Month: September 2019

My read is that as you fall into black holes time slows down for you, so that the information is preserved by virtue of it never reaching the singularity. Inaccessible, not destroyed. Literally frozen in time. So if you ran time backwards, everything that fell in and red shifted to invisible black, would then blue shift from black to normal visibility as its distance from the singularity increased. This is also compatible with the idea that white holes are time shifted black holes, such that in the future they will become white holes, exploding violently and all the information trapped beyond the event horizon will be exposed by variations in that final explosion. Kinda like how you can tell what something was made of by burning it.

But I do wonder about this notion of information permanence. Seems to me there are plenty of macroscopic events that couldn’t be reversed in the informational sense. Like imagine a 10×10 grid of switches, randomly set to on or off. And now I flip them all off all at once with like a square of wood. Where is that past configuration of switches “stored” in the present all-off configuration? Seems to me like I destroyed that information.

This reminds me of why it’s literally impossible to ever translate some dead languages, or why one time pads are literally unbreakable encryption. It seems obvious to me that some information is clearly destructible. It’s just harder and harder assuming better and better perception of the present. But only to a point and not for all event types. (This is related to chance and free will as well. See below.)

This would also mean that when black holes merge the old data is still there trapped behind the event horizon, presumably never to be retrieved until the distant future when the black holes become white holes and explode.

The problem is, without knowing exactly what’s going on inside, we have no way to tell how or even if this conversion will happen. (Until black holes start exploding.) I suspect it’s related to “initial” mass, kind of like the life cycle of stars. I suspect the bigger a black hole is the further forward in time its white hole stage will be.

We should be able to investigate this with micro black holes at cern. Or maybe there’s already data disproving me (us?) there.

Personally I think it should be a species priority to get into intergalactic space asap. Think, minimum safe distance. We can leave a trail of probes behind us to bucket brigade any material we need from the galaxy.

In any case I predict totally bald black holes. I also predict merged black holes will have the same mass as their parents combined. I assert no mass will be lost for the same reason no information escapes.

I don’t think the information paradox is a real thing. I don’t see any reason to believe data is indestructible, especially if you believe in a universe where “probability” is a real thing. If chance actually exists, then it stands to reason rewinding and replaying the same event, should have a “chance” of having a different outcome. Apparently QM absolutely demands this and the entire universe is probabilistic. That means you aren’t assured of a flawless replay or rewind under any real circumstances. (Unless chance is an illusion. Which I think it is.)

Now, if QM is bullshit (which I think it is, god doesn’t play dice) then maybe information immortality is real. In which case the black hole white hole model above is an even better idea.

Calling liars out, having proof, being on the side of the facts… None of that matters. You simply will not “win” in the court of public opinion with facts, reason, logic, or evidence, of any real kind. The crowd is 100% amygdala. There’s no higher reasoning EXECPT as a post facto response to the emotional reaction.

In short the crowd can only rationalize, it can not be rational. (Ironically my ability to prove that doesn’t mean anything to anyone.)

I don’t think there are any silent undecided third parties convinced by debate. First and second parties obviously never convince each other.

If debates had that level of impact global society itself would be a lot more rational and unified. Nuclear power and religion are my goto proofs here. But maybe they aren’t the best ones. Nuclear power’s argument is entirely fact based and yet for decades now we’ve let one bad film from the 70s decide US energy position on that front.

Actual professional nuclear physicists have failed for decades to convince Americans of the concrete facts. (I’m sure many people who might read this remain unconvinced for example.) Further, if debate actually swayed third parties with facts and logic religion would be unified or abandoned by now.

Assuming there is a factual objective metaphysical system to reality or the unified absence of one, debate based on those facts should have given a substantial advantage to the truth resulting in unity either under the true religion or the fact that there isn’t one. Clearly that didn’t happen. We still have thousands of religions plus atheism all perpetually bickering.

