This is for those advanced thinkers who may (or may not) have thought about what a computer actually is.
Information is physical; there is no computer anywhere in the universe which is not made out of real atoms.
(See if you can think of something that's made out of unreal atoms)
Every atom which is real (has mass) is a computer, because it's made out of little 'particles' that are also individual computers.

Information is dimensional; there is no "one-dimensional" information anywhere in the universe.
The most fundamental, irreducible, logical form of information, which is mappable to any fundamental, logical computer, is 0 and 1, which has 2 dimensions of 'state'.

Without these 2 dimensions, there is no way to define an 'input' or 'output', or separate the computation from the information it transforms.
{You cannot transform information in just one dimension.)

The following is from a course on quantum information processing (as a heads-up to anyone who feels challenged by words with more than 2 syllables):
A computer is a physical machine and any computation performed by such a machine is in essence a physical process. This is a simple factual statement but it has a profound consequence. It can be logically argued from this premise that:

* the laws of [physical] computation depend on the physical laws obeyed by the computer machine under consideration, and,

* there are no absolute laws of computation valid for all computational machines

The prominent logician/mathematician, Alan Turing, formulated the classical theory of computation in [the] 1930s. He assumed that computation is performed by an idealised mechanical computer (with potentially infinite storage capacity) obeying the classical laws of physics. This model, now called the Turing model of computation, has proved to be adequate for describing the computational process performed by mechanical or modern electronic computers.
...
At atomic scales the laws of classical physics, which are the basis of Turing Machines and the classical theory of computation, collapse. ..Every aspect of computing, storing information, loading and running programs and reading the output [is] governed by laws of quantum physics.
...
Quantum gates ...necessarily have a [continuous] evolution in discrete time. But physical systems evolve [discretely] in continuous time. Therefore, in order to ...implement a quantum gate as a physical system, we need to know how quantum systems evolve in continuous time.

--Department of Computing
Imperial College, London (from a course "Quantum Computing" 2001-2002)


This is where the computational basis changes from classical electric and magnetic fields, to quantum versions of those same fields, as 'inputs' which are operated on by Hermitian transforms in a complex probability space. [What does a quantum measure space look like? How many corrections do various mathematical models need in the various fields of real QC]

Classical circuits operate on the same fields with 'components' that transform them and create phase differences between them. Quantum circuits create these phase angles (between say, electron spin) by processing the fields with 'components' that are superpositions of wavefunctions.
It's a matter of seeing what these fields "look like", to classical and quantum systems, what the components are and what they do to the 'input signals', how to interpret or read the 'output signals'. One key difference is quantum circuits have to 'produce' a classical output, where this is something classical circuits do already. This is not trivial.

So who knows why an electron precessing in a known magnetic field, isn't computing a spin phase? Why the electron isn't transforming the 'input' as spin, and performing a computation?

Anyone?

Some might notice (if they look around this section of the forum) that some contributors have the attitude: "you can't understand QM unless you do 5-7 years of university study".
IOW, you need to graduate, then get a further degree and then be enroled in a Ph.D. in order to have a chance.
But since you will still have no idea what computation is like these certain contributors don't, because you've been studying all that advanced math, this advice isn't what I would call germane.

In fact it's irrelevant. You don't need to study advanced topology or group theory, or algebra to the extent you won't have time to study anything else. If you do all that, you are possibly lowering your chances of understanding QIS.

The subject requires some advanced math, but as the above excerpt implies, the job of finding out which math, has been done already.
People with all that advance math and physics know which bits are relevant to QC, that information is information (it doesn't change just because it's in a quantum circuit).

In fact, looking at some of the rather opinionated, self-assured, ultimately blinkered, narrow views some of these math-types have come up with, I'd say these guys have probably learned so much they now have a vanishingly small chance of ever understanding that.

That would be: show why a rotation along a single axis of a mixed state, isn't a measurement basis, and why the time-dependent evolution of that rotation doesn't have a computation basis which is the applied field and also the qubit representation.
The applied field happens to be magnetic.

How many "components" have a basis that is part of the computation, which is the overall computation basis?

A cha, so it is necessary to be seeing what is meaning of this words computational basis?

If you learn about classical electronics you apply the math of Fourier and Laplace mostly, to a classical device, and Boole and Turing in digital devices. But atoms can be both and in a converse sense because you apply the algebra to what the fields do to electron spin mostly, whereas you deal with charge mostly, in CI systems. In these you create wavefunctions with discrete devices, the operators in the phase space, in QI the fields interact with wavefunctions and the devices are discrete transforms, the space is different.

We know about all the thermodynamic informational properties of CI, what does it do in the QI world, where the probabilistic informational properties are manipulated, where bits can mix together so they 'spin' the same way along some axis but are still two bits, is how to see it.
That we mix them in two possible ways in the thermodynamic classical sense, as waveforms, and as binary states or bits - which we can only mix by copying or inverting (or erasing) a geometric and an algebraic way to use EM; in the quantum sense the role of thermodynamics is reversed, or it's the 'zero point; of the thermodynamic realm; information is inherently thermodynamic or statistical. Quantum algebra with fundamental particles that are manipulated as waveforms, by EM is what we'e doing now (they didn't teach it when I last did EM stuff).

So who knows why an electron precessing in a known magnetic field, isn't computing a spin phase? Why the electron isn't transforming the 'input' as spin, and performing a computation?
The above caught my eye in your OP.

Seems true IMO that in your example an electron may very well be doing a "calculation" on it's spin based on it's own "legal" parameters as set up by it's very nature.
The process being analoguous with a computer I guess.

It touches on the living analogue of reflexive or instinctive behaviour of animated life that could also be treated in similar fashion.

To void pushing this thread in to one of philosophy though, you could consider the unievsre to be a giant computer that is making computations on variations to it's "legal" [laws] to maiintian order.

However the use of the word "computation" suggests that an outcome has to be calculated and this is argueable as if all formulations are already "computed" then no calculation is required.

So as to whether or not the universe can be considered as a computating entity would be argueable.

"Cause and effect" being "hardwired into the systems "legal" structure may make the use of "computation" redundent.

for example:

If I have a string of elecetric switches [ off on ] say 1000 of them an dthey are all permanently set to their various states giving a prdictable and consistant outcome can this be considered as computation? or simply predetermined cause and effect?
At what point does computation come into it?

However if somewhere a long the way decisions have to be calculated due to circumstances out side the system then possibly one could declare computation is taking place.

any ways , my 10 cents worth...

This entire thing belongs MUCH more in philosophy than in any scientific or mathematical category.

For example, at the moment I happen to be sitting here watching through my window at leaves that are falling. There's no "computations" taking place in that activity. Much as QQ has just said, the leaves are falling and following a path determined by physical laws - things like air currents and gravity.

I'm not attempting to downplay QM in any way, it's just that it's effects have little to no meaning/impact on the macro world we live in.

This entire thing belongs MUCH more in philosophy than in any scientific or mathematical category.

For example, at the moment I happen to be sitting here watching through my window at leaves that are falling. There's no "computations" taking place in that activity. Much as QQ has just said, the leaves are falling and following a path determined by physical laws - things like air currents and gravity.

I'm not attempting to downplay QM in any way, it's just that it's effects have little to no meaning/impact on the macro world we live in.
agrees!
It would get a better participation in the philosphy forum if only some of the members of the science forum participated.

Unfortunately we do not have a "philosophy of science" forum which IMO is badly needed for many issues reagrding science , it's future and it's dogma..

