It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Time Traveler's Dilemma - Is the future fixed?

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by boaby_phet

Originally posted by sirnex


First I have to laugh.

Secondly, I have to ask where does this capacity for atoms to form a car exist until a car is actually formed?


From the laws of physics (for lack of better words), and no I don't mean laws as is defined by human language. I mean the set forces and constants that pre-existed before any sentient life could impart "information" in the form of language or knowledge.

Again, your response begs me to ask you:

In what context do you define information when claiming information is unbounded by space and time?






[edit on 18-5-2010 by sirnex]


quoted for complete truth and common sence!

if something has never exist how can it be stored somewhere till it does exist, thats a paradox and paradoxies are just a problem which has not been answered correctly!

WTF are you talking about? Can you be more clear in what your trying to say?

OP "The information to build a car existed 2,000 years ago"

Me: "No, it didn't because that information was not discovered yet" (information as knowledge)

OP: "I'm not talking about the knowledge of how to build a car. The *information* did exists because it didn't just pop up out of no where when we discovered it."

Me: "OK, so where was this information stored then?" [information as data)

OP: SCREW YOUR OPINION! This is about my ideas, not yours! Your a troll for asking me to clarify in what context I'm defining information when saying information is not bound by space and time!"

Me: "Why is it so hard to get a simple question answered? Why does it have to resort to five pages of bitching and evading?

Are we clear on the events now in regards to this information angle f discussion? Or do you want me to break it down even more simpler?




posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



Our predetermined path is determined by the choices we make before we make them (think about that one for a second).


That is a deterministic universe. Please read the wiki link I provided.

WTF are you trying to argue here? Determinism or no determinism? If you slow down and *&^%$# clarify what your saying like I keep asking you (talk about a brick wall!), then I can debate the damn thing properly rather than feel like I'm talking to a one year old that learned how to say poop over and over whilst running around in circles.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by boaby_phet
 


You said:


From the laws of physics (for lack of better words), and no I don't mean laws as is defined by human language. I mean the set forces and constants that pre-existed before any sentient life could impart "information" in the form of language or knowledge.


Where did this sentient life gather the information from? Did the information just pop into existence when the sentient being was born? So are you saying the laws of physics stored this information or that the information appeared out of nowhere when the laws of physics accidently made sentient beings that are full of information that just popped into existence? Do sentient beings have the power to move the laws of physics to create information out of nothing? Where do sentient beings get this capacity?

What equations, tested theories or published papers are you basing this on? This sounds like your silly entropy is everything theory.

I base what I'm saying on information theory. Information is stored on bits and qubits. A computer and a quantum computer is based on information that's already inherent in nature. We can see bit's and qubits in atoms and subatomic particles.

So if I put 2 marks on a piece of paper that's information stored. It exist independent of someone recieving the information.

This is what I explained to you earlier but you don't subscribe to Einstein, Quantum mechanics or information theory.

Let me ask you, where are bits stored in the laws of physics before we magically make them appear and use them for things like computers?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I have clarified what I'm saying. You are just trying to debate what you want to debate.

I have said over and over again.

It's predetermined not fixed.

This means even if the outcome is predetermined it can be altered because of randomness and uncertainty. This is why I referenced Einstein saying God doesn't play dice and I ended it by saying welcome to the dice game.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? Do you understand that I'm not just talking about determinism but indeterminism?

I wish you would listen and you would stop trying to debate what you want to debate and debate what I have said.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?!

Why are you responding to him for something *I* said? LEARN TO READ!


Where did this sentient life gather the information from?


INFORMATION IN WHAT CONTEXT DO YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY INFORMATION IS UNBOUNDED BY SPACE AND TIME?

Knowledge
Data
WHAT?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


OK, I'm out. I'm sick of trying to figure out your circular arguments and asking you to clarify them. I'm sick of you evading and personally attacking my opinions rather than the science you used which I used against you.

Your too immature to continue discussing this with. Piss off.

It was one damn simple question, and you can't *&^%$# answer it.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


You're just stalling because you're not making any sense. This is because your entropy is everything theory is a made up fantasy in your mind. It has no equations, published papers or tested theories to support it.

I keep saying information in the form of bits and qubits.

These bits and qubits are stored on things like atoms and subatomic particles. Since we know that matter or energy can't be created nor destroyed, so you can't create new information because you can't create new matter and energy. So the universe contains all the information from the past and the future of our universe. It goes even further but I will stop right there.

Sentient beings can just process and discover this information.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



You're just stalling because you're not making any sense. This is because your entropy is everything theory is a made up fantasy in your mind. It has no equations, published papers or tested theories to support it.


Really? No equations at all exist? So your demanding we just throw out the second law of thermodynamics? That makes no sense! It's just idiotic!

entropy Keep reading until you find the arrow of time part, then keep reading some more.


I keep saying information in the form of bits and qubits.


OK, so my assumption of why you quoted Seth Lloyd stating the universe is like a gigantic quantum computer is correct. Thank you for finally admitting that as his whole basis of quantum information in that interview was based upon that very concept.



These bits and qubits are stored on things like atoms and subatomic particles.


OK, I'm following you now so far, hopefully you don't run off on a wild circular tangent again.


