>>8070886
The information isn't scrambled, actually.
It's restorable unless you write new information over it.

information is the arrangement of matter and yes it can be destroyed just as it can be created

>>8070886
That's a topic of debate. The main offender are black holes. Anything they suck up gets compressed into a singularity, which by definition (presently we know, at least) does not give any information back save for hawking radiation. Hawking radiation (presently theorized) can not be used to figure out what went in. e.g. information is lost.

Now, if you were talking about something like a hard drive, no matter what you do to it, degauss it, burn it, crumble it, if you know the state of the universe and the laws of physics, you could just rewind and restore the hard drive. Black holes don't let you do that (or so it's thought).

I'm not very versed on the topic but I'm interested in it because i've been hearing a lot of discussion about information lately, as far as physics is concerned.

>>8070904
>it can be destroyed
or just scrambled and scattered beyond recognition?

>We have laws about the conservation of energy and matter.
No we don't they're observations. Observations that don't hold true for everything, by the way, as energy is literally lost when photons get redshifted as a result of the expansion of the universe.

>>8071026
>hurr durr
just look at the VERY FIRST line of this wiki:
This article is about the law of conservation of energy in physics.

>This article is about the law of conservation of energy in physics

>>8071102
forgot link but you know the deal

>>8070954
same thing. scattered information is no longer information, its just noise

>>8070886
Information can be destroyed in that you can have an ambiguous history.

Roll a pair of dice. Don't look at it. Then roll the dice again, what was the result of the first roll? You don't know which of the 36 possible histories it could have been.

>>8071109
>scattered
Like the energy of an explosion?
That energy is "gone" (for all practical purposes) but we still recognize that it is not "lost". Just very diffuse.

>>8070904
>>8070899
>>8070954
That's as asinine as saying you're destroying energy by changing its state.

>>8071109
if you had complete knowledge of the laws of physics that govern the universe, as well as a complete record of the present information (particles, their positions, their spins, etc) you could run time backwards (hypothetically a big simulation, for example) and unscatter it. The feasability of doing so is irrelevant in this situation, really. I can light a fire and turn a log into heat and smoke, but with enough of that "noisy" information you can still reconstruct the log (obviously we couldn't do that now or in the conceivable future, the technological limitations of doing so alone are staggering.. but it's still a theoretical possibility)

>>8071116
Same as above. You'd be able to figure it out. Human brains obey the laws of physics and are chemically reacting machines with sufficient information.

what IS information?

>>8073515
that's not necessarily true for teh same reason that you can't "run forward in time".

movements of atoms do not appear to be deterministic in general