This is for those advanced thinkers who may (or may not) have thought about what a computer actually is.
Information is physical; there is no computer anywhere in the universe which is not made out of real atoms.
(See if you can think of something that's made out of unreal atoms)
Every atom which is real (has mass) is a computer, because it's made out of little 'particles' that are also individual computers.

Yea but information itself is not physical, it's organization of something physical.

information itself is not physical, it's organization of something physical.Bzzzt!

Information is physical; it has mass and energy, because it has entropy.
Just ask someone who knows what Shannon or Von Neumann entropy is.
(wait, I know that)
P.S. even sitting and staring out a window is computing. Absolutely.
We compute constantly, because when we stop computing, we are dead - although we no longer 'exist' the physical computer that was the "computational basis" is still around (we even preserve them these days).

Bzzzt!

Information is physical; it has mass and energy, because it has entropy.
Just ask someone who knows what Shannon or Von Neumann entropy is.
(wait, I know that)


In a sense I agree with this comment however, it is the "meaning" of that information that is not physical as determined by physics.

It is the distinction between binary bits of 0's and 1's and the meaning that imparts that will determined the outcome of the threads OP.
Which is why the question crosses over between philosophy and science IMO
It is the old Artificial intelligence question that comes to the for again.... me thinks.:)

it is the "meaning" of that information that is not physical as determined by physics.
Correct-amundo.
Meaning is not part of the communication process. That's an algorithm restricted to humans.

Bzzzt!

P.S. even sitting and staring out a window is computing. Absolutely.
We compute constantly, because when we stop computing, we are dead - although we no longer 'exist' the physical computer that was the "computational basis" is still around (we even preserve them these days).

You've totally jumped the track. I didn't even imply that I was not computing - I was refering to the leaves, their path and final destination. There's NO computing THERE - just a following of rigid, physical laws.

I've been thinking about it a little today; I can't think of a large source (Or any) of information loss. If it was in the philosophy I could say more; I can't think of any way to quantify any of this anyways.

I was refering to the leaves, their path and final destination. There's NO computing THERE - just a following of rigid, physical laws.There is a computation, the leaves each compute a path, which is controlled by the wind and gravity.
Each leaf is information - the channel is the sum of perturbations experienced as physical forces which transforms/commutes the information from one end to the other of the channel.
The Shannon entropy depends, of course, on how each leaf is encoded; remember, information has spatial and temporal extent - it's discrete, but evolves in time IOW. This is what universal computation means, a communication (of leaf messages) is a trivial computation (by the wind, gravity, and the leaf data), the algorithm should be trivial too, in that case.

For example, you've applied a trivial connection to my post about sitting at a window, by connecting it to your post (which is called assuming the two messages are connected).
Of course what you look at as you sit isn't the same computation, but if you happen to be watching leaves fall from a tree, you compute that (by encoding each leaf as a unitary object, say, which is the equivalent of an 'on/off' code).

There is a computation, the leaves each compute a path, which is controlled by the wind and gravity.
Each leaf is information - the channel is the sum of perturbations experienced as physical forces which transforms/commutes the information from one end to the other of the channel.
The Shannon entropy depends, of course, on how each leaf is encoded; remember, information has spatial and temporal extent - it's discrete, but evolves in time IOW. This is what universal computation means, a communication (of leaf messages) is a trivial computation (by the wind, gravity, and the leaf data), the algorithm should be trivial too, in that case.

For example, you've applied a trivial connection to my post about sitting at a window, by connecting it to your post (which is called assuming the two messages are connected).
Of course what you look at as you sit isn't the same computation, but if you happen to be watching leaves fall from a tree, you compute that (by encoding each leaf as a unitary object, say, which is the equivalent of an 'on/off' code).

Indeed? And the final result is worthless. Meaningless. Of no effect on anything whatsoever. That's exactly why I say this thread is in the wrong sub-forum.

the final result is worthless. Meaningless. Meaningless to what?

What does the "meaning" of leaves falling on the ground have to do with the indisputable fact they have mass, and therefore indisputably 'information'. You seem to be making the common mistake of confusing the data with what the data "does". A leaf doesn't know it's a leaf, a message is "just" a string of bits.

Check out what the meaning of Shannon entropy is.

(See if you can think of something that's made out of unreal atoms)


god

No, we're on his ass too, he's made out of Higgs potential, which maybe has a curvature (a tensor), that behaves algebraically, and computes the masses of fermions on up the scale to quarks, and massive vectors in some other kind of field. The realm of advanced gauge theories.

The LHC is a quantum computer (a channel, essentially) that applies a magnetic potential to protons in the relativistic domain. This is another kind of view of the field, because the matter field (as a wavefunction) is interacting significantly as its mass product, its momentum is significant.
In optical and milliKelvin domains, this momentum is insignificant, the LHC is a whole new ballpark in terms of the games you can play (and the balls you're allowed to use).

Bit of a balls-up, though, at the moment.

Ahem: if they get it fixed (as if they won't) and uncover the 'algorithm' that shows how this Higgs potential creates the masses of bosons that have mass, leptons and quarks - in the first family. Then, the theory of universal computation will be complete.
We will know about the geometry and the algebra of the remaining fundamental field - the mass field, the same way we know about the EM field's geometry and algebra, which is the U(1) bundle of complex phase space, and the Hermitian operators on "connections between fibers" that commute the phase angles, or preserve them. This admits Fourier and Von Neumann (and a few others), which is "nice".
QM is about using or manipulating the logical and physical connections, between quantum geometry and algebra which are real tensors, much like it is in the thermodynamic realm of the collective phases of electrons in EE, and digital circuits etc.

You have to realise, too, that we are a part of some of those connections, but in fundamentally different ways, in each of the QI/CI views. But the universe we're in is informational, so we have to compute it.

By the way; this is the topic of discussion in Christopher Michael Langan's theory.

http://www.ctmu.org/

Hard to navigate; but you can find his 56 page thesis there.

Bzzzt!

Information is physical; it has mass and energy, because it has entropy.
:bugeye:
And why do you say that Shannon entropy implies mass/energy?
What exactly is the relationship between Shannon entropy and mass/energy?

Why is there no way to send a signal without sending mass or energy? That is, without doing any work?

If you can think of one, you will become very famous.
Then, the theory of universal computation will be complete.
This should be getting challenged by someone; we can only know that "universal" computation is locally complete.
The mass field will complete the picture, but locally.

Bzzzt!

Information is physical; it has mass and energy, because it has entropy.
Just ask someone who knows what Shannon or Von Neumann entropy is.
(wait, I know that)
P.S. even sitting and staring out a window is computing. Absolutely.
We compute constantly, because when we stop computing, we are dead - although we no longer 'exist' the physical computer that was the "computational basis" is still around (we even preserve them these days).

You might want to read my post again. lol

Yea but information itself is not physical, it's organization of something physical.
you mean, this post?
You also mean, the structure of information? That's encoding, which is computation again.
Which is not information, it's what happens to it.

IT goes something like:
information is physical, commuting or transforming it takes energy.
You might adopt a river to carry you and a canoe downstream, by using the energy of the water and the way it modulates the canoe's position in time, thus carrying you somewhere. Or you might just want to send word (a message downstream "the natives are restless, send beads, and blankets"), so you write it down, put the message in a bottle which you seal with a stopper and turf into the tide. Maybe it would be more efficient to get a friendly native to paddle a canoe for you, etc.

You can't reduce the information content of anything that has it, into less than 1s and 0s. Because you need more than one dimension.

We analyse the (information) entropy of signals in one dimension, by using at least one other dimension to see the one-dimensional signal in. You analyse a voltage or current in a\,\mathbb C^1 dimension, and \mathbb 1_3 time dimension, you analyse a spin phase in a \mathbb C^{2n} dimension, and one \mathbb 1_z time dimension, both have discrete and continuous solutions, depending on the input-response parameter. See how time and complex phase space switch roles there? But both spaces have an entropy which can be measured.