Since we know that matter or energy can't be created nor destroyed, so you can't create new information because you can't create new matter and energy.


This is where I'm going to disagree. Allow me to explain.

Now, I agree matter/energy can't be created/destroyed, but information *can* be. Information in the context you've just described as bits of data stored in atoms as 'qubits' is entirely dependent upon the configuration of the physical system, which is bound by space and time.

For example, the word idiot is a packet of information. On your monitor, the word idiot is so many pixels high and so many pixels long. In order for that packet of information to be displayed in any meaningful manner, the pixels must be physically arranged and exited in such a way for that packet of information to exist.

Now, let's take our monitor and completely smash it to all hell and then scatter every single atom across the entire universe where none can interact. Idiot can no longer exist as a packet of information if those atoms are not physically configured as pixels and exited.

We can extrapolate the packet of information into the human brain. Idiot in this sense exists as part of a language. That language exist due to how the brain evolved. That brain evolved due to atoms existing. Yet, before that brain evolved, idiot didn't exist as a packet of information as it is dependent upon the physical configuration of the neurons that stored each 'bit' of that packet.

Can you show me how idiot as a packet of information existed without being bound by physical configuration?


So the universe contains all the information from the past and the future of our universe. It goes even further but I will stop right there.


Can you show that the past and future are actualities in which ... well, anything can exist in?


Sentient beings can just process and discover this information.


Take a group of 100 xenon atoms. Show me how those qubits have the information to build a car.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Again, your debating what you want to debate and not what I said.

Seth Lloyd has said the universe is a Quantum Computer because everything is information.

The universe as a quantum computer is just a theory to explain why everything is information.

Here's what he said about "information."


How do you explain Programming to your kids?
I tell them that it says everything in the universe is made of bits. Not chunks of stuff, but chunks of information - ones and zeros.

I've just put on your magic glasses, and looking around I see that, oh my gosh, everything is computing. Is this just fashionable?
Computers are our favorite metaphor at the moment, so maybe we see everything as com�puters. But this view is not that facile. Statistical mechanics, which underlies all chemistry, grew out of the realization that the world is information. The mathematical definition of a bit was first �postulated not during the 1930s and '40s when Claude Shannon and Norbert Weiner started information theory but by James Clerk Maxwell and Ludwig Boltzmann during their 19th-�century explorations of the nature of the atom. They were working on thermo�dynamics, but they discovered that the world was made of information.


Seth Lloyd uses quantum computers to explain how this information is processed. Some people say that it's processed in other ways.

Your example doesn't work because every configuration of matter is stored on bits and qubits.

So a car doesn't have to be assembled in order for that information to be stored. Again, matter nor energy can't be created nor destroyed so there isn't any new information or new configuration that can be created out of nowhere. That doesn't make sense.

Again, you're saying information is created when it's discovered and we would have to throw out everything from quantum mechanics to information theory to accept something that makes no sense.

I also noticed you didn't answer my questions:


Where did this sentient life gather the information from? Did the information just pop into existence when the sentient being was born? So are you saying the laws of physics stored this information or that the information appeared out of nowhere when the laws of physics accidently made sentient beings that are full of information that just popped into existence? Do sentient beings have the power to move the laws of physics to create information out of nothing? Where do sentient beings get this capacity?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



Again, you're saying information is created when it's discovered and we would have to throw out everything from quantum mechanics to information theory to accept something that makes no sense.


Great, just as I predicted. Going off on a wild circular tangent again.

No where in my response did I say information is created when it's discovered. Meaningful information, say, the instructions to build a car, is dependent upon how ordered that information is. Such as I laid out, dependent upon that information being in meaningful chunks.

You bring up information theory as if it's agreeing with you, yet it's not. Here, allow me to quote something from a name you will surely recognize.

Shannon entropy



In layman's terms, information entropy is the same as randomness. A string of random letters along the lines of "fHJZXpVVbuqKbaazaaw" can be said to have high information entropy, in other words large amounts of entropy: the complete works of Shakespeare, by contrast, have lower information entropy, because when forming meaningful words certain combinations of letters are more likely to occur than others. For example in English if you see a q in a word you can be almost certain it is followed by a 'u'. In other words, using the coin example you can be more confident betting on the outcome of the next letter in a story than you would betting on the next letter in a random string.
link

As you can no doubt readily see, the bits may still exist, but as meaningful information, such as building a car or using language to colorfully describe an idiot, the bits need to have a lower ordered entropy.

You can't take those 100 xenon atoms and say all the information to the secrets of the universe are contained within them, as those 100 xenon atoms are in a random high entropy mess devoid of any meaning.

OK, your turn!



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Did you even read what you just quoted?

It says:


In layman's terms, information entropy is the same as randomness. A string of random letters along the lines of "fHJZXpVVbuqKbaazaaw" can be said to have high information entropy, in other words large amounts of entropy: the complete works of Shakespeare, by contrast, have lower information entropy, because when forming meaningful words certain combinations of letters are more likely to occur than others. For example in English if you see a q in a word you can be almost certain it is followed by a 'u'. In other words, using the coin example you can be more confident betting on the outcome of the next letter in a story than you would betting on the next letter in a random string.


