Where is the information stored?

[Alex K]

Well if you collide two electrons hard enough there would be protons indeed, but also the same number of antiprotons. How we got an asymmetry between matter and antimatter such that net protons remain, is the so-called question of baryogenesis. A famous russian guy, Sakharov, worked out the necessary preconditions for that to happen in the 60s or so.

[Davka]

Ok, sounds good. But be aware that the "landscape" is already a technical term in String Phenomenology where it is used for all possible sets of laws of physics which can arise from the superstring, without making reference to what concretely is going on in the respective universes.

The string theory people borrowed the term "landscape" from evolutionary biologists who used it to describe the set of all possible organism which could evolve. I'm just borrowing already borrowed goods.

To add theistic slant to this thread......just because you guys expect it and I don't want to disappoint you.....the fields are everywhere so they can be said to be omnipresent. The fields, it seems from this discussion, contain all that is knowable so they can be said to be omniscient. Anything that can happen, happens on these fields so in a sense they are omnipotent.

What this gets you is a definition of "god" which is synonymous with "the universe," and therefore superfluous.

---

Well if you collide two electrons hard enough there would be protons indeed, but also the same number of antiprotons. How we got an asymmetry between matter and antimatter such that net protons remain, is the so-called question of baryogenesis. A famous russian guy, Sakharov, worked out the necessary preconditions for that to happen in the 60s or so.

Evidence that god had his thumb on the scale at the Big Bang.

[Alex K]

Ok, sounds good. But be aware that the "landscape" is already a technical term in String Phenomenology where it is used for all possible sets of laws of physics which can arise from the superstring, without making reference to what concretely is going on in the respective universes.

The string theory people borrowed the term "landscape" from evolutionary biologists who used it to describe the set of all possible organism which could evolve. I'm just borrowing already borrowed goods.

To add theistic slant to this thread......just because you guys expect it and I don't want to disappoint you.....the fields are everywhere so they can be said to be omnipresent. The fields, it seems from this discussion, contain all that is knowable so they can be said to be omniscient. Anything that can happen, happens on these fields so in a sense they are omnipotent.

Well, if that were the case, they'd be an example how knowing everything leaves you with zero room to act - they don't *do* anything to influence events in any particular direction apart from mindlessly enforcing a simple set of rules.

[watchamadoodle]

When I was a sophomore physics student, I was lucky enough to attend a surprise lecture by Richard Feynman. At one point in the lecture, I thought I understood something profound, and Feynman made eye contact and smiled kind of knowingly. But it was like a slippery fish that got away.

Basically Feynman was showing how computation and physics are connected through thermodynamics. He was showing how the efficiency of computer chips was limited by the coding of the computation regardless of the realization of that computer physically. I believe reversible transformations were preferable.

It seems like the idea was related to the "mind-body" problem possibly. Maybe somebody here will have a thought? I feel like it was important, and maybe it was the point of the lecture. (It's almost like I owe it to Feynman to understand what he was trying to tell me... silly I guess.)

[Thumpalumpacus]

Imagine completely empty space. Now in that space place two electrons. Smash those electrons together hard enough and you get a shower of other particles....including protons. This suggests the information necessary to construct a proton is contained in the electron. Continue to smash particles together and conceivably you can have an entire universe....just like ours. Does the information necessary to construct a universe just like our exists in just two electrons? If it doesn't where does this information exist?

Information is abstract. Particles are physical.

I think you'll find your problem there.

[Heywood]

Well, if that were the case, they'd be an example how knowing everything leaves you with zero room to act - they don't *do* anything to influence events in any particular direction apart from mindlessly enforcing a simple set of rules.

Quantum field theory describes an electron as just an excitation in the electron field.....correct? These fields have the ability to form representations of things which are not themselves. They have intentionality(not to be confused with intentions) like a mind. They might be closer to minds then you realize.

[Alex K]

When I was a sophomore physics student, I was lucky enough to attend a surprise lecture by Richard Feynman.