P.S. The thing with the logical side of information and this thread, is that plenty of people can understand how to build logic circuits and not really need to understand how transistors work; there's a logical map of computing that avoids all that thermodynamics you need to know about with discrete devices when they don't behave like switches.
You can learn something about QM by looking at how to put together logical maps of the underlying dynamics - not thermodynamical as such, or "at minimum heat", so that the intrinsic spin dynamic isn't suppressed by a lot of noise. Even learning about how to do that or why it's done, why the preparation of circuits involves low temperatures or optics - the heat signal needs to be damped. There's a similar way in from the quantum logic angle (information is logical) that avoids quite a lot of theory.

Vkothii, the following is not information:

ekjrhjs sehfbsdhgvsd dsf dsfsdhfagf

If you organize the characters in a particular way the organization of the characters contains the information, not the characters themselves.
I realize the letters are not the best example because they carry information in themselves (to us humans, they don't for ants).
But try and imagine a field with randomly scattered rocks. The rocks themselves carry no particular information. Organize them to form letters and words and it's the organization that carries the information.
See ? ;)

Why is there no way to send a signal without sending mass or energy? That is, without doing any work?
Why does the entropy of the signal have no impact on the energy cost?

What does that mean? there is always a cost in sending anything that 'carries' a signal

Of course. But the Shannon entropy of that signal has no bearing on the energy cost.
The energy involved has nothing to do with the information - in this case, the medium is not the message.

Vkothii, the following is not information:

ekjrhjs sehfbsdhgvsd dsf dsfsdhfagf

If you organize the characters in a particular way the organization of the characters contains the information, not the characters themselves.
I realize the letters are not the best example because they carry information in themselves (to us humans, they don't for ants).
But try and imagine a field with randomly scattered rocks. The rocks themselves carry no particular information. Organize them to form letters and words and it's the organization that carries the information.
See ? ;)
actually Enmos I would have to disagree.
The information of your random letters is exactly what you have typed and not more in fact I can even copy it:
ekjrhjs sehfbsdhgvsd dsf dsfsdhfagf
Just because it has no meaning to us does not change the fact that it is information...it does not need to have "utility" nor any other human quality to be information persee.

Say you are listing to radio signals from deep space, and notice it makes no sense what so ever to us, yet someone comes along with a special codec and desiphers a portion of the signal and it says " good morning this Alpha Centuri news":)

But I agree that it would normally have no "meaning" however IMO information it still is.

I guess it comes down to definition of what information is...

Of course. But the Shannon entropy of that signal has no bearing on the energy cost.Of course, because information content is always independent of the means, the work done, sending it. As outlined in the tale above, you have various ways to send a message or get from a to b.
The energy involved has nothing to do with the information - in this case, the medium is not the message.Almost - the information would not exist if energy hadn't been involved.

Of course, because information content is always independent of the means, the work done, sending it.
Exactly.
The means is physical - it has mass and energy.
The information content is independent of this, and does not contain any mass or energy of its own.

Hang about, it has to be mass or energy.

How do you store abstract information? You've abstracted away the fact that you have to have a representation - a physical one.
And an abstract one - which only gets as far as binary, and doesn't go more abstract than two symbols.

You're still confusing the information with the medium.

The medium has mass/energy. Information is in the configuration of the medium.

You can change the information content of some medium without changing its mass/energy... therefore the information content has no mass/energy itself.

What does that mean "change the information content of some medium"? A medium is a representation.

It doesn't matter if I draw a picture of something, or take a photo, it's a representation. The content has a certain irreducible entropy of information. Information does not exist without representation. "The medium has mass/energy", therefore the representation of information does too.
As well as an independent entropy - you cannot change the entropy of a message unless you change the message, in which case it's another message. Entropy is conserved, but the representation can change.

need to define your terms to engage in clear discussion I think...

say I have 8 rocks these rocks are the medium and have mass and energy
Say I apply a meaning to these rocks - this has no masss and no energy.
However I can reconfiigure the 9 rocks any way I want to change it's meaning and still not effect the mass/energy of the medium [ being 8 rocks]

similar to what enmos was saying....

8 rocks is a physical representation. A pattern, or a certain geometry that has (one or more) algebraic equivalent representations.
The "meaning" you apply is an interpretation of the information in/of that representation.

Changing the rocks - the pattern - around, then changes the representation. The interpretation changes.
Changing the representation is not cost-free.

You need to think about what a symbol is.

8 rocks is a physical representation. A pattern, or a certain geometry that has (one or more) algebraic equivalent representations.
The "meaning" you apply is an interpretation of the information in/of that representation.

Changing the rocks - the pattern - around, then changes the representation. The interpretation changes.
Changing the representation is not cost-free.

You need to think about what a symbol is.

ahhh Now I see the extra aspect I didn't see before...that being the energy requiired to change the "meaning" [ representation ]

hmmmmmmm

What does that mean "change the information content of some medium"? A medium is a representation.
For example, when you expose a photographic plate or film, the film's information content changes.
But, the mass/energy of the film does not change significantly, and what little change there is has no relation to the quantity information recorded - ie recording a zero-information photograph costs exactly the same as recording a maximum information photograph.

Changing the representation is not cost-free.
Interesting... I was about to say that changing to a high-information representation costs no more than changing to low-information representation. But, I think would have been wrong.

However, the extra energy cost of encoding high information is not embedded with the information, but is lost to heat... so the information encoded does not have that energy.

Except a black hole is the densest form of information we know about - at least mathematically.
"Losing information" indeed costs energy, or as you say it dissipates; which is as \Delta S =\mathit {k_B} \mathrm ln2

That's a special case of a high correlation between mass/energy and information.

It doesn't apply in general.

Unless you consider there's a limit to how much information a region of the universe can have (in it).

actually Enmos I would have to disagree.
The information of your random letters is exactly what you have typed and not more in fact I can even copy it:
ekjrhjs sehfbsdhgvsd dsf dsfsdhfagf
Just because it has no meaning to us does not change the fact that it is information...it does not need to have "utility" nor any other human quality to be information persee.

Say you are listing to radio signals from deep space, and notice it makes no sense what so ever to us, yet someone comes along with a special codec and desiphers a portion of the signal and it says " good morning this Alpha Centuri news":)

But I agree that it would normally have no "meaning" however IMO information it still is.

I guess it comes down to definition of what information is...

I guess it does come down to the definition.
In my view information is dependent on the sender/recipient. In other words it's highly subjective.
Smiling is sending information to another person that says you mean well or are comfortable with them. But smile to a Chimp and they will take it as a sign of aggression.

..information is dependent on the sender/recipient.Sorry, but information and sending it are two different things; there are multiple ways to send a given message or bit of information.

You could use morse code, or translate it into one of hundreds of languages, or invent one and use that representation. You could write it out on paper and mail it (or arrange a courier to pick it up and deliver it), or type it into an email and send it electronically.

What about computers communicating? Machines can recognise bit patterns too; they aren't concerned about the "meaning" in any of them - just the differences between them.

P.S. You are correct about the sender-receiver paradigm, and information being relative to both.
We decide which things are senders and receivers, and which are things that convey information from one to the other.
A cellphone is a sender-receiver, but if there was only one cellphone in the universe, it wouldn't be. You need a comms network as well.

Assuming a network of channels to send messages and receive them, you also assume senders and receivers.
This picture can be inverted - the senders and receivers become channels for the network information, or the network sends and receives messages to other parts of itself, using cellphones for channels.

