The state of physics is worse than I thought

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
21

This sounds to me like another conjecture of what is there based on the very convenient fact that what is there cannot be observed with current instruments. Beyond that, even if we did have even more sensitive instruments, “value” is unfalsifiable, it is just an attribute of thought, the same way information is. It would eventually put a stop to further progress for the same reason: it stops the question of what is actually there.

No, you misunderstand me. They are beautiful geniuses. The shit they come up with is absolutely insane. Unless you mean the very limited scope of the way in which they are idiots, which me and obsrvr have agreed is attributable to the wider nihilism of modern times. But once you control for that idiocy, which has so few exceptions that it can be considered a rule, like a 0 before a 1 where no value exists, they are goddmaned fucking geniuses.

The truth is more "we are taking this shortcut here because we are very hungry for power.’

And power they did find. This convenient lie pushed theoretical physics to heights previously unimagined. There was a brief period where quantum mechanics just hated string theorists, and vice versa, and it all seemed hopeless and no kind of workable theory for all this offbeat motherfucking data on the horizon, until they just decided to call it all information, work together with all their accumulated math, data and theories (there is now essencially a rotating door between the fields of string theory, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics), and now it is really very hard for me to describe to you the potentiating effect this has had on science.

Yes, yes, any old phool of a philosopher can tell you saying the world is made of information is a deep nihilism and amounts to saying ‘it’s made of magic’ but without even the childish faith and wonder, and that will eventually take its toll if not corrected, but this holografic interpretation of reality shit is applied to very real physical phenomena, and predicts it with terrifying accuracy, and physics is again a place where many hungy young minds are constantly breaking new ground, discovering new things, instead of flapping about and dispairing. In other words, the idea is imaginary (thus nihilistic), but its application is veeeeeeery real. Me personally I think Hawking would not be able to surpress a smile through his displeasure.

I mean you have to stop for a second and look at the fact that only now is Hawking radiation being approached with any level of seriousness and progress. I mean how long ago did the dude come up with it? They all just got tired of arguing over what in practice is the esoteric. “You know what you sonofabitch? it’s all information. Now can we break some of these equations?”

So again, this is the wrong question. The idea that it is all information works mathematically, not physically, so you can’t in a sense split that atom. There is nothing there, you cannot dissect what doesn’t exist. If and when we do get more sensitive instruments, we will be able to identify more concrete ‘things’ and dynamics. It’s as if before the electron was split you said ‘oh it’s just essencially information,’ and you said ‘oh no it’s not information, it’s value,’ and then some dude went in and said ‘I’m glad you guys are having fun, but check this shit out I’m calling them quantum fields.’

22

My man, dude, did you eve- can you even begin to fucking,

The entropy of the black hole readiation is stabalized and reversed by shit outside the horizon of the goddamn maafacking goddamn black fuckingg ho-

Come on now.

No, this is good science. The philosophical underpinnings are dubious, and my only complaint here is not even that they are calling it all information, but that they are believing themselves. It’s not healthy, not güt, not kosher. Terrible very.

But you realize why they would just turn their heads around in a bored fashion if you said that to them. What they are achieving in the field of predicting how the physical world behaves is outstanding.

23

No, value implies a dynamic which information does not. (physics consists of implication)
Its like ‘power’.

All falsifiability is a property of value;
information without value is unfalsifiable, value is the very falsifiability of something;
value causes; it causes power into motion; Value is the falsifying criterion.

Im not impressed in the least by men such as Hawkins. Science as it is powerful has been suspended after Bohr and his contemporaries

No, they’re tired, especially of themselves. (corresponds to the ‘death of god’)

Really? I really dont think so.

Into entirely void conjectures.

There’s been no advance.

The precise opposite. It lacks all ‘magic’ (power, reality).

Which doesn’t work since it’s not information but value. (lacking the neutrality that the eunuchs wish jot bestow on all of us)

All it does is, it renders mathematics impotent.

Exactly.

Its funny how you guys think.

Neither value and power are ever trivial or neutral.

If you cant see it you cant see it - most cant -

But Ill give you a last hint before I leave you to your adulations -

value does something. information does not.

But I understand all too well this can not be grasped by those who are themselves neutral to existence.

Do you know the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche?
I can only recommend a thorough study of him, though it isn’t for most.

Grasping his ideas on being as as will to power would get you closer to the actual power of physics.

I can see what you are going to say:

‘will to power is merely information’

And I will smile at that for a while.

‘value is merely information’.

I will laugh a bit but not in mirth;

The position that value is merely information is the essence of postmodernism; it is the same error, which is born of fatigue, that brings forth the idea that gender is merely opinion; the power of sex which is the value of sex, is now so strong that it overpowers the species, forcing it into exile from its instincts, its actual being.

