3 replaced http://physics.stackexchange.com/ with https://physics.stackexchange.com/
source | link

I am trying to wrap my head around the principle of conservation of information as formulated by Leonard Susskind and others, which seems to me at first glance to be incompatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Per the principle of conservation of information, information is never lost, so what happens if we deleted information from a hard drive or burn a note so that nobody can ever read what was written on it?

Per Susskind, the information is now contained in the heat that is dissipated by the deletion or burning process. It is no longer accessible to anybody, but it somehow still exists as "hidden" information (See this postpost in the physics SE).

But how can it still be information if it can never be known by anyone?

Per the wikipedia definition of information:

As it regards data, the information's existence is not necessarily coupled to an observer (it exists beyond an event horizon, for example), while in the case of knowledge, the information requires a cognitive observer.

But I assume this means that even though there is no cognitive observer with access to the information, that it should be potentially accessible to a cognitive observer.

If on the other hand, the information has been made permanently inaccessible by the laws of physics (namely the 2nd law), how does it still qualify as information?

From an empiricist or positivist point of view, this no longer qualifies as information, by definition.

But even from a rationalist point of view, I fail to see how one can still consider this information?

Is there a way to define information from a rationalist point of view, such that this "hidden information" concept makes sense?

Or are the physicists just misusing the term "information" and they should really be referring to "energy" or "entropy" or something?

I am trying to wrap my head around the principle of conservation of information as formulated by Leonard Susskind and others, which seems to me at first glance to be incompatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Per the principle of conservation of information, information is never lost, so what happens if we deleted information from a hard drive or burn a note so that nobody can ever read what was written on it?

Per Susskind, the information is now contained in the heat that is dissipated by the deletion or burning process. It is no longer accessible to anybody, but it somehow still exists as "hidden" information (See this post in the physics SE).

But how can it still be information if it can never be known by anyone?

Per the wikipedia definition of information:

As it regards data, the information's existence is not necessarily coupled to an observer (it exists beyond an event horizon, for example), while in the case of knowledge, the information requires a cognitive observer.

But I assume this means that even though there is no cognitive observer with access to the information, that it should be potentially accessible to a cognitive observer.

If on the other hand, the information has been made permanently inaccessible by the laws of physics (namely the 2nd law), how does it still qualify as information?

From an empiricist or positivist point of view, this no longer qualifies as information, by definition.

But even from a rationalist point of view, I fail to see how one can still consider this information?

Is there a way to define information from a rationalist point of view, such that this "hidden information" concept makes sense?

Or are the physicists just misusing the term "information" and they should really be referring to "energy" or "entropy" or something?

I am trying to wrap my head around the principle of conservation of information as formulated by Leonard Susskind and others, which seems to me at first glance to be incompatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Per the principle of conservation of information, information is never lost, so what happens if we deleted information from a hard drive or burn a note so that nobody can ever read what was written on it?

Per Susskind, the information is now contained in the heat that is dissipated by the deletion or burning process. It is no longer accessible to anybody, but it somehow still exists as "hidden" information (See this post in the physics SE).

But how can it still be information if it can never be known by anyone?

Per the wikipedia definition of information:

As it regards data, the information's existence is not necessarily coupled to an observer (it exists beyond an event horizon, for example), while in the case of knowledge, the information requires a cognitive observer.

But I assume this means that even though there is no cognitive observer with access to the information, that it should be potentially accessible to a cognitive observer.

If on the other hand, the information has been made permanently inaccessible by the laws of physics (namely the 2nd law), how does it still qualify as information?

From an empiricist or positivist point of view, this no longer qualifies as information, by definition.

But even from a rationalist point of view, I fail to see how one can still consider this information?

Is there a way to define information from a rationalist point of view, such that this "hidden information" concept makes sense?

Or are the physicists just misusing the term "information" and they should really be referring to "energy" or "entropy" or something?

    Tweeted twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/821501044018610178
2 added 5 characters in body
source | link

I am trying to wrap my head around the principle of conservation of information as formulated by Leonard Susskind and others, which seems to me at first glance to be incompatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Per the principle of conservation of information, information is never lost, so what happens if we deleted information from a hard drive or burn a note so that nobody can ever read what was written on it?

Per Susskind, the information is now contained in the heat that is dissipated by the deletion or burning process. It is no longer accessible to anybody, but it somehow still exists as "hidden" information (See this post in the physics SE).

But how can it still be information if it can never be known by anyone?