This supports what I'm saying.

Bits and qubits store these different configurations of matter rather it's a string of letters or a car.

Again, matter nor energy can be created or destroyed so every configuration of matter is stored on bits and qubits from the simple (poking two holes in a piece of paper) to something more complex (a car). This information is stored on the bits and qubits inherent in nature.

The problem we have here is that you're not debating anything I'm saying, you're trying to debate your point of view and silly theories.

You said this:


As you can no doubt readily see, the bits may still exist, but as meaningful information, such as building a car or using language to colorfully describe an idiot, the bits need to have a lower ordered entropy.


Now after all this time you're admitting what I have been saying from the beginning. That these bits exist. Did these bits exist 2,000 years ago? LOL

Now your saying the bits need to have a lower ordered entropy state. Whether it's a higher information entropy state or a lower information entropy state it's still a configuration of matter and energy that's stored on bits and qubits that you now say exist.

I also see that you keep ducking my questions. This is because you don't want a debate, you want me to debate you based on your wild beliefs and speculation.


Where did this sentient life gather the information from? Did the information just pop into existence when the sentient being was born? So are you saying the laws of physics stored this information or that the information appeared out of nowhere when the laws of physics accidently made sentient beings that are full of information that just popped into existence? Do sentient beings have the power to move the laws of physics to create information out of nothing? Where do sentient beings get this capacity?


Again, you're not here to debate what I'm saying. You're trying to conform what I'm saying to your wild speculation because you don't understand what you're talking about.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Matrix Rising]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



This supports what I'm saying.


Oh boy, back to the delusional "I'm right about my crazy ideas because I said so" argument.


Bits and qubits store these different configurations of matter rather it's a string of letters or a car.


What? Can you please clarify what your babbling about there.


Again, matter nor energy can be created or destroyed


Slow down there buddy, it sound's like your arguing two things now. Can or can't, as in, can you or can't you post with just a smidgen bit more intelligence?


so every configuration of matter is stored on bits and qubits from the simple (poking two holes in a piece of paper) to something more complex (a car). This information is stored on the bits and qubits inherent in nature.


What? Your not making any sense, I'm not surprised as your arguing from delusional fantasy land.

Let's use C++ as an analogy here. If you take all the instructions in C++ and throw them together in no meaningful way, nothing meaningful will come from it.

Just as if you throw those 100 xenon atoms together, nothing meaningful will come out of it.

Here is another example:

Lets say this sequence of letters comprise all the atoms in a car, the exact information that makes a car, a car.

h8tn5gi9ma2q4plco1e7zu0brnkdx3s6ytf

Now, the atoms, or bits as you like to call them pose no meaningful information about the car. It has the potential to become a car, but despite all the required bits being there, it's no where near a car or information about a car.

now, if I reconfigure the atoms into a more ordered state, then the information about the car becomes created from that jumbled mess.

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz1234567890

Now, what your demanding is that we believe your silly idea that the jumbled mess tells us EVERYTHING about the car, and to boot, two thousand years ago!


The problem we have here is that you're not debating anything I'm saying, you're trying to debate your point of view and silly theories.


Are you high, drunk, a sped? Help me to understand you better. You brought up the issue and here I am debating it, but then in delusional fantasy land, some how responding to your bringing up information is not debating what you brought up? How sad it must be to be you.


Now after all this time you're admitting what I have been saying from the beginning. That these bits exist. Did these bits exist 2,000 years ago? LOL


ROFLMFAO! I instantly got the imagery of a mentally handicapped person spinning in circles shouting "I DID IT!!!"

No, not at all. I'm using your terminology which you defined bits as atoms, so the two terms by your definition are interchangeably valid in discussion. Note: meaningless chunks of bit do not equal meaningful packets of information.



Now your saying the bits need to have a lower ordered entropy state. Whether it's a higher information entropy state or a lower information entropy state it's still a configuration of matter and energy that's stored on bits and qubits that you now say exist.


Why do you have a problem with that? Was the Shannon I quoted not the same Shannon you mentioned? Why mention Shannon if you don't want to discuss Shannon Entropy as outlined in Information Theory?

It's like... You want to talk about just your opinions and if any aspect of the science itself disagrees with your opinion you want us to ignore it and believe blindly that your right. It's just idiotic!


I also see that you keep ducking my questions. This is because you don't want a debate, you want me to debate you based on your wild beliefs and speculation.


What in the world are you talking about? I did address this more than a couple of times already. You don't like the answer so you make up this crazy delusional argument that I haven't answered you.

This is like talking to someone in a mental institution. Forget brick walls, this is just plain bonkers crazy feces! :LOL:



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Boy, you just make up stuff as you go. Like I said you're not trying to debate what I'm saying but you're trying to conform what I'm saying to your idiotic entropy is everything theory.

You had to be one of those kids in school that nobody liked.

Listen to what you just said:


Now, the atoms, or bits as you like to call them pose no meaningful information about the car. It has the potential to become a car, but despite all the required bits being there, it's no where near a car or information about a car.


This is just nonsense. Whatis this based on? Where does it say that bits can only encode meaningless information? Have you typed on your computer lately? Bits can store complex or simple information. Where do you get this nonsense?

