AI 2023. Meet ChatGPT. - page 127
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
we know the law of mass-energy relation, which says that from a certain amount of energy a corresponding mass of matter can be obtained.
If 1kg of copper is made from energy, then so much energy will be expended. if we create a 1kg statue out of copper, then the same amount of energy will be expended? - if you imagine forming a copper statue directly from atoms.
I assume that converting the statue back to energy would use less energy - loss of information. so information is in some way energy. does a shoe falling into a black hole destroy the information about the shoe, or can the original shoe be reconstructed from the black hole material? if the shoe cannot be reconstructed, where did the information go? - Hawking radiation?
The assertion that some, physically unexplored, material objects can be considered as information introduces complete chaos into the structure of physical concepts.
Actually, it doesn't. Familiarise yourself with modern string theories or M-theory, you will find that in them space is arranged very cleverly (11-dimensional space with 4 open, time and volume, and with 7 "coiled" subspaces), filled with "strings" (some primitive objects that form links between points of space), whose vibrations form, or rather "manifest", known to us quarks, of which all material particles and fields consist. In such a system strings are carriers of information, and all that they "form" is information about their mutual interactions. And further on the level of complexity upwards we come to complex habitual objects and even our own thinking.
Besides, such arrangement of space solves theoretical problems of gravitation and time. With time the nuance is that for many physical processes it may well go in the opposite direction and physics does not collapse, but we always observe development of processes only in the direction of increasing entropy.
In general, I do not want to go deeper (and I am not an expert in this subject), but if I were you, I would not make groundless statements that matter =/= information.
I admit that converting the statuette back into energy will give less energy - loss of information. so, information is in some way energy.
In Einstein's formula, mass is directly related to energy. No "information energy" there.
In Einstein's formula, mass is directly related to energy. There is no "information energy" there.
of course, that's what I said. the formula only says how much mass can be obtained from energy and vice versa, but it says nothing about energy expenditure for information about the form and properties of the obtained mass of matter. that's what I hinted at when I gave the examples with a copper statue and a shoe)).
of course, that's what I said. the formula only says how much mass can be obtained from energy and vice versa, but says nothing about the energy expenditure for information about the form and properties of the resulting mass of matter.
What do you mean by "energy cost of information"?
For those who are greatly amazed, I suggest you watch the attached video.
There is an interesting experiment in quantum physics. Particles without an observer behave like a wave. If I'm not mistaken, it was in a documentary called How Deep the Rabbit Hole Goes.
By the way, I've come up with an interesting psychological move.
They say that in order to speak in public without nerves, you should imagine that the audience in front of you is naked.
By this analogy, in order not to get nervous every time someone pisses you off, you can imagine that your interlocutor is just an AI executing a programme. Then you'd be less nervous. But it doesn't help me to repair the neighbours upstairs, they are pounding and pounding on my nerves).
How did you know if there wasn't an observer? And if somehow they knew, then there was an observer.
How do we know stars exist? How do we know what's happening billions of light years away? If we close our eyes, does information disappear about everything around us?
If one person looks up to the sky and sees the Moon, is there more information? If three people see the Moon, is there three times more information about the Moon? And if no one looks up to the sky and no one sees the Moon, then there is no information about the Moon, and therefore the Moon itself does not exist since there is no information about it?
Stars, the Moon and other objects of the material world exist independently of observers.
Representation of reality and reality are different things. Representation is a product of data processing by the nervous system, received in the process (it does not matter what kind) of interaction with the outside world. However, the external world is indifferent to how and why it is represented.
At a certain point, observers can confuse their representations with reality and they begin to think that if they stop looking/thinking about the world, it will disappear. Also, they think that representations have material energy and supposedly, it can affect the objects of observation in a special way. Or,. that their thoughts and knowledge hover in space as mysterious particles.)
Information can only "add" or "drop" on physical media (including the brain). But it doesn't "float" around us.
What do you mean by "energy expenditure on information"?
For those who are very much amazed, I suggest watching the attached video.
According to the formula of energy-mass relationship, yes. In fact, in any case, no.
shape is one of the properties of objects, shape as information is present in any object. an object contains a lot of other information.
.
Who says Einstein's formula is a formula for converting energy to mass? There's also velocity in that formula..... ;)
And by the way, it's mass, not matter.
Following your logic, if the void is a physical object that has the right to exist always, without needing to come into existence, the question"where, after all, did this matter come from..." iscompletely removed. So it's always been there.
Here's an example of "logical manipulation": if the void is a material object that has always been there, then matter has always been there. But. if the void is a non-material "object", then the question of the origin of matter remains.
Logically, the next question is:" Is the void a material or immaterial object?". Followed by:" Is the void an object?".
If the Void is a material object having one property - beginningless and infinite existence, then Matter is beginningless and infinite in the state of emptiness. Does this mean that it is initial and finite in the state of a "filled" object? And further, the question:"how does the state of emptiness pass into the state of an object and back?".
Here we will need physicists' advice).
(about the posts scribbled between this yours and this mine posts)...
Look, what infinite variety of the most diverse, not having a firm basis, versions of the structure of the surrounding world generates a frivolous,... almost imperceptible for interlocutors introduction of a new, absolutely incomprehensible object "matter".... That's it. As soon as it is inserted into the strict structure - immediately the gates are opened for countless assumptions and branching leading nowhere....
(now an objection to your assertion)...
"... "where, after all, did this matter come from..."
Matter is what,...excuse me?...
I don't know about you,...but I have no data indicating the existence of any "matter"....
Give me a hint,...please,...if you don't mind....
Who says Einstein's formula is a formula for converting energy to mass? There's also velocity in that formula..... ;)
And by the way, it's mass, not matter.
I don't want to dive into chemistry and molecular physics - they describe the dependence of mass and substance.
by the way, in the formula, speed is a constant. and speed is one of the physical characteristics of objects, not the object itself.