An electron sends and receives photon messages, or photons send and receive electron messages; the view is which one we choose.
In QIS, this view can be swapped around, before or after a computation - both views are available but not at the same time (or in the same space).

A pile of bricks is not a house.

That's right...?
And that has what to do with communication of information?

What do you do when you want to store information in any way ? In other words, when you want something to carry information.

Vkothii,
P.S. You are correct about the sender-receiver paradigm, and information being relative to both.
We decide which things are senders and receivers, and which are things that convey information from one to the other.
A cellphone is a sender-receiver, but if there was only one cellphone in the universe, it wouldn't be. You need a comms network as well.
Assuming a network of channels to send messages and receive them, you also assume senders and receivers.
This picture can be inverted - the senders and receivers become channels for the network information, or the network sends and receives messages to other parts of itself, using cellphones for channels.
An electron sends and receives photon messages, or photons send and receive electron messages; the view is which one we choose.
In QIS, this view can be swapped around, before or after a computation - both views are available but not at the same time (or in the same space).

Could it be said that you are refering to a state of reflection or Reflective Sciences where by nothing can exist with out it's inherant reflection be it an electron , a photon or a cellphone? [ to use your examples]

Heres a small problem, who's to say that the makeup of an atom isn't in fact just a matrix array in a very elaborate computer? Wouldn't this just mean we are in fact an observation frame within a giant fractal of computers creating (and I loosely term) "Holograms" of themselves to create duplicates of themselves within themselves, within themselves within... ad infinitum.

What do you do when you want to store information in any way ? In other words, when you want something to carry information.What do you do?
You use matter and energy, of course.

The fact is, you can decide which is the message, and which is the sending/receiving process. Matter can be energised, or commuted, but so can energy (as heat, for example).

We, the communicators, decide how to use either as a channel or carrier, which we then modulate with information.
Shannon's ideas end up going quite deep into the ontology/epistemology of information thing. What is it? Who sent it, and where from?
Essentially these are the questions science tries to answer, since nature is effectively a collection of information, as physical matter and as energy that transforms it.
We just have to decode the message, after deciding which is the channel it came down.

No, to get something to carry information we organize it in a particular way. The organization is in fact what conveys the information, not the something that is organized.
One can convey the exact same information using an wide array of different somethings.

You're repeating what I just said.

To get something to carry "information" (a message or a signal) we modulate it.
"we organize it in a particular way". If the mesage is in Dutch, you put it in a bottle, turf it in the current, and a Swahili native finds it on the African coast sometime later, what's the information?

You're repeating what I just said.

To get something to carry "information" (a message or a signal) we modulate it.
"we organize it in a particular way". If the mesage is in Dutch, you put it in a bottle, turf it in the current, and a Swahili native finds it on the African coast sometime later, what's the information?

Both sender and recipient can determine the content, independently of each other.
But I think we are close to an agreement :)

So, you send a message that you independently decide is the Dutch language (the representation), the Swahili native independently decides it's in Swahili? Who translates it?

No :p
Dutch is a recorded language. The rules for it's organization are all recorded.
So even if the Swahili native doesn't recognize it as information it still contains information. That's why I said information is subjective.. relative to the sender/recipient.

Right, so it's relative to both ends of the channel. If the representation changes (because the receiver expects a particular representation, i.e. encoding) then there is no communication, but there is still a message.

It just hasn't been carried properly - this requires a protocol. All channels have a protocol of communication, apart from the physical representation/realisation.

Right, so it's relative to both ends of the channel. If the representation changes (because the receiver expects a particular representation, i.e. encoding) then there is no communication, but there is still a message.

It just hasn't been carried properly - this requires a protocol. All channels have a protocol of communication, apart from the physical representation/realisation.

Yes.
I would obviously call "physical representation/realization" organization though ;)

Organisation is too general a term, you need to be just a shade more specific with channels that get modulated.

A channel has a carrier, or actually it is a carrier. For example the English Channel carries boats across it, because of wind and tides - these are the energy in the channel that modulates the boat information. The protocol is kinematics and hydrodynamics, and the geometry of the information - the boats.

Since these are not transformed by the channel's protocol, except as themselves, the only translation is the position of each boat.

A storm that damages or destroys some boats, is a communication error - an error in protocol, or in the interaction between the carrier and the geometry of the information.
A string of bits has a 'geometry', an algebraic one.

Organisation is too general a term, you need to be just a shade more specific with channels that get modulated.

A channel has a carrier, or actually it is a carrier. For example the English Channel carries boats across it, because of wind and tides - these are the energy in the channel that modulates the boat information. The protocol is kinematics and hydrodynamics, and the geometry of the information - the boats.

Since these are not transformed by the channel's protocol, except as themselves, the only translation is the position of each boat.

Well this is a bit technical but I agree.
I just wouldn't call a field with randomly scattered rocks a channel.. ;)

Isn't the word we're looking for "medium" ?

A medium, is another word for a "channel".

A medium, is another word for "a channel".

I'm sorry lol :o
The word "medium" just seems to relate to the topic better for me, I guess :)

That's a special case of a high correlation between mass/energy and information.

It doesn't apply in general.
Yes, it does. It's called Landauer's principle and is a simple consequence of thermodynamics.

Thanks funkstar, I hadn't heard of that principle.
But, it does not seem to apply to the specific point you quoted.
From what I gathered through Wikipedia (not necessarily a reliable process!), Landauer's principle does not correlate the information in a system to the mass/energy of a system. Rather, it describes a limiting case of how altering the information in a system affects the entropy of that system - essentially, it appears to dictate that manipulating information in a particular way has a real entropy cost, i.e. useful work must be converted to heat.

I think it relates to a realization I had in post 37 of this thread:
Interesting... I was about to say that changing to a high-information representation costs no more than changing to low-information representation. But, I think would have been wrong.

However, the extra energy cost of encoding high information is not embedded with the information, but is lost to heat... so the information encoded does not have that energy.

"Losing information" costs energy; it dissipates as \Delta S =\mathit {k_B} \mathrm ln2

This formula relates the cost of "losing" a single 'bit' or piece of information. Those online MIT notes describe Landauer's principle and the notion of 'copying' a bit, in terms of real CMOS and real charge and current - signals dissipate (i.e. are "lost to the environment") in terms of work done (lost).

In digital computers/circuits, signals are 'unitary', and logically represented as 0s and 1s - physically these are just voltages with a 'step' between (which is a phase).
If the signals were complex frequencies instead, the dissipation would have a different formula (to account for extra phases), but would still be logarithmic - the order of dissipation as a "computation" is logarithmic, which is Landauer's principle.


(the notes: lecture 3, pp 10-12: http://web.mit.edu/2.111/www/)

I think the quantum bit loss is variable in transit...just as every other loss is in transit.

If I recall this has been quantified and techniques for testing it have been devised. The best test today is a tuble-like artificial atmosphere and the bit loss was still rather high.

Secondly...
why is energy loss at \Delta S = k_B ln(2)
Especially...why ln(2) ?

Because digital circuits have two states - two kinds of bit, 0 and 1.

Indeed? And the final result is worthless. Meaningless. Of no effect on anything whatsoever. That's exactly why I say this thread is in the wrong sub-forum.

I agree, it should be in Philosophy.
Information is the organization of the carrier medium or within the carrier medium, thus it's not physical in itself.

Information is the organization of the carrier medium of within the carrier medium, thus it's not physical in itself"Organization" is only logical then? There is no physical computation or representation - information is made out of logic?
The carrier is the only physical thing needed - information just flows all by itself, no energy or physical process required?