You also said:


I'm using your terminology which you defined bits as atoms, so the two terms by your definition are interchangeably valid in discussion. Note: meaningless chunks of bit do not equal meaningful packets of information.


Again you just sound silly. You're not trying to debate, you're just running to a website and posting about information theory which you don't understand. I now remember you did this on another posts and you looked silly then and you look silly now.

Where did I say bits and atoms were interchangable?

I said this:


These bits and qubits are stored on things like atoms and subatomic particles. Since we know that matter or energy can't be created nor destroyed


I never said they were interchangable.

The problem here is that you're ignorant about these things because your silly entropy is everything doesn't make any sense.

I suggest you go and read about these things before you debate them because you're just cutting and pasting things out of context because you don't know what they mean.

Again, I don't have any problem with Shannon and did you read what I said:


Now your saying the bits need to have a lower ordered entropy state. Whether it's a higher information entropy state or a lower information entropy state it's still a configuration of matter and energy that's stored on bits and qubits that you now say exist.


What's so hard to understand about that?

First you said nothing could exist in the future or the past because of your silly entropy is everything theory

A few pages ago you was throwing out everything from Einstein to Information Theory, now you admit that these bits exist but you say there's a limit on how much information these bits can holdbased on your profound theory you just made up called "meaningful packets of information" LOL.

You say:


meaningless chunks of bit do not equal meaningful packets of information


What are meaningful packets of information? Give me the mathematical description of the meaningful packets of information LOL. This is too funny. You're just making up stuff.

I want you to show me a peer reviewed paper that uses "meaninful packets of information."

For your informatin, bits and qubits can store abdftyhvdersc or I went to the market. Bits and Qubits can store both simple and complex information.

What in the world are meaningless chunks of bits?????????

If you have bits, they store information:

11001011
10010111
01111111
10000000

Bits and qubits store information there's no such thing as meaningless chunks of bits or meaningful packets of information.

You're just making stuff up as you go and you look silly. You should first try to understand these things before you comment on them.

You're living in a fantasy. First you don't subcribe to quantum mechanics or Einstein and you have this silly theory that says entropy is everything yet you don't know anything about the theory. Now you're trying to debate information theory and you're talking about meaningless chunks of bits and meaningful packets of information.

Pure Nonsense!

You also haven't answered any questions:


Where did this sentient life gather the information from? Did the information just pop into existence when the sentient being was born? So are you saying the laws of physics stored this information or that the information appeared out of nowhere when the laws of physics accidently made sentient beings that are full of information that just popped into existence? Do sentient beings have the power to move the laws of physics to create information out of nothing? Where do sentient beings get this capacity?


A bit of information can be encoded on a piece of paper by sticking two holes in the paper. So someone can look at the paper and 2 holes means meet me at Burger King and 1 hole means meat me at Wendy's. I have just transferred information and the universe can store simple and complex information on bits and qubits.

Please stop trying to debate with made up terms.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Matrix Rising]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
perhaps time isn't always the non-plurality mono-thiestic environments and societies of centralized governments convince us it may be.

Perhaps time is a simultaneously plural phenomenon.

perhaps out of necessity.

if waiting in the future is nothing more than pre-ordained events equated with destiny, then any and all actions become no longer an individual endeavor, but a collective's property.

The lone individual verses what all creation dictates what the individual is destined to do, without question, a lifetime spent doing decisions already pre-made by whomever is permitted to have authority......



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



Boy, you just make up stuff as you go. Like I said you're not trying to debate what I'm saying but you're trying to conform what I'm saying to your idiotic entropy is everything theory


What are you talking about? You brought up your opinion on information and now I'm debating it as Information Theory and QM don't mention any of your made up garbage. I neither said anything about entropy is everything, why do you have to lie? Do you honestly believe lying about things boosts your credibility? That's just idiotic!


You had to be one of those kids in school that nobody liked.


Far from it, but even I would rather that than to be one of those sped kids making up delusional lies and garbage.


This is just nonsense. Whatis this based on? Where does it say that bits can only encode meaningless information? Have you typed on your computer lately? Bits can store complex or simple information. Where do you get this nonsense?


What are you talking about? It's like you will only believe certain aspects of Information Theory *only* if it's in agreement with you.

Your making no sense at all. Obviously you don't know much about computers beyond one finger pecking to type out just unintelligible gibberish. In computers, a bit by itself has no meaningful information. You can't even take two bits '01' and get the next killer halo game out of them. You need many many many bits configured in a meaningful way to get a meaningful use out of them.

Like I said, using C++ as an example, if you just jumble all the instructions in C++ together in random order (high entropy according to Information Theory) then it's devoid of meaning and use. If you order those instructions in a meaningful way, you get the next killer halo game (low entropy according to Information Theory)

To further add insult to injury, all those instructions are composed of many many many bits, not ONLY a 1 and a 0, but *MANY* of them.


Again you just sound silly. You're not trying to debate, you're just running to a website and posting about information theory which you don't understand. I now remember you did this on another posts and you looked silly then and you look silly now.


What are you talking about? I'm using the very link you gave me. Do you do drugs often? I think it's messing with your mind to the point of making you very delusional and possibly a danger to society. You should get to a rehab clinic as soon as possible.


