Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Usually the idea of information destruction, or not, is framed around black holes.

In a series of breakthrough papers, theoretical physicists have come tantalizingly close to resolving the black hole information paradox that has entranced and bedeviled them for nearly 50 years.

Information, they now say with confidence, does escape a black hole. If you jump into one, you will not be gone for good. Particle by particle, the information needed to reconstitute your body will reemerge. Most physicists have long assumed it would; that was the upshot of string theory, their leading candidate for a unified theory of nature. But the new calculations, though inspired by string theory, stand on their own, with nary a string in sight. Information gets out through the workings of gravity itself — just ordinary gravity with a single layer of quantum effects.

This perspective has always bothered me - the idea that no information would lost if you fell into a black hole. I am not sure why experts don't seem death itself to be a loss of information. If Middle Eastern mystics of the Iron age are wrong, then a huge amount of order in the synergy of body parts is clearly lost forever at death.
It could be said that, at death, an animal's body system is replaced by colonial microbial communities, but those communities were already busy, just that the overarching ordering consciousness is gone. Does anyone here know why the loss of life and consciousness are not considered to be a loss of information?

[LuckyR]

Usually the idea of information destruction, or not, is framed around black holes.

In a series of breakthrough papers, theoretical physicists have come tantalizingly close to resolving the black hole information paradox that has entranced and bedeviled them for nearly 50 years.

Information, they now say with confidence, does escape a black hole. If you jump into one, you will not be gone for good. Particle by particle, the information needed to reconstitute your body will reemerge. Most physicists have long assumed it would; that was the upshot of string theory, their leading candidate for a unified theory of nature. But the new calculations, though inspired by string theory, stand on their own, with nary a string in sight. Information gets out through the workings of gravity itself — just ordinary gravity with a single layer of quantum effects.

This perspective has always bothered me - the idea that no information would lost if you fell into a black hole. I am not sure why experts don't seem death itself to be a loss of information. If Middle Eastern mystics of the Iron age are wrong, then a huge amount of order in the synergy of body parts is clearly lost forever at death.
It could be said that, at death, an animal's body system is replaced by colonial microbial communities, but those communities were already busy, just that the overarching ordering consciousness is gone. Does anyone here know why the loss of life and consciousness are not considered to be a loss of information?

Because physicists don't know jack about biology and philosophy?

[TryingMyBest]

Just spitballing here.
Isn’t the physics argument around black holes assuming an observer? Without observers, the question of whether or not information exists would be moot, right? That is to ask, if the last intelligent observer dies, does all the information vanish with her?

[Steve3007]

Does anyone here know why the loss of life and consciousness are not considered to be a loss of information?

I'd guess it's because they're considering principles rather than practicalities. We all know that for all practical purposes, once your brain (for example) dies and decomposes, the memories and other information stored in that brain are lost. But in principle, they're not. The way in which the concept of information is used in physics, as it finds patterns in the world and invents laws to describe them, is a bit different from the way we tend to use that concept in everyday life. But I can't really remember the details of how! We'd have to do some revision of concepts like "Shannon entropy", and the notion that the speed of light limit is actually a limit to the speed at which information can be transmitted. All that stuff.

[Steve3007]

Perhaps the best way to begin to approach this idea is with that notion that the cosmic "speed limit" which we usually refer to as the speed of light is actually the more general speed limit of information, or influence. That is to say, no influence of any kind can propagate faster than that speed. A photon of light is just one example of something that could carry that information or influence. We might think this idea of the speed at which influence can travel is a bit abstract sounding. If we're not into the reification of abstractions, we might therefore object to it. But we can just think of it as a more general way of talking about the speed of any really physical thing (whether that's a photon of light or something else) that could be thought of as an information carrier.

So the idea that black holes in some sense "swallow up" information comes from the fact that the escape velocity at the surface of a black hole is greater than the speed of light. That's what makes it a black hole. Hence the idea that no information can escape from a black hole.

That would be a possible starting point.

[Pattern-chaser]

Usually the idea of information destruction, or not, is framed around black holes.

In a series of breakthrough papers, theoretical physicists have come tantalizingly close to resolving the black hole information paradox that has entranced and bedevilled them for nearly 50 years.

Information, they now say with confidence, does escape a black hole. If you jump into one, you will not be gone for good. Particle by particle, the information needed to reconstitute your body will re-emerge. Most physicists have long assumed it would; that was the upshot of string theory, their leading candidate for a unified theory of nature. But the new calculations, though inspired by string theory, stand on their own, with nary a string in sight. Information gets out through the workings of gravity itself — just ordinary gravity with a single layer of quantum effects.

This perspective has always bothered me - the idea that no information would lost if you fell into a black hole. I am not sure why experts don't seem death itself to be a loss of information. If Middle Eastern mystics of the Iron Age are wrong, then a huge amount of order in the synergy of body parts is clearly lost forever at death.

It could be said that, at death, an animal's body system is replaced by colonial microbial communities, but those communities were already busy, just that the overarching ordering consciousness is gone. Does anyone here know why the loss of life and consciousness are not considered to be a loss of information?

My first reaction to your OP is that I'm confused by this, from your quote:

Particle by particle, the information needed to reconstitute your body will reemerge.

This seems to be saying - applying the 'everything is a network' analogy - that a network can be reconstructed from its nodes alone, and that the interconnections between the nodes (a vital part of the network) will somehow just reappear...? To me, this seems to be just plain wrong. Maybe I have misunderstood the intended meaning?


As for (what appears to be) your main point, it seems to me that "loss of life and consciousness" does constitute a loss of information. How could it not?

