Science is moving from Materialism to Idealism and that's good news!

reply to post by neoholographic

Scientific American is the world's premier magazine of scientific discovery and technological innovation for the general public.

from the caption: Considered as information, it is as if...

"general public". come on man. do you seriously believe that there are tiny little triangles drawn out nice and neat on its surface, each one of them has inscribed within it a teeny tiny 1 or 0?

NO! that is an image for public consumption. the words "it is as if" mean that they are making pretend so that simpletons can get a grasp of it. if you cannot raise your level of discourse above this, then i cannot help you. holograms are not made of 1s and 0s. they are not made of bits. they are made of entangled states of quantum particles.

i do not take your words as derogatory... that is not the reason i am rejecting them. nor do i mean mine in that way. i am very sorry to have to be this blunt, but it appears you have quite a ways to go before you understand whats going on inside a hologram. a wonderful place to start would be the posts i have made about music and everything else you have found so pointless. perhaps you could use a dose of your own medicine and consider that it is YOU who have some education to obtain?

good luck.

Aphorism
Very difficult yet rewarding stuff to think about.

In what way has it rewarded you?

The Problems of Philosophy - Bertrand Russel

This is very interesting.

Those who are unaccustomed to philosophical speculation may be inclined to dismiss such a doctrine as obviously absurd. There is no doubt that common sense regards tables and chairs and the sun and moon and material objects generally as something radically different from minds and the contents of minds, and as having an existence which might continue if minds ceased. We think of matter as having existed long before there were any minds, and it is hard to think of it as a mere product of mental activity. But whether true or false, idealism is not to be dismissed as obviously absurd.

Taken from link above.

Aphorism
That being said...idealism is not the answer. It leads to solipsism and the idea that nothing matters if it's outside of mind. No mind no matter. No matter no mind. Stuff like that.

reply to post by neoholographic


I like where you're going here. I would like to suggest a few things concerning the relationship that exists between matter and information.

• Both matter and information are physical
  
• The structural basis of matter versus information make each dependent upon each other, even as each form of physical existence is structurally incompatible with the other.
  
• Matter exist only at the quantum rate of change (one unit of Planck time, perhaps), whereas each Fact Set of Information is physically permanent once it has become physically existent
  
• Information Fact Sets are an emergent system - the default macro-system (the Universe) response to each unit of Planck time (change) within that macro-system.
  
• Contextual precedent provides permanent entanglement between certain Fact Sets, thereby defining and refining the evolving identity of the macro-system as that system's principal defense against the loss or co-opting of its unique and inimitable identity (and, as a result, its physical existence)

This, of course, is only theoretical, but the logic is airtight (it does take a lot more than what I can, or will, post here to fully proof it out, but I have done so) and it does fit the empirical and forensic data that scientists have been gathering for decades. We're in final edits on a complete presentation on a Theory of Everything that thoroughly details exactly how all of this works, as well as how all of it ultimately came to pass. Explains a lot of stuff, from Dark Matter and Dark Energy to why people often do what it is that they do that directly threatens their very own survival, and why Homo Sapiens is the only species from this planet that commonly threatens its own material existence as a fundamental course of action and as an integral aspect of its evolutionary development.

Information is a critical key to fully understanding Reality. Keep poking around in this area and you'll achieve all kinds of fascinating revelations.

tgidkp

Information describing that car isn't destroyed, it spreads out across the event horizon of a black hole.

information is by definition sequential, the sequence of which is very very sensitive to corruption via 'noise' (bend in the cable or incorrectly transmitted).

You're confusing data representation media with information. Like confusing a video clip of a person with the person. This is where modern materialists and reductionists have become a crippling influence within the larger community of scientists and scientific thought.

on the other hand, a hologram is represented as the noise that is generated as the initial laser beam and the objective laser beam interfere with each other. further, a hologram is in no which way sequential: each single piece contains a copy of the whole. this is NOT information.

Information exists as physically permanent residual Fact Sets that gather sequentially in contextually entangled continuum "branches" to represent the countless trajectories of change/event units that occur and have already occurred sequentially and concurrently within a given macro-system (we call ours The Universe) at the universal quantum unit rate of change. This physically permanent, yet constantly evolving web of entangled continuum branches establishes the laws (physics, logic, ramification defaults) that govern how things happen and structure itself evolves within that macro-system through contextual precedent and the macro-system's own primordial impetus to do what it takes to persist as the unique and inimitable holon that it is.

it may seem as though i am making a semantic argument. i am not.

rather, we as scientists and metaphysicians need to de-emphasize this confusing metaphor and replace it with the real science of the future: chaos.