Where did I say bits and atoms were interchangable?


Do you understand anything about context? When you say the bits are stored on the atoms, then it no longer makes a difference which terminology is used. Unless you want to clarify how the bits can exist without the atoms. Until then, perhaps you should stop making up silly rules every time your own words are used against you.


I never said they were interchangable.


I never said you said they were interchangeable. I said that they were. Learn to comprehend what your reading and learn about context. If your saying that bits can exist without being stored on an atom, then please cite your sources of evidence.


The problem here is that you're ignorant about these things because your silly entropy is everything doesn't make any sense.


What are you talking about? You make up these delusional lies and then hypocritically post links to Information Theory but then want to argue against it?


A key measure of information in the theory is known as entropy, which is usually expressed by the average number of bits needed for storage or communication. Intuitively, entropy quantifies the uncertainty involved when encountering a random variable. For example, a fair coin flip (2 equally likely outcomes) will have less entropy than a roll of a die (6 equally likely outcomes).


Why give me a link about Information Theory if you don't agree with it? It's like you want me to throw out a key component of the Theory because it doesn't agree with your delusional ideas.


I suggest you go and read about these things before you debate them because you're just cutting and pasting things out of context because you don't know what they mean.


What? How is this out of context?


A key measure of information in the theory is known as entropy, which is usually expressed by the average number of bits needed for storage or communication. Intuitively, entropy quantifies the uncertainty involved when encountering a random variable. For example, a fair coin flip (2 equally likely outcomes) will have less entropy than a roll of a die (6 equally likely outcomes).


What are you talking about? Your possibly the most deluded person in all of existence of all sentient beings in the known universe. You really take the cake on this one!


Again, I don't have any problem with Shannon and did you read what I said:

Now your saying the bits need to have a lower ordered entropy state. Whether it's a higher information entropy state or a lower information entropy state it's still a configuration of matter and energy that's stored on bits and qubits that you now say exist.


What are you talking about? I'm not saying that, Shannon is saying that and you just said you don't have a problem with it, and now your hypocritically arguing with me because I quoted it? Make up your mind, do you or do you not have a problem with it? Let me quote Shannon again for you.


In layman's terms, information entropy is the same as randomness. A string of random letters along the lines of "fHJZXpVVbuqKbaazaaw" can be said to have high information entropy, in other words large amounts of entropy: the complete works of Shakespeare, by contrast, have lower information entropy, because when forming meaningful words certain combinations of letters are more likely to occur than others. For example in English if you see a q in a word you can be almost certain it is followed by a 'u'. In other words, using the coin example you can be more confident betting on the outcome of the next letter in a story than you would betting on the next letter in a random string.


What part of Shannon do you dislike? That random strings are devoid of meaning compared to ordered strings that can give information about, say, how to build a car?

You really need to figure out what your argument is here, it's very confusing trying to figure out what parts of Information Theory you want to believe in and what parts you demand we just throw out.


What's so hard to understand about that?


What's not to understand? Your telling me you agree and then disagree. I don't understand contradictory delusional beliefs.


First you said nothing could exist in the future or the past because of your silly entropy is everything theory


What are you talking about? I said nothing can exist in the future or past because neither exist. You need to see a psychiatrist and figure out exactly which mental disorder you have. You keep making up these delusional lies.


A few pages ago you was throwing out everything from Einstein to Information Theory, now you admit that these bits exist but you say there's a limit on how much information these bits can holdbased on your profound theory you just made up called "meaningful packets of information" LOL.


Why are you so delusional Matrix? Did you parents beat you as a child and now your traumatized and created this delusional little fantasy land that causes you to pathologically lie about what other people are saying?

Your taking different aspects of the discussion and trying to push it all into some meaningless jumbled mess as if it's one whole part of your delusional lala land. No, I don't subscribe to everything aspect of Einstein as per evidence and recent discoveries dictate that I shouldn't. When reconciling QM with GR, time disappears. I already posted a link about this.

I'm sorry if my laymans terminology of meaningful packets of information is confusing you and causing so much mental anguish. Here, let me post that quote from Shannon again for you. I just wish I knew if you had a problem or not with it as your trying to say you are of both opinions.


In layman's terms, information entropy is the same as randomness. A string of random letters along the lines of "fHJZXpVVbuqKbaazaaw" can be said to have high information entropy, in other words large amounts of entropy: the complete works of Shakespeare, by contrast, have lower information entropy, because when forming meaningful words certain combinations of letters are more likely to occur than others. For example in English if you see a q in a word you can be almost certain it is followed by a 'u'. In other words, using the coin example you can be more confident betting on the outcome of the next letter in a story than you would betting on the next letter in a random string.


Now, let's use our brain for a second, if you can manage that. Random invariably would be meaningless, sort of like your delusional crazy ideas. Ordered would obviously be meaningful compared to randomness. Do you agree or do you still want to make up some crazy excuses pulled out of your ass?


What are meaningful packets of information? Give me the mathematical description of the meaningful packets of information LOL. This is too funny. You're just making up stuff.


How do you figure I'm making this up? You just said you have no problem with Shannon and then you keep telling me you do. Make up your mind!



