotic and tumultuous, then entities settle down and complexify over time, then aspects start breaking down leading to final total breakdown of the system.

[Raymond]

That's why photons dilute into oblivion, like I said.

To be fair, I am not convinced that dark energy just keeps on becoming more extreme. Continuing with my "immature universe" thoughts, if a human continued growing at the rate that a baby does it would tear apart too. It may just be rapid growth of young phenomena.

I think that's projecting human features into the universe. The fact that we don't grow further when grown up doesn't imply that the universe stops too.

What's gone when we die is the motion. This carries our memories and consciousness. Both are gone when we're dead. But the information about this motion is not gone.

Humans are not the only entities that mature! For instance, the Earth/biosphere certainly seems more mature than it was when the surface consisted of only rocks, chemicals, water and microbes.

All dynamic natural systems go through the same approximate stages. Origins of natural systems tend to be to be chaotic and tumultuous, then entities settle down and complexify over time, then aspects start breaking down leading to final total breakdown of the system.

I didn't say humans are the only ones maturing. I said the fact that people don't physically grow all their life doesn't mean the universe doesn't either.

The biosphere of the Earth has matured in tandem with life. Sadly enough is technology killing it.

[Sy Borg]

To be fair, I am not convinced that dark energy just keeps on becoming more extreme. Continuing with my "immature universe" thoughts, if a human continued growing at the rate that a baby does it would tear apart too. It may just be rapid growth of young phenomena.

I think that's projecting human features into the universe. The fact that we don't grow further when grown up doesn't imply that the universe stops too.

What's gone when we die is the motion. This carries our memories and consciousness. Both are gone when we're dead. But the information about this motion is not gone.

Humans are not the only entities that mature! For instance, the Earth/biosphere certainly seems more mature than it was when the surface consisted of only rocks, chemicals, water and microbes.

All dynamic natural systems go through the same approximate stages. Origins of natural systems tend to be to be chaotic and tumultuous, then entities settle down and complexify over time, then aspects start breaking down leading to final total breakdown of the system.

I didn't say humans are the only ones maturing. I said the fact that people don't physically grow all their life doesn't mean the universe doesn't either.

The biosphere of the Earth has matured in tandem with life. Sadly enough is technology killing it.

I don't see technology as killing Earth. It's part of the Earth. The Earth is changing, as always.

[Raymond]

"I don't see technology as killing Earth. It's part of the Earth. The Earth is changing, as always."

Technology part of the Earth. It's part of a particular human tradition, i.e. science. You can even consider it art. As an expression of scientific ideas. But to say it's a part of Earth is objectifying it an making it inevitable. Which it isn't.