True chaos doesn't exist within any system. If it did, that system would not survive. Perceived chaos is just the observer's inability to determine the larger pattern as a result of failing to establish the proper perspective relative to the system under observation. True chaos doesn't and can't physically exist. It's conceptually anathema to the structural reliability that the physically existent system depends on to continue to persist and further develop in sophistication and complexity (its own primary survival response).

please be mindful of the meanings of the words you choose. it actually is important.

This, I can agree with.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


You've already proven to yourself that we do not matter. There's no point in trying to convince myself of it, because it doesn't matter.

reply to post by neoholographic

I think the debate between materialism and idealism is very interesting. Idealism is just basic common sense. For example, a TV is a construct of information that comes from the mind of the inventor. When you look at things like the holographic universe it says everything is a construct of information and therefore the raw materials that make up the universe don't have a 3 dimensional objective existence.

I don't see it as common-sense, nor does anyone else really. Tell someone that everything is information and they would think it absurd.

I don't see how a TV is a construct of information. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting a few terms, but it seems that when we're talking about "information", we're talking about our descriptions of reality and not actual reality.

David Deutsch even implies it:

If explanation is going to be the fundamental thing—our criterion, for example—about what is or isn't real, then we have to say that information, and this particular kind which we call "knowledge," is real and really does cause things….

This is all presupposing that our explanations—our criterions, our math—are more fundamental than that which we are attempting to explain. But I am unsure how we can assume that far without resorting to giant leaps of faith.

He also mentions how "information" travels from us, to computers, and you yourself use the analogy of a car and inventions—so then what of "information" is in things that we have had no hand in creating? A tree for instance. Is "information" found only of our descriptions of trees or what we think about trees?

reply to post by tgidkp



What??? We're talking about Scientific American not Mad Magazine. You said:

"general public". come on man. do you seriously believe that there are tiny little triangles drawn out nice and neat on its surface, each one of them has inscribed within it a teeny tiny 1 or 0?

What are you talking about general public? That's a representation of the holographic principle. It has nothing to do with for the "general public." Where's this secret that can't be shared with the general public when it comes to black hole thermodynamics and the holographic principle?

It's obvious that you don't know and instead of saying you don't know or at least trying to understand what's being said, you act like there's some secret being hidden from the general public and you can't discuss this secret language because people on this message board are too stupid to understand.

No, that's not for the "general public." It's an accurate representation of black hole thermodynamics and the holographic universe.

Do you understand what the image is depicting? You said it isn't information but it's depicting information for a reason because it's INFORMATION

reply to post by NorEaster


Thanks for the response, but I do disagree on some points. You said:

Both matter and information are physical

Like I said earlier, I agree with the Oxford Physicist and atheist David Deutsch. He said:

I think that the argument against free will from reductionism is just a mistake. It's a fundamental mistake. It's the idea that all explanation must be in terms of microscopic things. There's no philosophical argument in favor of that that I'm aware of. It's just an assumption. It has historical roots in how science centuries ago escaped from the clutches of the supernatural. And as I said earlier, certainly I'm opposed to any kind of modes of explanation in terms of immaterial things, in terms of abstractions, that contradict physics, but the idea that all such explanations by their very nature contradict physics is simply false….

To me, this is an astounding admission to the limits of materialism. For years, I have been saying that reality can't be reduced to it's material components. It just gives you an incomplete picture of reality.

Deutsch is saying the same thing. He's an atheist so to him the immaterial can't contradict physics therefore this includes the existence of God. I disagree with him on this point but like I said, this is an astounding admission for an atheist to make. Science can be dogmatic on this point and materialism becomes like a religious tenant but materialism fails on many levels when you try to reduce everything to a material process.

This also holds true for the holographic universe. The holographic universe gives information ghost like properties. Information isn't bound by the volume or configuration of an objective 3 dimensional reality.

It can't be because an objective 3 dimensional reality can't exist. This is why Susskind and others come out and say the 3 dimensional world is an illusion. It's really inescapable when you look at the math.

There's a limit to how much matter can fit into a volume of space. This is called maximum entropy and it's also an information bound that corresponds to the 3 dimensional object. Whether this object is the volume of a black hole or the volume of a TV.

