Thread 16743512

If entropy is the measurement of information and the entropy of the universe is strictly increasing, does that mean that new information is being introduced into the universe all the time, ergo even knowing the state of the entire universe at any point would not allow you to determine its future state, ergo determinism is wrong?

randomness
>at small scales
determinism
>at large
/thread

>>16743519
I haven't said anything about randomness.

>>16743548
non-determinism is a synonym of random
>duh

>>16743558
Sure. Putting that aside, it is trivial to show how to amplify randomness from the small scale to arbitrary large scale phenomena, os you can't have determinism at large with randomness at small scale.
And that doesn't have much to do with what I am asking about.

>>16743567
I'm kind of shit posting before but to take your point as you're making it I think we can skip your argument about entropy increasing meaning new information is being introduced and without access ahead of time to that new info future states cannot be calculated because a simpler argument makes your case and that goes like this

to know the state means you've made a measurement
making a measurement is a synonym for causing a collision with whatever part of the system you are measuring
collisions affect the thing measured
thus in principle determinism is impossible from within the system because you have to disturb it with measurement in order to know the state

>>16743570
The fact that the measurement affected the thing you measured doesn't mean you no longer know the state.
Even if the act of measuring which slit did the photon go destroys the interference pattern, it doesn't mean you lost any information. You do actually know where did it go because you measured it.
Either way, determinism doesn't really depend on feasibility of getting that information. Just because it might be impossible to contain all the information about the universe state within the universe(that's literally the scenario for halting problem), it doesn't mean it is nondeterministic. We could call it practically not deterministic, but that's not really what determinism is really about.

>>16743579
you mean determinism in principle vs in practice
>so there are levels to determinism
I'm just saying in principle it's impossible because we can't ever know the state because we have to disturb the state to measure one aspect which will make another aspect impossible to know (position x trajectory & velocity)
measure one you throw off knowledge of the other
>measuring is colliding

>>16743512 (OP)
Entropy is not information.

Entropy is the state of order to disorder.

Like your room becoming messy after you clean it.

Entropy describes thermodynamics but you can use its principles for any system.

Determinism has nothing to do with entropy.

The state or future state of something can be described in chaos theory.

>>16743585
But information theory

>>16743512 (OP)
Im DJ Arch(imedes) in pic rel

>>16743512 (OP)
>If entropy is the measurement of information and the entropy of the universe is strictly increasing, does that mean that new information is being introduced into the universe all the time, ergo even knowing the state of the entire universe at any point would not allow you to determine its future state, ergo determinism is wrong?
If you're reasoning about entropy, you are reasoning in terms of high-level constraints in a system but not the exact state of every particle. To say that entropy is increasing is simply to say that those constraints gradually break down and then you actually have nothing to go by except the exact states of your particles.

>>16743519
nah it's a combination of both
it's sorta deterministic but also not quite
think of it as, if you held all info you could divine the future, and most of the times you would be close, but sometimes not as close and sometimes completely wrong
large and small scale doesn't matter, except to how much info is required to predict

the random factor is souls
souls is the new information
a soul is something unpredictable that cannot be accounted for
a soul is a "God" who created itself out of nothing, that's what we all are
so it's totally unpredictable when or how a new soul will emerge and also how it will choose to reincarnate

>inb4 metaphysics le bad etc
if you don't account for metaphysics there is no way refuting absolute determinism

>>16743558
>non-determinism is a synonym of random
no, randomness implies non-determinism, not the other way around.

>>16743689
NPCs can't conceptualize non-determinism is anything other than randomness.

>>16743680
only read your green text. decided it wasn't worth reading the rest. thx for the warning

>>16743738
the fact that you wasted your time to answer to something worthless proves that either you are stupid, or it struck a nerve

>>16743694
>Observe an object behaving exactly as expected according to the laws of physics.
>The object self-narrates that it was behaving according to its own will.
Nya.

>>16743766
What does your physically incoherent fantasy have to do with reality?

>>16743657
Does constrain breaking creates information?
I guess the crux of this is that:
>entropy is proportional to the amount of information in the system
>entropy is always increasing
>information cannot be created
All 3 can't be true at the same time.

Saw this while listening to aphex twin lol. Quite fitting.

>>16743793
Everything is physically coherent though, even fantasy is an appearance of physical laws.

>entropy
>not understanding that it isn't information contained, but information required to describe
This fucking word gets thrown around too much for you to have not figured out that it is most often used wrong. One could simplify it as bell curve spread, or odds of outliers.
Order and disorder are separate concepts, and have fuck all to do with chaos(energy).

>>16743585
Solution is to eradicate negative entropy. Positive entropy can remain given the reassemblies will conform to greater orders by default at all times.

>>16744616
>even fantasy is an appearance of physical laws.
no it isn't. we don't even have a physical model for why we're able to display cognition, let alone fantasize.

>>16744833
>Physicalists can't even explain non-physical stuff.
Baka you're being dualistic again. We know how computers display images and how other computers perceive, cognize and act upon images. In b4:
>It's just processing bro haven't you heard about blind sight and Chinese rooms man?
Now imagine what it's like to be a processor. You don't have to because you are. Alternatively you may believe picrel or become a member of The Chopra Well to ease your existential crisis.

>>16745036
>cognize
we don't know shit about cognition lol

>>16745106
But we do. There's no black box between stimulus and response because we have tons of theories about what happens in between that produce reliable predictions.