Also, these hypothetical undecided people could participate in debate, asking questions and the like, but I never see it. I never see people commenting and then adopting a position. I only ever see people seeking confirmation or defending a side.

Further, if undecided third parties were converted into decided first and second parties then they’d join in. But all you ever see in debates are people speaking like they already had a position. (This is a phd sociology opportunity, just find examples of people saying they are convinced, and then prove or disprove it as best you can. I predict now you’ll find none of them are new positions.) You never see droves of people join in with replies like so and so convinced me this is now my position.

Basically I’m saying the claim that there are convinced third parties is wishful thinking, which was the only room left for debate being a valid persuasive tactic. Hence, myth. Reminds me of the so called “silent majority.” Imaginary but (seemingly) plausible allies.

Debate in my opinion appears to be an article of faith and hope more than anything. Which is why the only substantive uses of debate in our society are law and politics, which are the secular faith equivalents on which our society is built.

Which brings up a disturbing corollary. We Americans literally can’t as a society admit that debate is impotent theater because democracy and the legal system are based on it. How do we choose policy or candidates without the function debate is presented as providing? How do we determine guilt and innocence without a jury trial system and impartial judges? What possible alternative is there to this lie?

Literally how do you even start to build a just society that is honest about debate being a myth?

I think the answer is clear. We can’t, and never have. Deep down we all know politics and justice are as broken in this regard as religion and energy policy. Politics is based on lies and spin, not facts and reason. Justice similarly is based on lies and spin, as an extension of politics, but additionally on arcane loopholes, virtue signaling, and proxy sadism. As well as simple greed.

Nationalism and war itself is also an example. It would appear that diplomacy can’t be won in the sense that checkers can. Because if rhetoric and debate could be mastered the nation with the best diplomats would have won the game long ago. Think about it, the best possible weapon logically should be masterful diplomacy. Which would be better militarily? Sending one diplomat and getting everything you want? Or trading half a battalion for everything you want? Just compare military spending. Why spend money on bombs to acquire square feet when you could spend it on diplomats to acquire square miles?

The obvious truth that “it doesn’t work that way” proves my point. Diplomacy is obviously not the weapon system you want to invest in if you intend to win. The reality is that diplomacy doesn’t do anything as advertised. Recent human history is defined by two co-occurring things: Peace, and stasis. Diplomacy where ascendant can prevent war (maybe?) but it doesn’t replace it because in short it’s just not effective. Because it’s based on debate, and debate is a myth.

Philosophically the threat is even larger. Think about conversation as a concept. What even is communication if debate is empty? Its certainly not what it appears to be. I mean my typing this is pointless if debate is empty. But what choice do I have? How do we even begin to design a philosophy that faces this fact?

And what about science? Planck famously lamented the impossibility of convincing even fellow world’s-best physicists with facts and reason. What does that say about our process for making decisions scientifically? How can we possibly achieve consensus if facts themselves have no persuasive power? It’s almost like the persuasion in this context is incidental, accidental, and unconscious.

Some solution speculation:

If diplomacy isn’t the alternative to war we imply it is verbally then we need to develop one asap. War is inherently fact based. The “debate” there is entirely physical. Reality’s physical logic is the truest impartial judge. The problem of war isn’t the concept, it’s the scale and cost. That’s all we need to constrain, otherwise the concept is clearly useful.

We need to transform war into something that serves us instead of something that feeds on us. Imagine if we could turn all that military spending into investment.

How about placing policy and concession bounties on a list of agreed upon scientific discoveries? Like a space program with national betting. First team to place a man on Mars gets some set of war spoils and policy decisions.

All we’d have to do is choose the combatants, the dispute, and the win criteria. Like the gold standard, we could link our economy of policy, to the gold of physical law. Just like war does, only with no collateral damage, and at extreme efficiency.

At any rate, I think I’ve shown that facts don’t matter pretty clearly. I wonder, did my facts and logic change your mind or do you still disagree? XD

See also: https://underlore.com/open-letter-to-all-who-are-rigged/