[Europa]

I've heard that atoms exist in multiple, even infinite places at once.

Today, when I googled it, I kept getting articles about atoms existing in 2 places at once. Is that because 2 is the maximum number of places it can be in or is it just because we're all familiar with the phrase "I can't be in 2 places at once"?

And then I read that atoms are only ever in 1 place and anything else is just a misunderstanding.

So which is it?
And please try to put it in layman's terms.

Also I read someone say that quantum physics is like religion, there are zealots on each side of the arguments with claims their side is right. And that the quantum realm is so different to how we normally think, we don't even have language to adequately describe it.

Nothing can be in two places at one time under the current understanding of Physics

[Halc]

Are you saying you think there's a limit to how many memories were can store in our brain or not?

Physics says that even without a limit to the size of any system, there can be only limited information available from said system at a given point in space. So biology aside, there is a theoretical maximum amount of information, and thus memories, available for query from a given point.
I stress the 'given point' bit because an infinite classic system can hold infinite information (if it has an actual state, which seems to only work in classic physics), but that information cannot travel from where it is stored to any given point even in unlimited time, so it is unavailable to that point.

[Multifaceted (OP)]

Physics says that even without a limit to the size of any system, there can be only limited information available from said system at a given point in space. So biology aside, there is a theoretical maximum amount of information, and thus memories, available for query from a given point.

When you say "Physics says" do you mean that it's indicated but not proven?
No offense to Halc but is any one else on this site going to dispute this?

[Eternal Student]

Hi multifaceted,

1.   You should worry less about things you hear.

2.    Halc was quite careful to phrase things a certain way:  He didn't say there is a limited amount of information, only that a limited amount is available at one place and time.   (... and he said it so quickly and softly that there wasn't much empahsis on time).

3.     There are equally interesting points that can be made based on the field of study called "Information theory".   For example, we can encode a lot of information in a very small amount of data (or space).  Also, a 2-dimensional surface like the event horizon of a black hole could encode all the 3-dimensional information required to describe a whole universe.

[yor_on]

yes, as far as I know they can.     https://www.livescience.com/2000-atoms-in-two-places-at-once.html

and the reason for it?   https://physicsworld.com/a/quantum-interference-the-movie/

[Multifaceted (OP)]

1.   You should worry less about things you hear.

Why?

2.    Halc was quite careful to phrase things a certain way:  He didn't say there is a limited amount of information, only that a limited amount is available at one place and time.   (... and he said it so quickly and softly that there wasn't much empahsis on time).

Well that sounds like there is only a finite number of memories our brains can store to me. Is that what Halc was saying?

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

To multifaceted   --->   Why should you worry less about the things you hear?   Because you seem to be the sort of person who is looking for answers, hopes to find absolute truths and may be troubled by some of what you hear.
   Scientists are often looking for more questions and generally accept that their current understanding is just a model not necessarily an absolute truth.
    I'm not Halc but, yes, I think it's fair to say that Halc was implying that our brains would hold only a finite number of memories.  There were a lot of assumptions and simplifications in Halc's reasoning and you really shouldn't worry too much about the point he was making.  For example, I don't want infinite memory, I want to be able to forget some things.  What we are able to forget is as important as what we can remember and this helps to make each human being a bit more unique.   Additionally, the operation of networks of neurones within your brain is not a property that your brain has in isolation from its environment.  For example, sometimes people remember more details about something when they are back in the place where the original event happend.  It could be that sensory inputs change the operation and responses of the network of neurones in your brain (effectively re-wiring your brain).  This may allow your brain to work differently and reconstruct data that is not available to you anywhere else.  Similarly it may prevent retrieval of some other memories while you are at that place.   Overall then your memories may not be a simple function of what is in your brain but instead they could be considered as something stored within a bigger system which is your brain + the environment.

Best wishes.

[evan_au]

you probably cannot voluntarily recall what you were doing 1000 hours ago, but hypnosis suggests that those memories are there, at least the important part

Optical illusions, blinking, eye tracking and physiological mishaps (like damaged vision) suggest that what our brains present to us as a continuous, detailed and complete image of the world is in fact fractured, and mostly low-resolution. Our brains turn this scrappy input into a high-quality image.

Hypnosis and various experiments in psychology show that what we recall as a detailed memory is in fact rewritten every time we recall it, and has context added that was not part of the original experience.

Neurones are tuned by many experiences over a lifetime, and, rather than recording like a movie camera, it mostly tweaks the weights of neurons that are already recording other memories. So what it records is the "gist" of the memory.

Our memories form a large part of "who we think we are", so some people may find it disturbing that a lot of what we experience and remember is partly fabricated by our brains.

That has major implications for our system of justice.
- I find it ironic that in a court of law, witnesses are banned from consulting notes, and are forced to rely on recollections.
- While the verbal "eyewitness account" that is considered most valuable evidence in a court of law, in science and technology it is considered the least reliable form of evidence.