P.S. Why is a computer philosophical? A transistor works because of philosophy?
What's the philosophy of semiconductors, is that a new subject?

You seem determined to believe that information isn't physical. Unfortunately, you are unable to give a single example of "non-physical" information. No logical information can be represented with an imaginary representation. This applies to the thoughts in your head, btw.

I agree, it should be in Philosophy.
Information is the organization of the carrier medium or within the carrier medium, thus it's not physical in itself.

I think determining whether it is or not is the topic of discussion here.

It very well could be the root of physicality.

"Organization" is only logical then? There is no physical computation or representation - information is made out of logic?
The carrier is the only physical thing needed - information just flows all by itself, no energy or physical process required?

P.S. Why is a computer philosophical? A transistor works because of philosophy?
What's the philosophy of semiconductors, is that a new subject?

I feel the basic subject here is whether or not information is physical.
Information isn't made out of anything, it's just patterns that can be recognized.

Patterns - what is a pattern made out of??

You realise you just failed the first question in the exam?
Either that, or Seth Lloyd needs your explanation of "non-physicality", to correct his mistaken assumption (that information is physical - which of course means it requires a physical form).
So can you come up with an example of this information stuff, with an imaginary representation?

Patterns - what is a pattern made out of??

You realise you just failed the first question in the exam?

Patterns are not more than organization :shrug:
Answer me this: If I create the words "I was here" out of the randomly scattered rocks that were on that field I used as an example before, what is it that the information is then made of ?

It isn't made out of rocks, is it?
Making the pattern, is a process?
Is work done, or not?

Rocks are physical, work is too. The representation sure looks like it's in need of physical things.

It could all wash into the use of language. "Information" means what?
- stuff that informs.
Why does a rock need to be informed? Does it have a choice to do anything with that information? etc etc ....

Does hitting a bell with a hammer "inform" that bell to ring or just simply hit it and it rings?

This is why it seems destined for philosophy ....
Information technology is about delivering information to something "us" who can convert that information into value or "meaning" but with out the ability to convert to meaning, is the stuff actually information or merely energy buzzing around doing it's thing?

It isn't made out of rocks, is it?
Making the pattern, is a process?
Is work done, or not?

Rocks are physical, work is too. The representation sure looks like it's in need of physical things.

It's not made out of rocks :bugeye:
But whatever, I give up..

It isn't made out of rocks, is it?
Making the pattern, is a process?
Is work done, or not?

Rocks are physical, work is too. The representation sure looks like it's in need of physical things.
"In need of physical things" does not mean "is physical". I don't know why you continue to conflate the relationships between things with the things themselves.

Vkothii,
What did Enmos add to the rocks when formed the message?
Mass?
No - the rocks have the same mass as before.
Energy?
No - the energy expended was lost as heat, not added to the rocks.

Information?
Yes! The rocks now have information embedded in their relationship to each other.


So, information was added to the rocks, but not mass, and not energy. Do you see?

Yes, I do see.

To "create" information requires the following:

1) A collection of physical objects
2) A means of manipulating them
3) An encoding, or logical representation that gets 'mapped' over the physical collection, by the manipulations.

Therefore all information, regardless of the logical representation, requires a physical form.
Therefore "information is physical" Q.E.D.

Yes, I do see.

To "create" information requires the following:

1) A collection of physical objects
2) A means of manipulating them
3) An encoding, or logical representation that gets 'mapped' over the physical collection, by the manipulations.

Therefore all information, regardless of the logical representation, requires a physical form.
Therefore "information is physical" Q.E.D.

Like speed requires a physical form ? So speed is also physical ?

Is velocity imaginary instead, you think??

Is velocity imaginary instead, you think??

No, it's not imaginary. So you say speed is a physical thing ?

Speed, is a property of physical objects. Speed, or velocity, is the result of energy being applied to some object. Objects with a velocity are still objects, but their velocity can change, along with their position.
Because energy modulates both.

So, giving some object a velocity (changing its velocity) is a computation. The information (the object) is modulated by applying an energy to it. The 'signal' can be either the object, or the velocity of the object, or both. Measurement, is the bottom-line on information - what is it, where is it, what is it 'doing' or 'saying' etc.

What does this mean??:
"Information is dimensional; there is no "one-dimensional" information anywhere in the universe."

Yes, I do see.

To "create" information requires the following:

1) A collection of physical objects
2) A means of manipulating them
3) An encoding, or logical representation that gets 'mapped' over the physical collection, by the manipulations.

Therefore all information, regardless of the logical representation, requires a physical form.
Therefore "information is physical" Q.E.D.
No, Vkothii, it does not follow, except in a sense that weakens the word "physical" to meaninglessness.

Can you name anything that is not physical, according to the logic you are applying?

No, Vkothii, it does not follow, except in a sense that weakens the word "physical" to meaninglessness.

Can you name anything that is not physical, according to the logic you are applying?Can you, even try to name anything that is not physical? I don't understand how I've "weakened" the sense of a word so it's meaningless??

Don't you know what "physical" means now?

BTW, if information (whatever it is) is NOT physical as you say, then we need to point out a few things to all those comms and computer people. They've been blindly following an idea which is obviously incorrect.
So how would you rewrite Shannon's theory?

BTW, if information (whatever it is) is NOT physical as you say, then we need to point out a few things to all those comms and computer people. They've been blindly following an idea which is obviously incorrect.

How do you figure that ?

You seem to have a rather inverted view of what "representation" means.

How is information just logical?

Let's rephrase that. How do you logically wear sunglasses that polarize the incoming light (to your eyes)?

Can you, even try to name anything that is not physical?
Thoughts. Concepts. Ideas. Information. Knowledge.

I don't understand how I've "weakened" the sense of a word so it's meaningless??
If everything is physical, then saying that something is physical is redundant.

Don't you know what "physical" means now?
I'm not sure that you do.

BTW, if information (whatever it is) is NOT physical as you say, then we need to point out a few things to all those comms and computer people. They've been blindly following an idea which is obviously incorrect.
So how would you rewrite Shannon's theory?
I am "comms and computer people", and Shannon's theory doesn't need rewriting.

Thoughts. Concepts. Ideas. Information. Knowledge.
Thoughts are real. Concepts are thoughts, etc.

So, how does a pair of polaroid specs, manage to logically polarize sunlight?
I'll rephrase that for the computer-expert: what is the entropy of information, in the plane-polarized light, which the real, solid. material physical sunglasses integrates? What's the general form of this integral?

(BTW, in case you forgot, Planck's constant is real, too)

Thoughts are real. Concepts are thoughts, etc.
Yes, they are real.
No, they are not physical - they have neither mass nor energy.

So, how does a pair of polaroid specs, manage to logically polarize sunlight?
Again, you confuse the medium with the message.

No, they are not physical - they have neither mass nor energy.Neurons aren't physical? electrical signals have no "mass or energy"??
Again, you confuse the medium with the message.Nope, that's what you keep doing, and confusing the message with the medium when you transfer from one to the other.

The entropy of wearing the sunnies, has two bits in its alphabet - on or off.
What about the entropy in the alphabet of photon polarization?

What's the expectation that each particle, or signal, will be polarized as it impinges on the outside, the input as it were, either transmitted or reflected/absorbed, by these things?
You very smart guy, you know answer, huh?

:shrug:
Sorry, Vkothii.
When you confuse neurons and electrical signals with thoughts, then say that I confuse medium and message, there's no point in continuing.
Likewise when you confuse polarised light (medium) with information (message).

I'm done with this.

Wo ho, ah, I "confuse" neurons and electrical signals with thoughts, huh?