What this tells us is that volume can't exist. If an objective 3 dimensional object of matter was taking up the volume of space, it would exceed maximum entropy for that volume of space and collapse into a black hole. What they discovered is the 3 dimensional object can be described in 2 dimensions. It's described by a 2 dimensional surface boundary 1/4 the size of it's volume.

So 3 dimensional volume has to be a hologram or an illusion because an objective 3 dimensional object made of matter would exceed maximum entropy allowed for that volume of space.

The holographic principle states that the entropy of ordinary mass (not just black holes) is also proportional to surface area and not volume; that volume itself is illusory and the universe is really a hologram which is isomorphic to the information "inscribed" on the surface of its boundary.[9]

en.wikipedia.org...

So information isn't physical. It doesn't depend on the configuration of an objective 3 dimensional reality. In fact, the configuration of a 3 dimensional reality we experience is determined by immaterial information.

NorEaster

True chaos doesn't exist within any system. If it did, that system would not survive. Perceived chaos is just the observer's inability to determine the larger pattern as a result of failing to establish the proper perspective relative to the system under observation. True chaos doesn't and can't physically exist. It's conceptually anathema to the structural reliability that the physically existent system depends on to continue to persist and further develop in sophistication and complexity (its own primary survival response).

I admit that much of what you wrote was well beyond me, but this paragraph makes perfect sense. I've known for a long time that true "chaos" doesn't exist.

reply to post by NorEaster

Information, in its most restricted technical sense, is a sequence of symbols that can be interpreted as a message. Information can be recorded as signs, or transmitted as signals. ... Conceptually, information is the message (utterance or expression) being conveyed.
wiki

i am under no such confusion about information and its carrier. i am familiar with your work, and your posts here are particularly fascinating. but pretty please do not try to usurp existing definitions with your own (quite lovely) constructions.

a holon is not, nor does it contain, information. in your example, the person is a person. a person is not information, it is a person. a person cannot be transmitted from transmitter to receiver as a sequence of symbols across some medium. on the other hand, the video is information.

ironically, what you have described as "a macro-system's own primordial impetus to do what it takes to persist", sounds quite a bit like a chaotic attractor.


in the excerpted text below, from ((J Theor Biol. 2011 May 21;277(1):41-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2011.02.013 Neural control of heart rate: the role of neuronal networking.)), is shown a stochastic analysis of the human heartbeat. it is determined that a healthy heartbeat is governed by a long range chaotic attractor of fractional dimension between 1 and 2. conversely, a diseased heartbeat is associated with brownian noise.



so a healthy human heartbeat is chaotic. but, as you pointed out, it is necessary to obtain the proper perspective of the system under observation... otherwise it can be mistaken for random noise. natural processes such as weather patterns and ocean currents and orbits around the sun: the universe is dominated by true really-for-real chaos which has been measured and studied. I cannot imagine why you would think otherwise.

neoholographic
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Thanks for the response, but I do disagree on some points. You said:

Both matter and information are physical

So information isn't physical. It doesn't depend on the configuration of an objective 3 dimensional reality. In fact, the configuration of a 3 dimensional reality we experience is determined by immaterial information.

edit on 23-12-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)

I don't see "physical" as meaning "material". Material existence isn't the same as physical existence. My reasoning is fairly simple and straightforward. Information - in its commonly understood role as the preserving agent of precedent and ramification within a defined physical system - directly affects the progressive development of material holons (biological evolution is probably the most widely known example of this) and even preserves the predilection enforcement structure within living cells that we have labeled DNA. Obviously, a materialist/reductionist approach to determining the "full functionality" of DNA and even "natural law" hasn't revealed anything beyond the nuts and bolts of the material end of the confluence structures responsible for these kinds of highly sophisticated determinants, and a thorough research effort into this topic will reveal that science has yet to nail down the "magic" behind it.

There is increasing interest within many scientific disciplines in the phenomenon of the Emergent System, and the physical existence of information as a system catalyst - in some cases - is beginning to emerge as a topic of serious consideration. Not for the older, more entrenched that hold the seats within academia, but there's an old saying that I'm going to try to accurately paraphrase here - "in professional academic circles, change is the result of funerals". Information won't be "physical" until the old guard has finally died off. We're still digging ourselves deeper into the quagmire that Bohr and Heisenberg (and Feynman after them) put us into with their absolute certainty that matter - and only matter - can be physically existent.

