|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 4, 2011 3:10:36 GMT 1
Can't you pay attention? I did point out that what was observed was a difference in arrival time for lower energy and higher energy gamma rays, NOT gamma rays compared to visible light.
And it was 4 minutes for an object umpteen million lightyears distant....
AND there are other explanation that have been offered to explain it, other than -- some gamma rays travel just slightly slower than other gamma rays....................
But you aren't listening, you just continue burbling on that thought is change, information is change, hence there is some deep link between information and time. I might as just well say -- the sky is blue, my socks are blue, hence there is some deep connection between my smelly feet and the sky.................
I'll leave you to think about a picture, which is change of intensity value with position (and in 2 or 3 different directions!), but is still good information. you're still stuck in one dimension, as far as I can see...........................
Except if one link in your chain of what you like to call 'argument' is wrong, then the chain breaks, whatever ends you want to shove on it.
A total time-wasting idiot, that's the nicest thing I can think to say about you! Calling you a dork would be an undeserved compliment............
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 4, 2011 9:27:04 GMT 1
What colour of horseshit is this ?
Either communicate sensibly or get off the thread.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 4, 2011 9:42:52 GMT 1
Thinking is a sequential process ... and so involves Time .... No matter how many processors are involved, they are all changing state in SEQUENCE ... i.e SERIALLY. Thoughts are communicated serially! ..... sensible commment on the thread postulate that time and information share many features and so may be physical, and limited, in some way. There is no doubt (well little) in my mind that any information that is transmitted is serial transmission. Parallel transmission is simply the serial transmission of multiple information streams There is no doubt (well little) in my mind that information and time are inextricably bound together. As information is transmitted in change and change can only take place with time then without time there is no access to information. Is it true to say that without information there is no time? I would say yes, for without change there is no measure of time, we have nothing with which to judge the passing of time. But here we approach a limit of our understanding surely? For QM entangled particles tell us that information can be transferred in no time - time is not necessary So perhaps time is a fiction and all there is is information, and we judge changing information to be time itself?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 4, 2011 13:53:19 GMT 1
Well, you've changed your tune, from information Is change. Except as my example on the other thread showsm, information CAN also be transmitted with no change -- a string of zeros can still contain information, even with no change.
The argument is also false -- information is STILL information, even if not being transmitted. It's just the linkage of transmission (Shannon was a communications engineer after all!) with travel, hence with time, giving this false analogy.
THere is a link, but a more subtle one. There is a link between information and information entropy, and statistical entropy. Hence, via the second law of thermodynamics, an arrow of time. But that's as far as it goes.
Wrong. In the relativistic sense, no information is TRANSMITTED because we can't control the message. Hence information transmission still limited to lightspeed.
Change in time/change in space, all much of a muchness, and kind of just boils down to -- we need more than one place for stuff, be that different places in space, or different points in time.
And isn't it odd that the emtiest musings come from those who have already shown they don't grasp the basic principles of a subject-- such as what information IS.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 4, 2011 14:22:56 GMT 1
STA
This is utter crap.
Information can NOT be transmitted with no change. I quote from the OP
So, you need the changes from a train of clock pulses as well.
And if the clock produces zero pulses ... then there is zero infoirmation information.
You really must get your head around the utter relativity of time, and information.
And, by the way, information only exists when it is being transmitted. Else, it is data.
Come on! stupidity is curable!
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 4, 2011 14:49:40 GMT 1
Information doesn't require change. transmission of it DOES, hence your futile attempt at a linkage should link not information and time, b ut just transmission and time -- except since transmission itself is inextricably linked to the idea of travelling, you have just shown that time should be linked to the idea of time.
No shit sherlock..................
Bollocks. You still don't know what information is. Or data, for that matter.
And nice to know that the information in a book (which DOES contain information by any actual definition), only exists if I throw it - perhaps I should aim at your head, and see if I can get some of it to go in?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 4, 2011 15:13:31 GMT 1
STA This is utter crap. Information can NOT be transmitted with no change. I quote from the OP The lady is getting confused and contradicting herself: ......... information CAN also be transmitted with no change -- Information doesn't require change. transmission of it DOES, She should really make up her mind before arguing don't you think? although I suppose that holding two contradictory views at once dpes assist in argument! Not bad putting forward two mutually contradictory views within an hour!
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 4, 2011 16:08:17 GMT 1
And, by the way, information only exists when it is being transmitted. That's interesting. Information is sometimes defined as the removal of uncertainty - the uncertainty is removed when the information is received. Hence it could be construed that information only exists as a result of its transmission. Without its transmission we have the uncertainty.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 4, 2011 16:35:13 GMT 1
Nope, just two DIFFERENT usages of the word change!