[yor_on]

Interesting ES. It's also so that neurons 'firing' seems to matters, not only the connections they make but the firing sequence of it. It gets 'multi dimensional' or layered  information 'brain wise' .Like me looking at a some old cellophane, holding it against the sun, suddenly remembering a taste and emotions without being able to pinpoint the memory itself.

[Halc]

Neurones are tuned by many experiences over a lifetime, and, rather than recording like a movie camera, it mostly tweaks the weights of neurons that are already recording other memories. So what it records is the "gist" of the memory.

Totally agree with the whole post. The way memories are stored long term is more like a terse diary entry than a video. Language seems to have a lot to do with it since most people have trouble recalling memories from before they were verbal.

I lay no claim to any expertise on how mammals store memories. My argument rested on the conclusion that there are only a finite number of distinct arrangements of matter in a given proper volume. It goes without saying that most of those arrangements do not constitute a functioning human brain.

[yor_on]

Actually I've seen some saying that we don't lose anything. It's all stored but we do 'forget'. And how we forget and why is a interesting question.
=

And I think this seems quite correct, 'encoding'. That is f.ex when I want to remember something, taking a extra look at the location of a key, glasses, something I want to know where it is, later. It's a technique that works for me, when I do it consciously.

http://www.thememoryinstitute.com/how-we-remember-and-why-we-forget.html

[Multifaceted (OP)]

Nothing is proven by science. It's all done by induction, not deduction, and it's only as strong as its premises.

So is it weak or strong?

None of the things we say here has a negative impact on your life. If you find knowledge disturbing, then by all means make up whatever truth makes you comfortable. It's what humans do very well. I can think of nobody that doesn't do it.

I don't do it, I detest the idea of coming up with comforting lies and accepting them. The things said here do have an impact because I want to know the rules of reality. I can only ever be happy if I can say to myself that the things I fear are not true, that why I come to forums like this.
It's not all knowledge I find disturbing, just certain knowledge. Like the one you gave below.

No, my comment was a more general thing that there can only be a finite measurably distinct distribution of matter available at a point in space (which is a worldline, not an event). If the matter is too far away, it cannot be measured at all. So the radius is finite, leaving a finite set of measurably distinct arrangements for that matter.

Are you saying that matter can only be arranged in a finite number of ways in a finite space?
Because I have told you how horrific I find that and there is no way I'll ever be ok with it?
Is this an absolute truth?

[Multifaceted (OP)]

Neurones
I lay no claim to any expertise on how mammals store memories. My argument rested on the conclusion that there are only a finite number of distinct arrangements of matter in a given proper volume.

Are you saying that there is a finite number of ways matter can be arranged in a finite space? Because that is one of my all time biggest fears, it's the most horrific thing I ever heard, I mentioned this some time ago.

Please be very carful in your answer because if this is a fact it will be devastating to me.

Is this an absolute fact? Do people know this for sure? Is there room for doubt?
I honestly can't tell when people are talking about truths or theories.

[Europa]

I've heard that atoms exist in multiple, even infinite places at once.

Today, when I googled it, I kept getting articles about atoms existing in 2 places at once. Is that because 2 is the maximum number of places it can be in or is it just because we're all familiar with the phrase "I can't be in 2 places at once"?

And then I read that atoms are only ever in 1 place and anything else is just a misunderstanding.

So which is it?
And please try to put it in layman's terms.

Also I read someone say that quantum physics is like religion, there are zealots on each side of the arguments with claims their side is right. And that the quantum realm is so different to how we normally think, we don't even have language to adequately describe it.

Do you exist in two places or one?

Answer one.

You are made up of atoms that exist in one place, just like you

[Halc]

Nothing is proven by science. It's all done by induction, not deduction, and it's only as strong as its premises.

So is it weak or strong?

The premises are philosophical, so they're as strong or weak as you believe them to be. Pretty much all you're asking qualifies as philosophical questions.

I don't do it, I detest the idea of coming up with comforting lies and accepting them. The things said here do have an impact because I want to know the rules of reality. I can only ever be happy if I can say to myself that the things I fear are not true, that why I come to forums like this.

You need to go to a philosophy forum. They talk science there, but it is the implications you're after, and a science forum is going to be less help.
You seem to want to jump off a cliff because it is imperative that you know the experience, but you expect to be devastated if it hurts.

It's not all knowledge I find disturbing, just certain knowledge. Like the one you gave below.

I gave no certain knowledge since science doesn't do that. This is not the first repeat of that.

No, my comment was a more general thing that there can only be a finite measurably distinct distribution of matter available at a point in space (which is a worldline, not an event). If the matter is too far away, it cannot be measured at all. So the radius is finite, leaving a finite set of measurably distinct arrangements for that matter.