To be fair, the blame for this blind devotion to what's becoming a reality view that's increasingly harder to logically defend should be shared with the many thousands of scientists and lay-person enthusiasts who have simply taken what these men offered as learned speculation and declared it to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, even as the evidence continues to pile up against the notion that material existence is the only form of physical existence.

What's important to consider about the system impact of information (precedent, DNA, ramification preservation) is that a physical system can only ever be affected by that which is equally physical, regardless of whether that affecting physical something is physically structured in the same way as the system itself. Information definitely affects physical systems - even if only as a result of affecting a lesser component system within the macro-system, and causing that lesser system to then affect that macro-system. The lesser system is still a physical system, and it can't be affected by anything that doesn't exist as equally physical. This is the logical argument for the physical existence of information, and while anyone can simply dismiss this very simplified version of that argument, the facts concerning the nature of physical systems aren't affected by that dismissal.

Information is, and has already been proven to be, definitely physical. It's just going to take a lot of funerals before science is allowed to officially acknowledge that fact.

tgidkp
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Information, in its most restricted technical sense, is a sequence of symbols that can be interpreted as a message. Information can be recorded as signs, or transmitted as signals. ... Conceptually, information is the message (utterance or expression) being conveyed.
wiki

i am under no such confusion about information and its carrier. i am familiar with your work, and your posts here are particularly fascinating. but pretty please do not try to usurp existing definitions with your own (quite lovely) constructions.

I'm not usurping any definition. I'm clarifying the actual physical nature of information. I'm sorry if Wiki isn't accurate concerning the only definition of the term Information.

a holon is not, nor does it contain, information.

A Fact Set that is part of and integral to a specific informational continuum is a holon. That continuum is also a holon. A holon is a whole that exists within the structure of a larger whole. A holon can describe any "brick" in any "wall", as well as the "wall" itself. Ken Wilber liberated that term and gave it a whole range of new applications when he did so.

in your example, the person is a person. a person is not information, it is a person. a person cannot be transmitted from transmitter to receiver as a sequence of symbols across some medium. on the other hand, the video is information.

True. I didn't suggest that a video clip of a person was that person. "You're confusing data representation media with information. Like confusing a video clip of a person with the person." I was likening your own definition of information as media imprinted data representation with my own example of a similar example that (I assumed) would be much easier to recognize as being inaccurate. I didn't expect you to think that I was proposing it as being true.

ironically, what you have described as "a macro-system's own primordial impetus to do what it takes to persist", sounds quite a bit like a chaotic attractor.


in the excerpted text below, from ((J Theor Biol. 2011 May 21;277(1):41-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2011.02.013 Neural control of heart rate: the role of neuronal networking.)), is shown a stochastic analysis of the human heartbeat. it is determined that a healthy heartbeat is governed by a long range chaotic attractor of fractional dimension between 1 and 2. conversely, a diseased heartbeat is associated with brownian noise.

so a healthy human heartbeat is chaotic. but, as you pointed out, it is necessary to obtain the proper perspective of the system under observation... otherwise it can be mistaken for random noise. natural processes such as weather patterns and ocean currents and orbits around the sun: the universe is dominated by true really-for-real chaos which has been measured and studied. I cannot imagine why you would think otherwise.

Sporadic intra-system dynamics are one thing. True chaos is something entirely different. True chaos can not exist within a structured system. True chaos is akin to a physical singularity. It cannot have any perimeter that contains it relative to that which is not chaos (or, in the case of the physical singularity - not also it) True chaos doesn't and can't inflict itself upon an orderly system, since true chaos is itself the lack of a system of any kind. You could not exist to challenge my thoughts concerning this if the universe itself was chaos and only chaos. Nothing could exist.

Anyone that declares the full nature of their tiny slice of the universe is definitely not taking the entire system (that is the universe as a whole) into consideration. They're functioning like one of the blind guys who examined the elephant. Their perspective is overwhelming their perception. They aren't working to obtain the proper perspective of the system under observation.

NorEaster
Explains a lot of stuff, from Dark Matter and Dark Energy to why people often do what it is that they do that directly threatens their very own survival, and why Homo Sapiens is the only species from this planet that commonly threatens its own material existence as a fundamental course of action and as an integral aspect of its evolutionary development.

Does it also explain how people are able to perceive future events? Or how people are able to remote view distant events? Or how people are able to influence the output of random number generators with their minds?