A photon shouldn't be confused with a message? But they use them for messages all the time, down optical fibers, not just optical; radio is long-wavelength photons.

Holy shit, this guy is some expert.


If instead of polarizing photons at optical frequencies, you did it at radio frequency, or say, microwaves, that get polarized by a waveguide in a certain way, is that information, and does it have an entropy?

You know about Landauer, (ir)reversible logic, what that means?
How information certainly is logical, because it has a physical representation as well (it simply would not be logical for it not to).

Landauer studied the physical limitations placed on computation from dissipation.
He was able to show that almost all operations required in computation could be performed in a reversible manner, dissipating no heat.
The first condition for any deterministic device to be reversible is that its input and output be uniquely retrievable from each other.
This is called logical reversibility, and communication is also computation.
A computer is a network of channels that communicate, reversibly and irreversibly. Each communication, in terms of any overall computation, is a trivial computation.

If, in addition to being logically reversible, a device can actually run backwards then it is called physically reversible and the second law of thermodynamics guarantees that it dissipates no heat. In practice, such a computer would only be 'allowed' to use Brownian motion, or it would have to preserve all inputs at each step (i.e not dissipate any bits of information).

On a classical computer, programs are executed by linear evolution in time, of an input that is "given to" the system which computes a state, changing (evolving) through various states, while a background "system timer" steps discretely through the states.

On a quantum computer, programs are "executed" by unitary evolution of an input that is "given by" the state of the system. Or the input is determined (measured) by the system state, (i.e. the system "measures the input", and we "measure the output").

So manipulating the state, by "stepping" through different computation bases, rather than stepping through different states within the same computation basis, is the key to quantum computing.

Since all unitary operators U are invertible with U^{-1}= U^{\uparrow} , we can always "uncompute'' (reverse the computation) on a quantum computer.
Reversing the computation (a series of communications) in a classical computer means copying (remembering) all of the inputs, i.e. "keeping them around" so they don't dissipate.
A signal can be retrieved after it's been sent, by first copying it. Sending the only copy is an irreversible communication, (a computation that is locally trivial).

Thanks funkstar, I hadn't heard of that principle.
But, it does not seem to apply to the specific point you quoted.
From what I gathered through Wikipedia (not necessarily a reliable process!), Landauer's principle does not correlate the information in a system to the mass/energy of a system. Rather, it describes a limiting case of how altering the information in a system affects the entropy of that system - essentially, it appears to dictate that manipulating information in a particular way has a real entropy cost,

Exactly. Landauer's principle tells us that the erasure of information requires the dissipation of heat.

i.e. useful work must be converted to heat.

Ah, not quite. You can do very useful work (in the computational sense, not the physical sense) without having to erase information.

In fact, this (reversible computing) is my personal field of study, Vkothii is actually not entirely off base. A lot of it is quite sensible, if presented somewhat inelegantly...

reversible computing is my personal field of study You know about the principle of universal computation then?
How, without reversible communication, there wouldn't be any (communiciation, or computation). Another way to say, the universe computes reversibly, and irreversibly?

If the universe is computing, is anything in the universe NOT computing?
What's the inverse of computation? Reversible computation of course.

Yes, they are real.
No, they are not physical - they have neither mass nor energy.
I've thought about this, and returned to the thread to correct a mistake I made.
I've been drawn into misusing the word "physical" myself. I don't think that it was correct to equate "physical" with "has mass or energy".

So, I withdraw the contention that information cannot be physical, in particular interpretations. Information can be (and often is) considered to be a property of a physical object, and can thus be considered to be physical itself.

However, I continue to maintain that information does not have mass or energy. You can not say how much mass or energy is embedded in some information. The mass/energy of some object or set of objects does not depend on the information encoded within.

Hi funkstar,
Ah, not quite. You can do very useful work (in the computational sense, not the physical sense) without having to erase information.
Yes, of course.
I meant: "in order to manipulate information in a particular way [any logically irreversible manipulation]... useful work must be converted to heat."

In fact, this (reversible computing) is my personal field of study, Vkothii is actually not entirely off base. A lot of it is quite sensible, if presented somewhat inelegantly...

Not completely off base, no. But I think that he is off base when he says that information has mass/energy:
Information is physical; it has mass and energy, because it has entropy.

But I think that he is off base when he says that information has mass/energy:But you would fail any question in a physics exam, if you said "information has no mass or energy".

Does mass or energy have information instead? Do you still think thoughts aren't real physical things?
(How do you think that with imaginary thoughts, exactly)?

P.S. If you ever do study IT, it's one of the first things you learn, even before you get near Shannon's limit. Information has entropy, because it has mass; mass has energy.

Or it has energy, which has "mass". There is no way around this; logical information exists, because mass/energy exists, and there is nothing anywhere that has mass/energy that isn't information as some logical 'form' - because we give it the logical form.

We don't, and we can't, give a logical form to something that doesn't exist.
Ideas exist, an idea of a horse isn't a horse, but it is a real physical representation of a horse. Substitute "anything anywhere in the universe", for "horse", and there you go.

So let me get this straight. If we take a freshly formatted USB-stick and weigh it, then cram it full of data and weigh it again, it has gained in weight according to you ?

If we take a freshly formatted USB-stick and weigh it, then cram it full of data and weigh it again, it has gained in weight according to you ?Yes, if it has extra electrons as stored charges, then it has gained 'weight', or it now has more particles, organized as discrete bits, in it.
So absolutely, it has more information entropy (which is always independent of the entropy of its physical realization).

That isn't just "according to me", btw.

Computers contain information, but they will never actually "know" anything.

And therefore...?

A computer does "know" things, a computer knows how to run programs, like a lawnmower knows how to mow a lawn.
What about this question, is a pair of sunglasses "a computer"?? Do sunglasses "process" photons, or communicate anything?
What about the entropy in the alphabet of photon polarization?
What's the expectation that each particle, or signal, will be polarized as it impinges on the [outer surface], the input as it were, and either transmitted or reflected/absorbed, by the sunnies?

Start with the incident radiation, a waveform \Psi_{(t)} , with all possible polarizations (i.e. along any given x-y plane).

But you would fail any question in a physics exam, if you said "information has no mass or energy".
No, I really don't think so. Unless you were the examiner. :eek:

Does mass or energy have information instead? Do you still think thoughts aren't real physical things?
No, I never said or thought that thoughts are not real.

P.S. If you ever do study IT, it's one of the first things you learn, even before you get near Shannon's limit. Information has entropy, because it has mass; mass has energy.
Yes, information has entropy. No, not because it mass. Entropy does not imply mass, and vice versa.

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying Vkothii... but try it this way:

Information is real. Thoughts, ideas, etc are real. They exist. But, they do not have mass or energy.
Information in practice is always associated with things that do have mass/energy, and the information could be considered properties of those things.
But, the mass/energy involved is not a property of the information - it is a property of the medium.

Consider a punch card. One of its properties is its mass, another is its color, another is its position, another is its size, and another is the information stored on it.

Note that all those properties are real things... but none of them themselves have mass as a property.

So let me get this straight. If we take a freshly formatted USB-stick and weigh it, then cram it full of data and weigh it again, it has gained in weight according to you ?
Yes, if it has extra electrons as stored charges, then it has gained 'weight', or it now has more particles, organized as discrete bits, in it.
So absolutely, it has more information entropy (which is always independent of the entropy of its physical realization).

That isn't just "according to me", btw.

Take a blank punch card. Weigh it.
Now store a bunch of data on it, and weight it again.
:eek:
It weighs less! What's going on?!?