You will think all this is ‘mere philosophy’ and has no bearing on astrophysics.

this distinction between philosophy and physics is precisely the neutrality that belongs to neither.

What is the value of neutrality? Safety.

What is the neutrality of value?

nonexistence.

this civilization is tired and Hawking is an expression of that fatigue.

24

If you don’t think understanding black holes is power, then I don’t know what to say for you.

25

Heh, Im used to this, no worries. People freak out over the intellectual density of my analyses and begin to toss around straw men.

Without noticing it here you refuted your information Spiel and resorted back to power (value) as a criterion.

(else you’d have asked something along the hip lines of ‘but doode, doncha think cognosticizing da black hole is information bruhhh?’)

26

No you asshat, I’m not saying stuff is information. Wha, did you even read the thread?

We are not talking about things that may or may not be important, power, value, information. We are talking about what physicists assume they are essencially looking at when they do mathematics to compute the behavior of the physical universe at a scale so small, the truth is no one can yet know what it is we are looking at. And then the discussion gets a little more subtle than I believe you can follow. Because you don’t even understand what it means that physicists are using information as the basic element, you don’t get what it applies to, you think it compares to power or value or whatever silly thing. You don’t even know why they use information.

When I say power, I thought it was obvious, I was talking about what the physicists get, not what is represented by a 15 dimensional holographic system that (accurately) describes what quantum fields do near black holes.

You said Hawking something or another I forget, but this is the guy who discovered and first computed black holes. Let me show you a picture of empty conjecture or whatever stupid thing you said:

nasa.gov/sites/default/file … k=THJrwcHP

You do not grasp even the most basic thing about theoretical physics. You are talking about all these hare brained shit like the value of sex and the intellectual value of “value,” I am talking about whether black holes evaporate into a flurry of chaos or a deentropized system like one would think. It takes mathematics that are very advanced, but I don’t think that is much use to explain to you. You don’t even know what problem it is physicists are trying to solve with the assignment of information as the basic material of the universe, to even have an opinion about it. You have some wack-ass political agenda which may belie a simple inability to understand what these dudes are doing.

27

Hahaha, you ‘asshat’, you said that value and information are the same kind of unfalsifiable concept.
This is hilarious.

Like correcting a toddler. Five minutes later he is lecturing you on the very thing you just informed him of.

I do though.

You havent understood the funny.

lol

28

Correct. They are unfalsifiable as conjectures for the physical constitution of material existence. They are products of the brain, they are thoughts, they are not and cannot be stuff. this whole thread is about that, which like, you either can’t read or can’t comprehend.

However, information is computable, specifically, regarding the dead ends and conflicts the different otherwise mathematically pristine theories explaining physical behavior present in regards to eachother. It solves that problem, and all those equations can now be solved. This is the part I suspect may be too subtle for you to understand. It’s also what this whole thread is about, give the old noggin a try maybe I don’t know. The question is not whether the assumption solves basically every mayor problem physics has had for the last 50 or so years, which themselves were problems generated by the problems generated by the original quantum mechanics, which if you read bohr or any of those guys they are all basically saying “wtf this shit is full of problems, talking to you future generations.” Because it does solve them. In so doing, unleashing an unprecedented wave of advance and discovery. This is the part I am not sure you can understand. The question is whether it is philosophically sound, which it is self-evidently not, and once all those equations are solved and the relevant discoveries made, they will either drop the concept or begin to go down a deep and pointless hole. But you can’t opine on whether it is sound or not, because you don’t even begin to understand what it solves in the first place, why the problem arises and the solution suggested. You out here talking about gender studies or some shit.

Nah, you don’t.

Yeah, I get it, you think because I use power as a standard for what humans seek it means I should also think it’s what quantum fields describe? some shit? OK no I don’t get it. You got some problems.

I am overwhlemed by the intellectual depth. Clearly, you know your shit.

Talk some shit about Hawkins, we want more lols.

29

This such ultimate beginner level I dont even know where to start. Honestly.
You can not think anything and not have it be your mind. I think youre the only one on this forum who didn’t know that yet.

Only by treating it as value, asshat.

Do you not know that computation requires the input of values?

Youre saying precisely nothing here besides repeating one thing I already said. And it is I who has resolved the problem detected by Bohr as very elegantly I united QM and Relativity.
Not that you would even have the impulse to try to understand; you just like name dropping.

I dont opine, little buddy

Nono, you just keep on namedropping. Its very impressive.

30

Wow. Brilliant.