[Pattern-chaser]

Perhaps the best way to begin to approach this idea is with that notion that the cosmic "speed limit" which we usually refer to as the speed of light is actually the more general speed limit of information, or influence. That is to say, no influence of any kind can propagate faster than that speed...

Doesn't QM entanglement allow information to propagate at infinite speed, or something close to it? Or maybe my understanding of QM is just confusing me?

[Steve3007]

Doesn't QM entanglement allow information to propagate at infinite speed, or something close to it? Or maybe my understanding of QM is just confusing me?

This has been the subject of a lot of discussion and debate ever since Einstein first described it as "spooky action at a distance". But I think the end result is, no, real information cannot travel faster than the speed we conventionally refer to as "the speed of light" in entangled particles. I think to properly understand why we'd have to, among other things, look into exactly how the concept of information is used in physics. (For one thing, I know that some people would have issues with term "real information".)

[Sy Borg]

... if the last intelligent observer dies, does all the information vanish with her?

Theoretically the information would change form when she died, breaking up into smaller and simpler units of information, just as the energy of her body would dissipate rather than disappear.

But yes, it seems to me that the information of the last being's mind would be actually gone from the universe, because the theoretically retained information itself is itself organised - and that layer of organisation appears to be truly lost.

[Sy Borg]

Does anyone here know why the loss of life and consciousness are not considered to be a loss of information?

I'd guess it's because they're considering principles rather than practicalities. We all know that for all practical purposes, once your brain (for example) dies and decomposes, the memories and other information stored in that brain are lost. But in principle, they're not.

I'm wondering about the issues in my reply to TryingMyBest. That is, the synergistic superstructure of things appears to be an extra layer of information that is not considered in physics calculations, that the information added by emergent phenomena is not taken into account because it's assumed, with form following function, that functions would automatically emerge in the same way once an entity was reconstructed. Yet we know that if the Earth's evolution was re-run, it would be exceedingly unlikely that things would transpire in the same way.

Consider what happens when entity disappears and a new entity or entities take its place, eg. in TMB's example, the last thinking being in the universe would be informationally replaced, in time, by the information of many fundamental particles. The extra layer of information would seem to be lost and not accounted for.

[JackDaydream]

@Sy Borg
The way I see your question is symbolic black holes are more relevant for thinking about the way in which Eastern mystics often saw death. The information which was lost at death underwent a process of filtering out the most insignificant information relating to the conscious ego. The deeper levels of more essential quality information would be carried through in a future rebirth.

It would be possible to see all aspects of matter in the universe as part of cycles and a cosmic recycling process. Perhaps, literal black holes act like filters in the universe, for gathering up certain elements of matter.

[Sy Borg]

The way I see your question is symbolic black holes are more relevant for thinking about the way in which Eastern mystics often saw death. The information which was lost at death underwent a process of filtering out the most insignificant information relating to the conscious ego. The deeper levels of more essential quality information would be carried through in a future rebirth.

It would be possible to see all aspects of matter in the universe as part of cycles and a cosmic recycling process. Perhaps, literal black holes act like filters in the universe, for gathering up certain elements of matter.

That is still lost information. Personally, think that the lost information, like the charm of a deceased family member or pet, is valuable. And it seemingly disappears for all time. Reality sure doesn't encourage sentimental attachments. If we lived in a simulated universe created by AI, I can't imagine it being any different to how it is now. That is, it simply develops over time, casually growing and annihilating its minions as local equilibriums "demand". None of it is done out of spite or cruelty, just disinterest.

As a side note, I always found it odd how neutron stars and black holes are referred to as "dead stars". They seem to be eminently active and complex objects, seemingly more a latter stage of development than the "stellar corpses" they are said to be.

In fact, the black hole era of the universe - after the last red dwarf stars are burned out and only black holes remain, will last for quadrillions of years - the vast majority of the universe's life. Perhaps this relatively short and dynamic era of baryonic matter in the universe is just a turbulent youth, before the universe settles down to an extended period of maturity in the Black Hole Era?

[JackDaydream]

@Sy Borg
But information lives on as valuable memories of people after death. It also continues in recorded information, like photographs and letters. Of course, at some point information about each of us individually will be more or lost but, surely, that is more of an ego concern. However, that may be why some people wish to be famous and have children.

If no information was lost, perhaps there would be no place for the new. With the internet, there is such vast information stored in various ways. One issue here concerning destruction of information is that of the growing concern about cyberattack, because that can be a way in which vital information can really disappear into a 'black hole'.

[Sy Borg]

But information lives on as valuable memories of people after death. It also continues in recorded information, like photographs and letters. Of course, at some point information about each of us individually will be more or lost but, surely, that is more of an ego concern. However, that may be why some people wish to be famous and have children.

The last conscious being in the universe won't be remembered. Still memory is imperfect, far from a store of all of any person's or other animal's information. Mostly I'm interested in what happens to that extra layer of information that appears not to be accounted for by physicists.

If no information was lost, perhaps there would be no place for the new. With the internet, there is such vast information stored in various ways. One issue here concerning destruction of information is that of the growing concern about cyberattack, because that can be a way in which vital information can really disappear into a 'black hole'.

Yes, again there's an issue of, not just the substantive loss, but the loss of the systems created by the information.

[JackDaydream]

@Sy Borg

When you speak of the 'last conscious being in the universe not being remembered', it raises the issue of whether that will happen. There is the possibility of the end of human civilisation, which disturbs me greatly. However, that doesn't mean that no other conscious beings, human or animal will ever exist again at some point in this universe or some future universe, although these are only possibilities.

I am not sure what information you are concerned
about being lost specifically, or the 'extra layer of information not to be accounted for by the physicists. It sounds interesting, like some kind of elixir, or the 'philosopher's stone.'