[edit on 19-5-2010 by sirnex]

[edit on 19-5-2010 by sirnex]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



For your informatin, bits and qubits can store abdftyhvdersc or I went to the market. Bits and Qubits can store both simple and complex information.


Right, a string of bits. One bit is not going to give you all the information to build a car, unless you can show me your peer reviewed research papers that say one bit contains all the secrets of car manufacturing.


If you have bits, they store information:

11001011
10010111
01111111
10000000

Bits and qubits store information there's no such thing as meaningless chunks of bits or meaningful packets of information.


Really? So, this string holds meaning to you, Lgt80-JHrtdsi9?

What message is that string conveying to you down in delusional lala land?


You're just making stuff up as you go and you look silly. You should first try to understand these things before you comment on them.


What are you talking about? Your sitting there saying you have no problem with it and then saying you do. Then somehow in delusional lala land, I'm making stuff up? Your crazy beyond all belief!


You're living in a fantasy. First you don't subcribe to quantum mechanics or Einstein and you have this silly theory that says entropy is everything yet you don't know anything about the theory. Now you're trying to debate information theory and you're talking about meaningless chunks of bits and meaningful packets of information.


What? Now your just purposefully lying, talk about living in fantasy land!

No, I don't subscribe to QM or GR as per recent evidence and research indicate that I shouldn't. I'm a forward moving person. I go with the flow and pace of current scientific discoveries rather than making up crazy delusional ideas based on archaic science that's nearly a hundred years old.

I also believe in heavier than air flight and that we're not the center of the universe!


A bit of information can be encoded on a piece of paper by sticking two holes in the paper. So someone can look at the paper and 2 holes means meet me at Burger King and 1 hole means meat me at Wendy's. I have just transferred information and the universe can store simple and complex information on bits and qubits.


What are you talking about?

So your saying that all the information to build a car exists in ONE bit? Can you provide any peer reviewed research and experiments that have been able to extract all the information to build a car from one bit?

Your about as delusional as one can get. You want everyone to believe that the information to build a car exists in one bit? That's just idiotic!


LMFAO, ok your turn!


[edit on 19-5-2010 by sirnex]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


At first he rejected everything from QM, Einstein, Information theory, theoretical physics and more now he's trying to conform information theory to his silly theory without understanding what he's talking about.

Bits and qubits can store both a string of letters or a complex design. Bits and Qubits can store every configuration of matter and like I said earlier many people believe information exists at the fundamental level even when space and time evolve into infinity at planck scales.

You're a BS artists that doesn't have a clue and before I discuss anything with you, you have to answer some questions instead of post links out of context and it's obvious you have no clue what it means.

What are meaningful packets of information? I want you to show me one peer reviewed paper on information theory that uses this term. You keep quoting a paper that just says high information entropy can exist in say a string of letters and low entropy information entropy can exist in say a sentence. Where does it say anything about bit's and qubits can only store high information entropy LOL.

What are meaningless chunks of bits???????

Give me one peer reviewed paper on information theory that uses this nonsense.

Here's a journal on Information Theory. Maybe you can learn something by looking for "meaningless chunks of bits" or "meaningful packets of information."

ieeexplore.ieee.org...

All I want is one peer reviewed paper that says bits and qubits can't store "meaningful packets of information" that because there "useless chunks of bits." LOL

When most people don't understand something they learn about it first before they debate it and that way they don't look so silly.

I mean you come on a message board about science and technology and you discuss fantasy. You first talk about entropy is everything and say you don't subscribe to QM or Einstein and you don't provide one equation, one peer reviewed paper or one tested theory that would get anyone with half a brain to throw out QM or Einstein in favor of your wild speculation.

Now your talking about information theory and it's obvious that you don't understand what your talking about.

Like you quoted this:


In layman's terms, information entropy is the same as randomness. A string of random letters along the lines of "fHJZXpVVbuqKbaazaaw" can be said to have high information entropy, in other words large amounts of entropy: the complete works of Shakespeare, by contrast, have lower information entropy, because when forming meaningful words certain combinations of letters are more likely to occur than others. For example in English if you see a q in a word you can be almost certain it is followed by a 'u'. In other words, using the coin example you can be more confident betting on the outcome of the next letter in a story than you would betting on the next letter in a random string.


Then you said this:


Now, let's use our brain for a second, if you can manage that. Random invariably would be meaningless, sort of like your delusional crazy ideas. Ordered would obviously be meaningful compared to randomness. Do you agree or do you still want to make up some crazy excuses pulled out of your ass?


This is just pure nonsense and again you're just making things up because you don't understand it.

This just says there's high information entropy and low information entropy. It says nothing about a meaninful pack of information. It says nothing about meaningless chunks of bits. It says nothing about bit or qubits and that they can't store both a string of letters and a meaningful sentence.

After you saw how silly you looked because it's obvious that information has to be stored somewhere and it doesn't appear out of nowhere, you now say bit's exist but they can only store high information entropy like say a string of bits and they can't store low information entropy like a sentence.

WHAT?????

You're truly making yourself look bad because it's obvious you're making it up as you go.

Where has anyone said you can only store high information entropy on bits? LOL

Where has anyone used the term meaningful packets of information?