The information has values, but, I mean first, this thing you said would be a roundabout way of agreeing with the physicists that it in fact is information, they are just not accurate enough. Second, I mean fuck it, yeah, if you really wanted to you could substitute one for the other to have a different unfalsifiable concept that temporarily solves a superficial problem. But no, not really. Information is static, it only changes when computed with other information. The physicist asks: “what happens to this information when it goes into the black hole (which existence and discoverer our esteemed guest has yet to confirm or deny).” X information went in. so what happens to it? Value is more of a characteristic, of a thing, this thing has value X. But information can be an actual thing. “It weighs X, has X spin, X temperature,” whatever. The Xs can be values, but the whole thing together is a discreet unit of information.

Anyway, this seems pointless to point out to you, becausee your ocntention is not that value solves the computing problem that information solves, but that it constitutes the basic material of existence, which is equally ridiculous as saying infromation is, with the disadvantage of also not being mathematically useful at this level of theoretical physics.

You, like, disagree about how many angels fit on the tip of the needle, I am unbothered.

Astounding. This theory promises to revolutionize physics. I am impressed.

Well, not very competently anyhow.

All you read in this whole thread is the name Hawking/s? Again…

31

OK I had read this as 'not have it be in your mind." The situation is even more tedious and meaningless than I thought. Your thought “is” your mind? Very budistic, very deep. Absolutely irrelevant and inconsequencial to whether a concept that applies to what the mind does, information, value, can apply to stuff that exists outside of it, stuff, what you touch.

The answer is: only if you are an idiot.

Or a physicist needing to cut corners.

32

Yeah, Ive reduced you to a pool of burping blubber.

33

I’ll run it down for you, but you seem the type to just go on another pseudophsycoanalytic rampage of rage anyway, but I’ll run it down for you:

-hey a molecule

-hey an atom

-hey an electron

-hey a quantum field

-ok, so far all stuff, can be falsified, can be split, exists outside of the imagination-

-hey a information

an information?

Can you split an information? Can you amplify the scope? No, it’s just an information, conceived in the mind. It is not an actual thing you can measure, it is just a thought about a thing.

-hey a value

Can you split an value? Can you amplify the scope? No, it’s just an value, conceived in the mind. It is not an actual thing you can measure, it is just a thought about a thing.

34

Also, because I am not sure you fully understand the concept, here is what falsifiability means and how it applies:

a quantum field. It is this and if you measure it does this.

OK if you measure it and it doesnt, it is false, it has been falsifizzizized.

an information.

Oh wait, you can’t measure an information. an information is itself a measure. There is no way to falsify it, no matter what you are looking at, you can call it information and it says nothing about the actual thing, you can’t split “information” it is not stuff. It is a thought.

Value, I mean, I hope you get it. It’s the same thing. “Oh no it turned out to behave like this and do this.” “Oh no well it’s still value.” “Well ok, I can’t falsify that. it’s pretty meaningless.”

The reason the information paradigm works is that it is being applied to a bunch of theories that did deal with falsifiable claims on what stuff is. Strings, quantum fields, particles, etc. And the math for each was refined and made to work extremely well, but not in every circumstance. Only in some circumstances. But, conveniently, each in the circumstances that the other didn’t cover. So they just blanketed it all as information so that the numbers, which do add up, don’t run into “but ONLY if it is a string, but ONLY if space actually exists,” etc. The same reason it works for this is the reason that once all those kinks are worked out, science will die becaue no new work is being done on finding what is there, which ostensibly could then give a bunch of conflicting theories tha then could all be uniformized as information.

35

I hope you study this closely and meditate on it.

36

Funny how a person can come in kissing ass and leave fuming.

Don’t hate me, brotherman, hate the science.

Essencially, they describe in this paragraph how they couple together theories from string theory, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and also micro and macro scopes of quantum fields and gravity, using math that relies on this information paradigm to fuse them al together irespective of what contentions they have about the fundamental nature of stuff. What they realized is that, despite what the contentions might be, the math works. It accurately predicts. i don’t know what all of it means, a lot of them are actually just competing string theory and M theory interpretations. The paragraph I quoted previously is more benign, and more accesible if you understand basic concepts of quantum mechanics, thermodynamics and black holes. This stuff is impenetrable unless you actually track down all of the different papers that lay out all of those different theories, but it shows the sheer amount of work and calculation that is put into these new theories. And also, the simple mass of them which, by the way, without the information paradigm are irreconcilably conflicting, that are being finally and coherently bound together.