Information in practice is always associated with things that do have mass/energy,

Agreed. That's what "Information is physical" (a Landauer quote) means, imo.

and the information could be considered properties of those things.

If you consider information to be a given property of physical systems, then you have the unpleasant problem that we may have different interpretation functions for the information content of a physical system.

If you start from the information instead, then it turns out that regardless of the physical system embodying the information, physics does have something to say, e.g. with Landauer's principle.

You know about the principle of universal computation then?

I'm not familiar with this. Do you have a reference?

What's the inverse of computation? Reversible computation of course.
In what sense is reversible computation "inverse" to ("normal"?) computation?

If you consider information to be a given property of physical systems, then you have the unpleasant problem that we may have different interpretation functions for the information content of a physical system.

If you start from the information instead, then it turns out that regardless of the physical system embodying the information, physics does have something to say, e.g. with Landauer's principle.

Interesting stuff. Thanks funkstar.

Hi Vkothii,

A computer is a physical machine and any computation performed by such a machine is in essence a physical process. This is a simple factual statement but it has a profound consequence. It can be logically argued from this premise that:

* the laws of [physical] computation depend on the physical laws obeyed by the computer machine under consideration, and,

* there are no absolute laws of computation valid for all computational machines

Actually, I've stumbled across the lecture notes (or was it slides?), and the part in red caught my eye. Intuitively, I couldn't disagree more. I don't remember there being any argument for this part. If there is, and you have the notes handy, could you summarize it?

Because it seems that he's essentially disagreeing with the Church-Turing thesis, but the statement has much stronger consequences: For instance, if there are no theorems which holds for all computational machines, then there is a machine to solve the halting problem (in finite time.) That's a rather radical statement.

I never said or thought that thoughts are not real.
Ok, but you did answer my earlier question, in a way that suggested (to me) that you did think that.
Can you, even try to name anything that is not physical?

Thoughts. Concepts. Ideas. Information. Knowledge.
Take a blank punch card. Weigh it.
Now store a bunch of data on it, and weight it again.

It weighs less! What's going on?!?What's 'going on' is a difference in mass.
Is the information now punched into the cards, the equivalent of a hole, or the equivalent of the bit of card that used to be where the hole is?

Information, ipso facto, is mass/energy (as its physical representation, which has both).
There is the physical entropy of the representation, and the logical entropy of the representation.
A representation doesn't represent anything, unless someone interprets it (with a brain that uses energy).

Either the bits of card in the bin of the card-punch, are the representation, or the holes in the cards are the representation, which is it? What's the logical difference?

In what sense is reversible computation "inverse" to ("normal"?) computation?Well, it depends on your definition of reversible or invertible.
A NOT gate inverts a signal one-dimensionally. If you 'keep' the input there are now two 'states', each the inverse of the other.
The computation is time-symmetrical - forwards gives an inversion, as does backwards, and you can keep both the results around as long as they don't dissipate.

Reversing or inverting a 'computation' are kind of the same thing, aren't they?
The 'principle' of UC is the Universal Turing Machine. But we can't prove it exists, or something.

Well, it depends on your definition of reversible or invertible.
A NOT gate inverts a signal one-dimensionally. If you 'keep' the input there are now two 'states', each the inverse of the other.

But there's no reason to keep the input since a NOT is logically reversible?

The computation is time-symmetrical - forwards gives an inversion, as does backwards, and you can keep both the results around as long as they don't dissipate.

Reversing or inverting a 'computation' are kind of the same thing, aren't they?
I'm still not sure I follow...

The 'principle' of UC is the Universal Turing Machine. But we can't prove it exists, or something.
Again, "exists" in what sense? We're certainly able to define universal TMs, but I agree that no computational machine exists that computes a universal TM...

But there's no reason to keep the input since a NOT is logically reversible?What if you keep it anyway?
Does it make any difference? Bearing in mind the 'input' of the reverted computation, is the 'output' of the non-reverted one?

You could say it varies, or is contravariant, wrt to linear transforms in the time-domain?

With the evolution thing, a computation evolves information - after you invert a signal, there it is, you have the information - exactly 1 bit of it. You can hand it on to another computation or hang on to it (or copy it). Quantum information is somewhat different, but only the computation part, and how it has to be reversible, but allow for actual entropy.
I.e. it has to be physically reversible, without actually logically reversing the computation (the direction, or parity of the channel). A NOT gate fundamentally demonstrates the idea of a 'flow' of something to somewhere. A commutation, or translocation of a signal.

I suppose it's the way copy or fan-out happens in a quantum sense, that is kind of the guts of QIS, or that encapsulates what an event is.

Take a blank punch card. Weigh it.
Now store a bunch of data on it, and weight it again.
:eek:
It weighs less! What's going on?!?

Ok, that's a much better example :p

Er, it's a much better example of encoding a message - encoding (a signal, modulating something by "doing work"; transforming; computing).

You compute a stack of physical cards, a representation with a physical extent that has had work done on it - thermodynamic energy H \,= \Delta S\,has produced information \, I_H \,= I_{\Delta S}

This is the equivalent formula to use for moving a bunch of rocks around to make some sort of code. Shannon's formula.

Er, it's a much better example of encoding a message - encoding (a signal, modulating something by "doing work"; transforming; computing).

You compute a stack of physical cards, a representation with a physical extent that has had work done on it - thermodynamic energy H \,= \Delta S\,has produced information \, I_H \,= I_{\Delta S}

This is the equivalent formula to use for moving a bunch of rocks around to make some sort of code. Shannon's formula.

Yea, so it's the organization of the physical stuff that carries the information, not the physical stuff itself :shrug:

Yes, I know. I've never said that the information is the stuff, it needs to be the stuff, see?
It depends how you read "information is physical", because it means: "information must necessarily always be physical". Information can be a drop of rain falling out of the sky, or a piece of paper blowing along the ground. Anything can be information.

Since we're computers too, we filter most of the incoming messages, or disregard their significance.
Nonetheless, I guarantee if you live in a city, you must recall seeing paper blowing along (or stationary somewhere - in a "steady state" as it were, in terms of bits of paper). So you know it's information - why would you be able to recall instances of it otherwise.

Polaroid is made from polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) plastic with an iodine doping. Stretching of the sheet during manufacture ensures that the PVA chains are aligned in one particular direction. Electrons from the iodine dopant are able to travel along the chains, ensuring that light polarized parallel to the chains is absorbed by the sheet; light polarized perpendicularly to the chains is transmitted.
So getting back to the question of what does a polarizing filter do to 'unpolarized' light?

Why do polaroid films or lenses reduce glare? what's the "process"?
Apparently it's to do with wavelengths, and waveguides. What sort of 'encoding' occurs, and what does the work?

You have to talk about a wavefunction, remember. Although photons are polarizable in any given axis of rotation, only one axis matters when it comes to the information content.
What is the information content? A wavefunction is a mathematical representation that says a photon has two possible plane-polarized directions, it has to 'polarize itself' along one of two axes perpendicular to the axis of propagation. Or it has to propagate in one direction, so there are two left to choose a polarity along.

In other words: |\psi\rangle\,= \alpha|\uparrow\rangle \,+\, \beta|\rightarrow\rangle

The filter absorbs or reflects photons with a horizontal component and transmits those with a vertical component, say. So does the filter select photons with a certain polarity, or does it 'process' photons by giving 1/2 a vertical polarity, and 1/2 a horizontal polarity?

Apparently, no-one knows the answer?
Do we compute anything by being 'aware' of events and objects, like pieces of paper, or apples on trees that 'fall', so now they're on the ground?