Where has anyone used the term meaningless packets of bits?

What are packets of bits and what makes them meaningless?

What are packets of information and where are these packets found and what equation governs these packets?

Again, you're talking about Shannon and random strings vs a sentence but what is your point? Nobody has said there isn't high information entropy states and low information entropy states.

You have to show that bits and qubits only store high information entropy states LOL.

What is the equation that tells you bits and qubits can only store high information entropy states?

What peer reviewed paper has told you this or did you just make it up?

Where did Shannon say bits only store high information entropy?

You said this:


As you can no doubt readily see, the bits may still exist, but as meaningful information, such as building a car or using language to colorfully describe an idiot, the bits need to have a lower ordered entropy.


Again, PURE NONSENSE.

Do you even know what bits are? Bits don't require a lower entropy state, bits can store a low or high information entropy state.

Where did Shannon or anyone say bits can't store a low information entropy state? This sentence makes no sense.


A bit or binary digit is the basic unit of information in computing and telecommunications; it is the amount of information that can be stored by a digital device or other physical system that can normally exist in only two distinct states. These may be the two stable positions of an electrical switch, two distinct voltage or current levels allowed by a circuit, two distinct levels of light intensity, two directions of magnetization or polarization, etc.


en.wikipedia.org...

Shannon Entropy is a measure of uncertainty in a random variable. So if you flip a fair coin the outcome is in a state of higher entropy than if you flip an unfair coin.

This is because the outcome of the fair coin is more uncertain than the unfair coin.

A bit can store the information from a high or low information entropy state.

You also didn't answer these questions:


Where did this sentient life gather the information from? Did the information just pop into existence when the sentient being was born? So are you saying the laws of physics stored this information or that the information appeared out of nowhere when the laws of physics accidently made sentient beings that are full of information that just popped into existence? Do sentient beings have the power to move the laws of physics to create information out of nothing? Where do sentient beings get this capacity?


[edit on 19-5-2010 by Matrix Rising]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 19-5-2010 by sirnex]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



At first he rejected everything from QM, Einstein, Information theory, theoretical physics and more now he's trying to conform information theory to his silly theory without understanding what he's talking about.


WTF... who are you talking to? Are you imagining that your replying to someone else while replying to me? Damn, I don't need any more proof of how delusional you've become. A mentally unstable loner living in a delusional lala fantasy land where you are prime ruler of the entire universe and everything you say is the truth!


Man, I gotta make up my own imaginative fantasy world too, but I don't think I could ever top yours! LMAO!


Bits and qubits can store both a string of letters or a complex design. Bits and Qubits can store every configuration of matter and like I said earlier many people believe information exists at the fundamental level even when space and time evolve into infinity at planck scales.


OK, before I tackle this...

Are you trying to lead me to believe that your saying a *single* bit can hold a string of information to say... build a car? That's just idiotic and Information Theory says nothing about that. LMFAO!

Why are you using Information Theory when it doesn't agree with what your saying? Where are you getting this information is unbounded by time and space and a single bit contains all the information needed to build a flying saucer and knowledge of how to destroy the evil alien overlords of the planet moron?

I've read it, but I just don't see it mentioned. LOL


You're a BS artists that doesn't have a clue and before I discuss anything with you, you have to answer some questions instead of post links out of context and it's obvious you have no clue what it means.


What are you talking about, what was out of context? I asked this and your offering up no insight. Your just whining and bitching like a little cry baby that got his toe stubbed.

What part of Information theory do you want me to throw out? This?


A key measure of information in the theory is known as entropy, which is usually expressed by the average number of bits needed for storage or communication. Intuitively, entropy quantifies the uncertainty involved when encountering a random variable. For example, a fair coin flip (2 equally likely outcomes) will have less entropy than a roll of a die (6 equally likely outcomes).


It's the one of the aspects of information theory that I've been discussing so far and it's the one you apparently have a problem with.

Or is it this?


In layman's terms, information entropy is the same as randomness. A string of random letters along the lines of "fHJZXpVVbuqKbaazaaw" can be said to have high information entropy, in other words large amounts of entropy: the complete works of Shakespeare, by contrast, have lower information entropy, because when forming meaningful words certain combinations of letters are more likely to occur than others. For example in English if you see a q in a word you can be almost certain it is followed by a 'u'. In other words, using the coin example you can be more confident betting on the outcome of the next letter in a story than you would betting on the next letter in a random string.


Do you want me to throw out two key components that make the entire theory work? Why would you demand I do that and then hypocritically bitch about me not accepting archaic science?

What's next?? Your going to tell me the Earth is the center of the universe and that heavier than air flight is impossible? LOL


What are meaningful packets of information? I want you to show me one peer reviewed paper on information theory that uses this term. You keep quoting a paper that just says high information entropy can exist in say a string of letters and low entropy information entropy can exist in say a sentence. Where does it say anything about bit's and qubits can only store high information entropy LOL.


What are you talking about? Where did I say anything remotely like that? Why do you feel the need to lie and destroy ... oh wait, never mind, forgot you have no credibility.



What are meaningless chunks of bits???????

Give me one peer reviewed paper on information theory that uses this nonsense.