The proof of its power is essencially that a problem posed by Hawking several decades ago, which scientists had all that time to break, had remained unbroken. Each of the different theories quoted in this paragraph gave it their shot, but they failed in computing some value for gravity or predicting some aspect of entanglement or the behavior of the system on a massive scale where gravity is patent. So nothing work. Decades, decades went by when people could not make sense of Hawking radiation, the quantum scale stuff that escapes a black hole and eventually causes the complete evaporation of the black hole. They are now breaking it, understanding how it works, predicting how it will work in ways that contradict none of the theories that have been established and proven to work in the limited fields they approach. Newton, Susskind, Einstein, Hawking, and all the hundreds of anonimous researchers and mathematicians are respected, accounted for.

The claims of this paper, and these new theories in general, go beyond the dynamics of black holes. They apply to all matter, all systems. Black hole or not, you can now determine information about a quantum island which before you could not by calculating variables from scales that used to be methematically incompatible. Yes, that is real power. The more you can predict, the more you can know about what an actual factual tiny piece of physical existence, the more power you obviously have.

I think they actually do know that the fundamental assumptions they are making are not strictly 100% on the up and up. More than once they say some paraphrase of “for the sake of argument,” or “to facilitate understanding.” Because the level they are working on is so small, that mostly information and abstract concepts are what can apply to them. You can’t see it, what it’s there. If you can’t see it you can’t actually know. So why make it up? Better to use useful images that are mathematically computable and actually predict the outcome based on the very limited measures we can make of dynamics on that scale. “Imagine a bath.” They are not saying there is an actual bath, an actual space.They are conjecturing abstractly a transformation process occuring at that scale, the specific concrete shape of which cannot be ascertained with modern instruments, that mathematically computably explains what the result ends up being. If you use that eequation, every time, you will be able to predict what measurement your instrument will pick up.

That’s part of the reason for this thread. I mean the contention is pretty catastrophic, if they actually believe it. And they say they actually believe it. But, do they actually believe it…? You know how theoretical physicists are. Like Einstein with his “if you get on a ship and approach the speed of light,” that’s not possible, the ship cannot actually exist that he describes. But he says it with a straight face, as if it were as real as a car. So I don’t know. I just don’t know to what extent they actually buy it. I think their greed for results and their satisfaction at seeing them is just a much ehavier psychological component than worrying about stupid shit like “are they right?” It’s magic.

But I don’t really know.

37

By the way, I kid you not, the title of the paper is:

Quantum extremal islands made easy

38

To quote Mr Trump -
“Not even close - not even close”
“They just don’t get it - do they.” :laughing:

39

One can always count on you to produce cute emoticons. This is why I still think you are James; your idiosyncrasies are identical.

For the OP;
I tend to answer illiteracy and intellectual laziness with contempt, especially concerning those who are possibly capable of more.
What we see, in any case, is that what scientists call information must be rather interpreted as value;

in order for a hypothesized bit of information to be ‘processed into being’ (in order for it to actually demonstrably, provably, exist) it must be processed into particular terms. Meaning; it must work as a value, be capable of entering a system and thereby altering that system; this is the meaning of value.

Information qua being is always value. You may see this as actionable information. Any non-actionable information remains hypothetical. Mere information doesn’t amount to existence.

This fact, that every smallest piece of existence is value, rather than mere information, shows itself in the effort that is required to ‘process’ this ‘information’; the very forces driving our universe and of our own behavior; we do not act on information unless it is a value; we dont even recognize a thing as information unless it is of value.
Thus, my doctrine is both epistemology and ontology, transcending the difference;

What can be said to exist is valuing (all value is, as follows from the above, also a valuing; all processed being is also processor) ; if we would translate it into Jamesean we get, all being is both affecting and being affected (an asymmetrical reciprocity lacking in RM) but even such refined RM is entirely lacking in depth, dimensionality, actionability; only the concept value indicates the specific dynamic of the nature of all interaction, of force, of influence.

This won’t be understood for some decades, most likely, as is the fate of all world shaping concepts. But that doesnt mean I will give people an excuse for not being subtle enough to understand it. This crudeness is at once the impotence of our culture; an immersion into the most subtle analysis our species has produced (save perhaps Japanese ethics) is required to comprehend the nuances of vo; Heidegger’s study of Nietzsche’s conception of truth is recommended reading for those who would approach my doctrine.

For those that do not, it’s happy hunting in the sewers.

40

I hesitate to approach such a volatile temperament,

but you still have not addressed the issues the information paradigm applies to, why value poses the same problem as information without offering the same usefulness, or that you really understand modern theoretical physics and which problems the information paradigm is designed to address, or that you understand what black holes are and who discovered them.

For these reasons, your whole messianic rhetoric is completely whack.