Or does it merely explain it all away?

reply to post by NorEaster

I'm sorry if Wiki isn't accurate...

as also am i sorry. in a post i made earlier in the thread....

there are two exactly conflicting interpretations of 'entropy as information' in regular scientific use. not coincidentally, these two interpretations are related to the question of which has higher information content: high entropy, or low entropy?

as you can see, i also acknowledge the confusion generated within the scientific community surrounding the (mis)use of the word 'information'. a new term is needed. if we do not leave 'information' as it stands intact, we will not have anything to argue against.

i think you will find, if you will read my earlier posts (it looks to me like you read only the first one), you will find that you and i are in perfect agreement. you do not have to justify your use of the term 'holon'. ken wilber's "sex, ecology, spirituality" was the catalyst for the breaking-open my head.

i hate to be accusatory, but i really think you are underestimating the power and scope of chaos theory. it is absolutely able to account for the types of systems you are describing, especially holography, which is of interest in this thread. in my own description of this fundamental phenomena, i have given the term chaotic eigenstate.

also, what you are proposing effectively falls into a generalized macro-scale quantum theory. being that you, along with practically everyone else who understands quantum theory, appear to have an unhealthy fetish with the planck-length as quantized unit. appropriate reassignment of the quantization unit will lead to a theory which is able to unify all holons at all quadrants and all levels. (not pimping my own threads, honestly.)



i know you think that because NorEaster is (appears to be) disagreeing with me, that he must be arguing in your favor. he is. and because he and i are (yet unacknowledged) talking about the same thing... SO AM I also arguing in your favor.

unfortunately, the accusaction he leveled at me: "You're confusing data representation media with information." ought to be turned toward you, specifically regarding your insistance that information on a hard drive is comparable to information in a hologram (which is not information).

reply to post by BlueMule


sorry for answering a question not directed at me.

happily, much of what he is saying is in accordance with the writings of the philosopher Ken Wilber.

because of this, i think it is safe to say that we are attempting to explain, but not explain away.

I'm noticing this as well.

In psychology and neuroscience, for example, scientists are increasingly speaking of energy dynamics, information, flow.

When you get to the bottom of what happens between two individuals when they communicate, you have to recognize the energetic dynamics which not only pass between them, but literally regulate both of their response mechanisms.

In a sense, this is similar to computers. The human brain has 3 distinct "operating systems" that work together to process 3 different types of information flow.

There's the reptilian brain, the paleomammalian brain, and neomammalian brain. Each deals with a particular "level" of information. But the information each processes doesn't stagnate at the level that processes it, but circulates within the wider operating system of the human brain.

The reptilian brain is the brain stem, cerebellum, and lower parts of the limbic system. This is all automatic, and so, occurs beneath conscious attention. Basic body functions are automatically regulated from this area, but so is heart rate, breathing rate, balance and muscle tone. This area, however, is not isolated from the more evolved parts of the human brain, but continuously interacts with them.

The paleomammalian brain handles the more evolved social capacities of mammals - hence the name. This is also called the limbic system. Compared to the reptilian brain, there is more complexity here; there is also more spontaneity and unpredictability, as opposed to the very repetitive autonomic functions of the reptilian brain. Information flow within the paleomammalian brain is more complex, comprising many more different combinations than the reptilian brain.

But most complex is the newly evolved neomammalian brain - the neocortex where human cognition happens. Information flow from this area has precedence over information flow in lower areas, which basically means, higher areas can regulate information flow in lower areas.

Interesting thread. S&F

tgidkp
reply to post by BlueMule

 

sorry for answering a question not directed at me.

happily, much of what he is saying is in accordance with the writings of the philosopher Ken Wilber.

because of this, i think it is safe to say that we are attempting to explain, but not explain away.

No need to apologize, I'm glad to have your response on the record and I look forward to seeing if NorEaster agrees with you.

reply to post by NorEaster

Sporadic intra-system dynamics are one thing. True chaos is something entirely different. True chaos can not exist within a structured system. True chaos is akin to a physical singularity. It cannot have any perimeter that contains it relative to that which is not chaos (or, in the case of the physical singularity - not also it) True chaos doesn't and can't inflict itself upon an orderly system, since true chaos is itself the lack of a system of any kind. You could not exist to challenge my thoughts concerning this if the universe itself was chaos and only chaos. Nothing could exist.

Well said.

I think integration is a basic part of what differentiates chaos from non-chaos.

I'll take a point from psychology and interpersonal psychology to point this out.

How does one cultivate a healthy mind? How does one cultivate healthy social relationships?