Here's a journal on Information Theory. Maybe you can learn something by looking for "meaningless chunks of bits" or "meaningful packets of information."

ieeexplore.ieee.org...

All I want is one peer reviewed paper that says bits and qubits can't store "meaningful packets of information" that because there "useless chunks of bits." LOL


What are you talking about? Are you now saying you don't agree with Information theory and Shannon entropy? I used your links. I don't get it? Do you or do you not agree with those things?


When most people don't understand something they learn about it first before they debate it and that way they don't look so silly.


Gee, you think? Perhaps you should have put more effort into understanding what information is.


The concept of information is closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, data, form, instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, perception, and representation. In its most restricted technical meaning, information is an ordered sequence of symbols.
link

or bit


A bit or binary digit is the basic unit of information in computing and telecommunications; it is the amount of information that can be stored by a digital device or other physical system that can normally exist in only two distinct states. These may be the two stable positions of an electrical switch, two distinct voltage or current levels allowed by a circuit, two distinct levels of light intensity, two directions of magnetization or polarization, etc.
link

or qubit


A qubit has some similarities to a classical bit, but is overall very different. Like a bit, a qubit can have two possible values—normally a 0 or a 1. The difference is that whereas a bit must be either 0 or 1, a qubit can be 0, 1, or a superposition of both.
link

Your taking these words and making up your own meanings and definitions and saying it's not bound by space and time despite these things being bound by space and time. It's like, you want me to throw out everything proper definition and context and adopt your crazy made up opinions of how you think it ought to be.


I mean you come on a message board about science and technology and you discuss fantasy. You first talk about entropy is everything and say you don't subscribe to QM or Einstein and you don't provide one equation, one peer reviewed paper or one tested theory that would get anyone with half a brain to throw out QM or Einstein in favor of your wild speculation.


Who's discussing fantasy? I'm not the one making delusional claims that all the information to manufacture a car is contained within one bit or that somehow a bit is not bound by space and time.


Now your talking about information theory and it's obvious that you don't understand what your talking about.


What are you talking about? I'm not saying anything more than what I've been quoting. Your the one saying a bit contains all the information to build a car. I can't find this silly notion mentioned anywhere in information theory and I've asked you to point it out. Instead I'm met with more delusional crap spouting.


This is just pure nonsense and again you're just making things up because you don't understand it.


So you disagree with the definition of the terms? Well how do YOU want randomness and ordered to be defined?


In information science, irrelevant or meaningless data is considered to be noise. Noise consists of a large number of transient disturbances with a statistically randomized time distribution.
link


ordering - order: the act of putting things in a sequential arrangement;
link

So, I'm not allowed to use these definitions now? Can you please define them by your terms then? I don't see how we can have a meaningful discussion if you continuously make up your own random definitions and don't let anyone know what they are.


After you saw how silly you looked because it's obvious that information has to be stored somewhere and it doesn't appear out of nowhere, you now say bit's exist but they can only store high information entropy like say a string of bits and they can't store low information entropy like a sentence.


Why are you lying all the time? I never said bits don't exist. Of course they exist! Without bits, we wouldn't have thing's like computers. You've been telling me that information is not bound by space and time, then your telling me information is stored in bits and qubits which are bound by space in time. My question was, if they are not bound by space and time, then where is it stored? Where am I not being clear? Or rather, why are you lying and being contradictory all the time?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



WHAT?????

You're truly making yourself look bad because it's obvious you're making it up as you go.

Where has anyone said you can only store high information entropy on bits? LOL

Where has anyone used the term meaningful packets of information?

Where has anyone used the term meaningless packets of bits?

What are packets of bits and what makes them meaningless?

What are packets of information and where are these packets found and what equation governs these packets?


What are you talking about? Are you now saying you don't agree with information theory at all?


Again, you're talking about Shannon and random strings vs a sentence but what is your point? Nobody has said there isn't high information entropy states and low information entropy states.


Huh? Your making no sense, are you stoned?


You have to show that bits and qubits only store high information entropy states LOL.


What kind of drugs do you take? Read it again:


Shannon's entropy represents an absolute limit on the best possible lossless compression of any communication, under certain constraints: treating messages to be encoded as a sequence of independent and identically-distributed random variables, Shannon's source coding theorem shows that, in the limit, the average length of the shortest possible representation to encode the messages in a given alphabet is their entropy divided by the logarithm of the number of symbols in the target alphabet.


It's not talking about bits at all. Where are you getting all this nonsense from?


As you can no doubt readily see, the bits may still exist, but as meaningful information, such as building a car or using language to colorfully describe an idiot, the bits need to have a lower ordered entropy.


Again, PURE NONSENSE.


Bits, plural, more than one as in a random string of bits don't contain the information to build a car as is dictated by Shannon entropy. So, your now saying Shannon entropy is pure nonsense?


Do you even know what bits are? Bits don't require a lower entropy state, bits can store a low or high information entropy state.


Are you kidding? Why are you making things up and lying? Bits as in the bits of *information* that describe how to make a car. It's like your a five year old arguing that all balls are bouncy.

You really need to get out of your delusional fantasy lala land and stop lying about people and stop being so hypocritical. You'll never gain any credibility that way. Ah right, you don't care because your right all the time!



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join