SO, the first usage was what NM keeps spouting, that information requires change, in that a sequence of all zeros carries no information (sorry, contains would be a better word given current discussion!).
The second usage was referring to information BEING transmitted (whether or not the information in the message itself includes changes of symbol!), which implies change in that something is travelling from A to B.
The actual problem is that the whole discussion is so waffly and daft in the first place -- information IS change, information IMPLIEs change, TIME is change hence information is TIME, or whatever other random sequence of words you care to enter. None of it actually means anything useful or insightful (or even consistent).
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 4, 2011 17:30:32 GMT 1
What a fantastically silly statement!
As for books, they are just static arrangements of molecules. On the shelf, and to a blind person, they may as well be bricks. The information is realised only during the process of humans READING them, which is at basis reliant on a relative comparison between two separate event-streams.
In essence, two separated event-streams are required in order for information, and time, to exist!
As we are dealing with events that can be detected by the comparator, we are dealing with a physical quantity.
And so, the events that define time and information must be expressible in terms of mass, and energy.
So information and time must have an upper limit which is currently at gamma radiation frequencies.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 7, 2011 13:52:57 GMT 1
What bilge -- and confuses information and meaning. So, a book still contains the same information, whether or not it is read. The meaning is understood when the book is read, but daft to claim that the information doesn't exist before someone extracts meaning from that information. Else libraries would be pointless.............
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 7, 2011 14:21:45 GMT 1
Hahahaha!
By your definintion, books would appear to contain far more information than ever the author intended .... just think of all of the information in the patterns and non-patterns made by all those molecules!
So far, you have added nothing to the argument set out in the OP: that time, and information, rely on the comparison between events emanating from TWO separate sources of events.
Can you find even ONE source of sequential events in a book on a library shelf?
STA, you are a great source of amusement! Keep them coming!
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 7, 2011 16:18:14 GMT 1
Nope, you are making the classic mistake of confusing MEANING and information.
So, in one sense, a particular copy of a book contains unintended information in the configuration of every page, the position of every strand of recycled rag or woodpulp, and so on to the molecular scale. Except we all know that this is incidental, and what unites EVERY copy of a given edition of a book is the text -- which is the SAME whether it is hardback or softback, brail or printed, large-print or ordinary print. The information in the text is the same. Ditto for ebooks.
Why you think that information isn't there when it isn't being read is beyond me, but then I obviously just can't lower myself to your level.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 7, 2011 18:07:01 GMT 1
STA
It seems you are being obtuse again.
The mere existence of a physical object is NOT information UNLESS and UNTIL the data encoding the physical attributes of the object, has been communicated as a series of events that have affected the state of a dynamical system.
In other words; That my unseen Boot exists is not 'information' until the data quantified by your Arse-sensors has been communicated to, AND has affected, the state of your Brain.
Either way, you do seem to have accepted the idea that time, and information, are both event-based phenomena.
And so, as an event can be defined as an amount of energy, it can also be defined as a mass via a well-know equation. And so, information and also TIME can be quantified in terms of mass. All sorts of interesting consequences follow, but I expect you will have to wait until 'Physics Central' gives you permission to think such thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 7, 2011 18:30:17 GMT 1
Wrong. You have again confused information, transmission of information, and meaning of that information.
Nope. Letters in a book happen to have spatial ordering, which translates into temporal ordering when you send that book as a message. But that need not be the case. So, image information has a more complicated spatial pattern -- in a digital image, it is arranged into rows and columns of pixels, which you can scan in an agreed fashion and send a single stream of bits. But you can also have video information, which has a further dimension, in that the organisation is now in rows and columns of an image, and different images in time.
Thses are just examples where the information is encoded in terms of discrete events (discrete letters and words in english, discrete pixels with a set of discrete values in digital images), but that is not necessarily the case.
Piffle. You are confusing the use of entropy in information theory with the use of entropy in physics. And a physical event in spacetime with some mistaken idea of events as being central to information.
It's just your usual word-salad, pretty pictures that actually make no sense.
Your claim that you can quantify time in terms of energy is yet more nonsense. Why do you think we have units of mass/energy, and units of time as distinct different units, if your claim that time can be measured as energy/mass was correct? Why, indeed, do we have energy (joules), and energy transfer (joules per second), if you can use one to quantify the other? Its nonsense. I can have a certain amount of energy stored in a battery, but that has nothing to do withn time until I connect it to a circuit and let energy flow out of the battery, into my bulb. And how brightly the bulb glows depends on the rate at which I let the energy flow! Two different quantities, energy and rate of flow of energy.
Well, if you're going to talk nonsense, then any nonsense can come out, which you personally may find entertaining, but if your inityial premises are meaningless or just plain wrong, so are any pretty conclusions you claim to have drawn from them.
|
|