A healthy mind is a mind that is differentiated, but also integrated. What does integration mean, psychologically? Imagine 3 layers of experience being cognitions, emotions and body sensations. Each of these layers correspond to the 3 brain systems I mentioned in my earlier post. The reason why it's important to stay aware of these 3 brain systems is because each brain system is capable of "holding information" within its structures.

For example: say you have a traumatic experience as a child. You're driving with your dad to the store, and outside, you see someone get killed. The image startles you. You almost cannot speak. Dad comes back to the car, but you dont mention it. You try to forget it. This is a prime example of dissociation: a cognition (the child's awareness of a disturbing experience) disassociates from the emotion of seeing someone get killed.

Now, this is how chaos enters a human beings life. Since this emotion has not been integrated - has not been recognized and properly processed by awareness - the emotion is able to bias, prime, and influence cognitions in restrictive and inhibiting areas throughout the lifespan.

Another example. Say you've had a very stressed day at work. You can't seem to "shake" the stress off of you. You're yelling at your wife, at your children; you're complaining about everything. You can't figure out why. Your emotions and cognitions are off. You try to address them, but they're not going away. Why is that?

Unbeknownst to you, your muscles are subtly tensed. Your shoulders are crouched upward; your feet fork inward. Your entire musculature is "holding in stress" - and you're not even consciously doing it! This is another example of dissociation. Where cognitions, and emotions, become "primed" by basic body sensations, tensing of the muscles, short and quickened breath.

The autonomic nervous system is able to contain information even if the emotions and cognitions are doing something else. This often happens in trauma - a perfect example of rigidity within an organisms nervous system.

Daniel Siegel (professor of psychiatry at UCLA) postulates that human mental health requires differentiation i.e. awareness of the various spheres of awareness, and integration i.e. alignment of the sphere within awareness.

We can literally go through each mental disorder, from bipolar, to bpd, to generalized anxiety, social anxiety, obsessive compulsive, ptsd, and we can conceptualize these disorders as basic problems in internal integration.

From a social psychology perspective, a lack of internal integration will necessarily diminish ones capacity to integrate with other people. This is basically why mindfulness - increasing awareness of our own awareness - is an essential ingredient towards repairing many of our social problems.

As to the complex discussion going on in this thread about systems, I think differentiation and integration lies at the heart of how complex organisms self-organize at micro and macro-levels. Differentiation and integration occurs in every non-chaotic system. From the smallest cells, to superordinate structures like ecosystems, solar systems, and even greater, there is a differentiation and integration - alignment - between various parts.

For anyone to imagine that things are "just chaos" really isn't paying attention to how and why things break apart.

reply to post by neoholographic


If the universe is 3 dimensional spatially, which it appears to be, then how can any 2d object truly exist? It cant have a quantitative value of length and width and a value of 0 for depth. Also I would disagree that the information remains at the event horizon of the black hole, but before doing so would ask to hear your views on what exactly the event horizon is, physically; There exists stars and planets, which swirl in formation known as a galaxy, which exists in its own galactic gravity well of swirled space time, and at the center it is thought exists a black hole, at some point, for some reason, if you approach the center of the galaxy at some point you go from traveling with planets and stars in galactic space time, to smacking into the event horizon, what is the event horizon (I know all the examples of what happens, but what physically is it, what is going on, is it like a rotating material that doesnt allow objects to enter, so it would be like if you had a bowling ball rotating 99999 miles and hour and threw a bb at it it would be flung off, or is it like the wall and subsequent eye of a tornado,or toilet bowl, where matter will be compelled inward?)? You are saying when an object hits the event horizon the information, meaning the exact physical quantity and quality of the object that hit, for example an apple, you are saying if we had hypothetically sufficient tools, and we were trying to guess what our friend threw at the event horizon (apple) without telling us, by only using energy and matter of the area, you are saying we could discern that an apple interacted with the event horizon by using the total remnants of the apple that stayed grouped together or something?

I dont like the interpretation that information means anything but the direct physicality. That is to say a molecule that has 5 atoms, the information of that is every energetic and material aspect of that molecule; how I feel people interpretation talk of information which I dont think I agree with is when people suggest, that if I were to separate the atoms of the molecule, and separate the particles of the atoms, and put them in... a dish or something, and told the smartest scientists and computers to use the information to put back (humpty dumpty) the molecule that was, that was destroyed, but information not lost mannn, to not guess, but know what molecule it was before destruction.