Per the wikipedia definition of information:

As it regards data, the information's existence is not necessarily coupled to an observer (it exists beyond an event horizon, for example), while in the case of knowledge, the information requires a cognitive observer.

But I assume this means that even though there is no cognitive observer with access to the information, that it should be potentially accessible to a cognitive observer.

If on the other hand, the information has been made permanently inaccessible by the laws of physics (namely the 2nd law), how does it still qualify as information?

From an empiricist or positivist point of view, this no longer qualifies as information, by definition.

But even from a rationalist point of view, I still fail to see how one can still consider this information?

Is there a way to define information from a rationalist point of view, such that this "hidden information" concept makes sense?

Or are the physicists just misusing the term "information" and they should really be referring to "energy" or "entropy" or something?

I am trying to wrap my head around the principle of conservation of information as formulated by Leonard Susskind and others, which seems to me at first glance to be incompatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Per the principle of conservation of information, information is never lost, so what happens if we deleted information from a hard drive or burn a note so that nobody can ever read what was written on it?

Per Susskind, the information is now contained in the heat that is dissipated by the deletion or burning process. It is no longer accessible to anybody, but it somehow still exists as "hidden" information (See this post in the physics SE).

But how can it still be information if it can never be known by anyone?

Per the wikipedia definition of information:

As it regards data, the information's existence is not necessarily coupled to an observer (it exists beyond an event horizon, for example), while in the case of knowledge, the information requires a cognitive observer.

But I assume this means that even though there is no cognitive observer with access to the information, that it should be potentially accessible to a cognitive observer.

If on the other hand, the information has been permanently inaccessible by the laws of physics (namely the 2nd law), how does it still qualify as information?

From an empiricist or positivist point of view, this no longer qualifies as information, by definition.

But even from a rationalist point of view, I still fail to see how one can still consider this information?

Is there a way to define information from a rationalist point of view, such that this "hidden information" concept makes sense?

Or are the physicists just misusing the term "information" and they should really be referring to "energy" or "entropy" or something?

I am trying to wrap my head around the principle of conservation of information as formulated by Leonard Susskind and others, which seems to me at first glance to be incompatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Per the principle of conservation of information, information is never lost, so what happens if we deleted information from a hard drive or burn a note so that nobody can ever read what was written on it?

Per Susskind, the information is now contained in the heat that is dissipated by the deletion or burning process. It is no longer accessible to anybody, but it somehow still exists as "hidden" information (See this post in the physics SE).

But how can it still be information if it can never be known by anyone?

Per the wikipedia definition of information:

As it regards data, the information's existence is not necessarily coupled to an observer (it exists beyond an event horizon, for example), while in the case of knowledge, the information requires a cognitive observer.

But I assume this means that even though there is no cognitive observer with access to the information, that it should be potentially accessible to a cognitive observer.

If on the other hand, the information has been made permanently inaccessible by the laws of physics (namely the 2nd law), how does it still qualify as information?

From an empiricist or positivist point of view, this no longer qualifies as information, by definition.

But even from a rationalist point of view, I fail to see how one can still consider this information?

Is there a way to define information from a rationalist point of view, such that this "hidden information" concept makes sense?

Or are the physicists just misusing the term "information" and they should really be referring to "energy" or "entropy" or something?

1
source | link

Can there be information without a "knower"?

I am trying to wrap my head around the principle of conservation of information as formulated by Leonard Susskind and others, which seems to me at first glance to be incompatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Per the principle of conservation of information, information is never lost, so what happens if we deleted information from a hard drive or burn a note so that nobody can ever read what was written on it?

Per Susskind, the information is now contained in the heat that is dissipated by the deletion or burning process. It is no longer accessible to anybody, but it somehow still exists as "hidden" information (See this post in the physics SE).

But how can it still be information if it can never be known by anyone?

Per the wikipedia definition of information:

As it regards data, the information's existence is not necessarily coupled to an observer (it exists beyond an event horizon, for example), while in the case of knowledge, the information requires a cognitive observer.

But I assume this means that even though there is no cognitive observer with access to the information, that it should be potentially accessible to a cognitive observer.

If on the other hand, the information has been permanently inaccessible by the laws of physics (namely the 2nd law), how does it still qualify as information?

From an empiricist or positivist point of view, this no longer qualifies as information, by definition.

But even from a rationalist point of view, I still fail to see how one can still consider this information?

Is there a way to define information from a rationalist point of view, such that this "hidden information" concept makes sense?

Or are the physicists just misusing the term "information" and they should really be referring to "energy" or "entropy" or something?