Are you saying that matter can only be arranged in a finite number of ways in a finite space?

No. I said what I said. There are unproven premises in the statement above, and I said "measurably distinct". There's no suggestion of an actual finite number of states of even a single particle confined to say a jar. Science cannot demonstrate any finite limit to it.

[yor_on]

I would expect it, the brain, to be 'holistic,' although in principle limited by the/our skulls encasing it. We have about 86 billion neurons in a average human brain, according to the latest studies and they communicate with each other in several ways, 'simultaneously' or not. Various firing sequences is one way, and then direct chemo electrical inputs and outputs another, Then you have those linking it to quantum phenomena. Your 'self' is the combined output of all of those activities, known and unknown to you.

so don't let numbers confuse you. https://www.wired.com/story/a-new-way-to-understand-the-brains-intricate-rhythm/

and https://medvance.org/2020/11/23/new-study-reveals-a-holistic-way-to-look-at-neurons-in-the-brain/
=

There exist a example of guy getting his brain compressed inside the skull. It's a older story and I don't have a link to it but I read it. X-rayed after complaining of headaches they didn't see it at first, the skull looked empty. He took some IQ tests and they showed him to be of a average intelligence if I remember correctly. That brain was the size of a walnut according to the article, still working. And yes, operating on him installing a shunt to correct it the brain 'grew' and his headaches disappeared, all as I remember it.

and this one is interesting too.  https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who-lives-without-90-of-his-brain-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-consciousness

You can take a look at this one too. https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/neuronal-networks-brain-waves

[Multifaceted (OP)]

You need to go to a philosophy forum. They talk science there, but it is the implications you're after, and a science forum is going to be less help.
You seem to want to jump off a cliff because it is imperative that you know the experience, but you expect to be devastated if it hurts.

The way I see it, the facts uncovered by science can have implications on our lives, regardless of what we think and how we live. I don't see how that is a matter of philosophy.

And no I do not want to jump off a cliff to have the experience, literally or figuratively.

I gave no certain knowledge since science doesn't do that. This is not the first repeat of that.

I ment certain as in particular.

No. I said what I said. There are unproven premises in the statement above, and I said "measurably distinct". There's no suggestion of an actual finite number of states of even a single particle confined to say a jar. Science cannot demonstrate any finite limit to it.

So if we try to measure something it has finite states, can only be finitely arranged? But naturally it's infinite? And this is unproven anyway?

[Multifaceted (OP)]

I lay no claim to any expertise on how mammals store memories. My argument rested on the conclusion that there are only a finite number of distinct arrangements of matter in a given proper volume. It goes without saying that most of those arrangements do not constitute a functioning human brain.

The conclusion? Does this mean it's been proven? It sounds to me like this is saying matter can only be arranged a finite number of ways in a finite space.

[Eternal Student]

Hi again multifaceted,

   I'm concerned that my language will be too imprecise and may present something as a definitive conclusion while it is not intended to be that way.   I think many other contributors have similar concerns.

   There is no agreement on what an atom is.  We certainly can't see one because photons of light don't resolve such small distances of separation.  As a consequence we can't provide a definitive answer for the basic question you asked earlier  "can atoms only be arranged in a finite number of ways?"

   Personally, I don't know about truth or hope that science will provide it.  Truth may not be a thing that exists independently,   to use some scientific vernacular  truth may be observer-dependent.

On the back of the first wave of modern scientific investigation, the philosopher Immanuel Kant floated the idea that there is the world as it is and the world as we represent it to ourselves, and we shouldn’t necessarily assume they have much in common. 
     [ Taken from:   https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24432604-000-scientific-truth-doesnt-exist-but-we-must-still-strive-for-answers/ ]

Best wishes to you.

[Multifaceted (OP)]

    I'm not Halc but, yes, I think it's fair to say that Halc was implying that our brains would hold only a finite number of memories.  There were a lot of assumptions and simplifications in Halc's reasoning and you really shouldn't worry too much about the point he was making.

Are you saying that Halc is erring on the side of limited memory but his argument for it is not very good? That I shouldn't worry because there is no proof of a limited memory capacity?

There is no agreement on what an atom is.  We certainly can't see one because photons of light don't resolve such small distances of separation.  As a consequence we can't provide a definitive answer for the basic question you asked earlier  "can atoms only be arranged in a finite number of ways?"

So it's ok, even plausible to think that matter can be infinitely arranged in a finite space, despite whatever else people say?

I'm concerned that my language will be too imprecise and may present something as a definitive conclusion while it is not intended to be that way.   I think many other contributors have similar concerns.

I admit I do have a tendency to take statements very literally, I've learned that a single word can completely change any statement. A single sentence can change the way you look at an entire franchise.