1. Man you're old
2. Lucky bastard!!!

At one point in the lecture, I thought I understood something profound, and Feynman made eye contact and smiled kind of knowingly. But it was like a slippery fish that got away.

I've had that quite often - very good speakers can completely wrap you in their narrative and make you feel like a genius, and after you leave the talk you're all hyped but then you think - wait a minute, what exactly did I take away from this???

Basically Feynman was showing how computation and physics are connected through thermodynamics. He was showing how the efficiency of computer chips was limited by the coding of the computation regardless of the realization of that computer physically. I believe reversible transformations were preferable.

Yes, that's a very exciting connection. Information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are indeed related at some point, and just like thermodynamically reversible processes do not raise entropy and allow energy to be used more efficiently before it gets converted into heat, I've heard that the same may be true for entropy increase through information loss whenever irreversible logical operations are performed. Fascinating stuff...

It seems like the idea was related to the "mind-body" problem possibly. Maybe somebody here will have a thought? I feel like it was important, and maybe it was the point of the lecture. (It's almost like I owe it to Feynman to understand what he was trying to tell me... silly I guess.)

I don't know how it would be related to the mind-body problem, but maybe you can give a hint? Except that as above I tried to motivate that information can be viewed as a physical quantity like energy.

---

Well, if that were the case, they'd be an example how knowing everything leaves you with zero room to act - they don't *do* anything to influence events in any particular direction apart from mindlessly enforcing a simple set of rules.

Quantum field theory describes an electron as just an excitation in the electron field.....correct?

More or less. Although I'd rather say an excitation of the vacuum state which corresponds to the quantum field.

These fields have the ability to form representations of things which are not themselves.

You're sneaking in the notion of fields as agents here. Let's say that in nature, representations are formed which corresponds to these fields.

They have intentionality(not to be confused with intentions) like a mind. They might be closer to minds then you realize.

They have no more intentionality to form particles than a mold has to form a cast.

[watchamadoodle]

When I was a sophomore physics student, I was lucky enough to attend a surprise lecture by Richard Feynman.

1. Man you're old
2. Lucky bastard!!!

Yep, that was probably 1987. Feynman was retired, but one day I went to physics class, and the the professor took everyboy present (only about 20) over to the large lecture hall. It was mostly professors except for us few students. I'm glad I went to class that day

It seems like the idea was related to the "mind-body" problem possibly. Maybe somebody here will have a thought? I feel like it was important, and maybe it was the point of the lecture. (It's almost like I owe it to Feynman to understand what he was trying to tell me... silly I guess.)

I don't know how it would be related to the mind-body problem, but maybe you can give a hint? Except that as above I tried to motivate that information can be viewed as a physical quantity like energy.

That's it exactly (what you said that I marked in bold). I can't decide if that is profound or not. Like if thoughts are emergent properties of the physical machinery of our brains, then maybe it is obvious that physical laws apply to thoughts/information?

Are thoughts a real thing like mass, energy, etc. or are they an emergent thing? I don't know what Feynman's opinion was on that question, but I think that's what his knowing smile was about. He could see from my facial expression that I was thinking about that question. It seems like a very wooish idea to me.

[Alex K]

What is the property of something that makes it an emergent thing?

[watchamadoodle]

What is the property of something that makes it an emergent thing?

Hmmm. I'm not sure about the official definition of "emergent". I say something is "emergent" if its state is completely specified by the state of something else. I suppose if the emergent system contains as much information as the non-emergent system, then you can switch their roles and imagine the originally non-emergent system as the emergent system? I'm sure quantum mechanics makes this more complicated (probability waves, etc.). Unfortunatley I didn't learn enough physics to be able to explore these ideas very rigorously.

A person in another forum told me about a physicist named Henry Stapp who believed that the mind somehow controls the collapse of probabilty waves into events:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Stapp

Many religions think that faith and belief are necessary for miracles and magic. In the gospels, Jesus can only heal people when they have faith. From what little I know of occult (through wikipedia as always ), there is also emphasis on belief (e.g. the law of attraction).