That means - are we biological computers? If we are how do we compute something like polarization of light? Or does the light 'do' the computing, or do a pair of polaroid filters between our eyes and the 'photons', channel something?

Entropy sure explains a lot of things. The entropy of quantum information is just a little trickier, but as you can see, putting on a pair of sunglasses 'encodes' quantum information - remove the specs, and you're back in 'classical' reality.

"..the spin of a particle classifies how it transforms under the little group, the subgroup of the Lorentz group that preserves momentum.
For massless particles, there is no rest frame. The finite-dimensional unitary representations of the little group [are representations] in two dimensions, the rotations about the axis determined by the momentum. [F]or a photon, this corresponds to the familiar property of classical light - the waves are polarized transverse to the direction of propagation.

Under a rotation about the axis of propagation, the two linear polarization states (|x> and |y>), transform as

\;\;\;\;\; |x\rangle\, \rightarrow\, cos \theta |x\rangle\, +\, sin\theta|y\rangle

\;\;\;\;\; |y\rangle\, \rightarrow\, cos \theta |y\rangle\, -\, sin\theta|x\rangle "

So, who would like to be the smart-arse who substitutes these into the above representation, so we transform the 'computational basis' into alpha and beta components of/in the 'standard basis'?

P.S. You should get an answer that includes something like this:

\;\;\;\;\; |x\rangle \,\rightarrow\, e^{i\omega / 2}|x\rangle

\;\;\;\;\; |y\rangle \,\rightarrow\, e^{-i\omega / 2} |y\rangle

Since you have to include your retinal cells as another 'device', in the equation,

While you're thinking on that, think on this lot:
Photons are the quantum of the electromagnetic field. That means they are the field, in the same sense that waves on a surface, or beneath one, are the field of that surface or volume. The EM field is perturbed by objects that have spin and charge, and mass. Photons are 'spinless', have zero charge and no rest mass, because they are simply a perturbation, where mass is concerned.

But of course this view is interchangeable with the view that mass is the perturbation that photons make, but that would be then in the same sense that waves make boats, by 'sending boats to each other', rather than boats sending waves to each other. Both views are an abstraction, in terms of the information content involved and we usually use the latter version.
So that also means that everything is an equivalent amount of photon information, or "the amount of information in something with mass is the equivalent of the amount of information in photons in the same mass".

Which we've heard before somewhere...?

Because you can construct a circle with a constant radius on the surface of a sphere, it has a curvature in that radius. There is a direct projection to the other 'half' of the sphere, as well, from the center of the circle.
This curvature is equal to some other thing.

Anyways, the thing about those massless photons and how you can only polarize their spin-wavefunction orthogonally, they are bosons and have bosonic spin numbers.
Electrons are fermions and have spin-1/2. This spin is connected fundamentally to magnetic potential, and 'flux' of that potential; electron charge is connected to polarization of the EM field, which means electron flux.

So can you get an 'excitation' in this field that corresponds to a connection between 'massless' charge, and spin?

You can if you constrain electrons to a 2-d surface, because now their spin-1/2 states have one less dimension to interact in. You get the fractional quantum Hall effect.
FQHE anyons are examples of "topological charge"; they are effectively quanta of magnetic flux potential, like little vortices of paired electrons. But they behave like bosons too.
In this thesis we will focus on a particular set of physically-inspired models for anyons that correspond to the spectrum of electric and magnetic charges of a quantum gauge theory with discrete symmetry group. Mathematically, these correspond to representations of Drinfeld’s quantum double of the symmetry group.

Physically, such models arise when a regular continuous-group quantum gauge theory has its symmetry broken, via the Higgs mechanism, to a discrete group G. In such a field theory all the gauge particles are massive, and hence do not mediate long-range interactions. A set of electric and magnetic charged particles remain unscreened, however, and such charges can be detected via Aharonov-Bohm interactions.

Abelian anyons have already been observed in the fractional quantum Hall effect, and non-abelian anyons are conjectured to exist at certain levels as well [NW96,RR99]. Unfortunately, such anyons do not belong to the anyon model discussed above, but rather to the one analyzed in [Fre00, FKLW01].
Though no system is currently known that supports the model of discrete-group gauge theory anyons discussed herein, it is possible that such a system could be engineered.
Recent proposals include optical lattices [DDL02] and Josephson-junction arrays [DIV03]. In the latter case, an explicit array is constructed that simulates on a lattice the gauge theory with group S3 , which is the smallest group for which our construction works.

-- Ph.D. Thesis 2005

So there ya go, then.
I understand there's a story about how they found the sought-after NA-anyon, in the 5/2 FQHE boson?

And of course, everyone has heard the word "pattern" before today, haven't they just?

A pattern, is informational. It has 'dimensionality', spatial existence. Even a static pattern has a time-dependent sort of existence (everything does). You cannot see a pattern if there isn't some stasis, solid, stable things to look at, with "holes" between - like something knotted together, maybe, out of bits of 'thread'.
Any fabric has a pattern (not necessarily one you see from a distance), macroscopic and microscopic patterns - fractals, knots, surfaces that look quite different at different scales, lots of patterns.

You just need something that can find a pattern, which is called 'recognizing'. For this you also need a representation, of the different kinds of things patterns are made out of. Math has a lot of patterns too, and you keep seeing certain numbers and forms of equations all over the place.

Ok, I take back what I said about sensibility. I can't see at all what that has to do with anything.

And I've even read the Nature (or Science, can't remember) issue with the article on the 5/2 anyon. (For anyone who's completely in the dark: IIRC Kitaev suggested using non-abelian anyons for so-called topological quantum computing, which supposedly would be very fault-tolerant, and a 5/2 anyon was experimentally demonstrated in the article.)

I take back what I said about sensibility. I can't see at all what that has to do with anything.What TF is that supposed to mean? I can't see what that has to do with anything??
Why bother even making such a remark, I think to myself, to what purpose?

Are you implying (surely not) that pattern-recognition has nothing to do with computation??

Computers are just a myth.

But, a myth is a computation...

Therefore if computers are a myth, that myth has been computed (that would be: by a computer)....:bugeye:

ohhhhh. I see, you're busy stretching the definition of a word to the breaking point, suggesting that this blanket is "better" and then stroking your intellect. If myths exist then they have been computed, myths have existed for thousnds of years, thus computers have existed for thousands of years.

myths have existed for thousnds of years, thus computers have existed for thousands of years.Yes, they have.
Actually for a lot longer, more like ~14.3 billion years.

Actually ever since matter got "created" (somehow or other, maybe it was a big computer of some kind?)...:confused:

No, myth is a computer.

A computation is a computation, communication is what I keep calling a "trivial computation".

Perhaps it's a bit too big of a word?
So, if myths are a computer, what do they compute, what's the output message?

Is an ocean wave a computer, or a computation?
Or, gosh, think about this for just a sec, is it both??:bugeye:

Vkothii-dude. You can take a rock and say it has been computed-it came from somewhere, then say it has been computed, in a universal sense, all things are in motion, and is computing, because there is change all the way down to the planck level, and is thus a computer. Computer is a word that, when properly abused, can be made to fit anything. Now. Prove real. Might want to check philosophy for that one.

1) The universe computes (the universe is a computer)

2) Everything in the universe is a computation, or the 'result' of one

3) The law of Universal Computation should apply to everything in the universe, including the universe itself.

4) We cannot prove that such a machine exists however, only that computations exist.
Or processes (that process); or functions (that function); or "information". Such is the nature of observation (which is assumed to be "universal", but obviously there is a lot we can't observe).

Fine. The Universe is a computer. Cool. You say computers are real. Ok. You are saying the Universe is real because it's a computer?

That would be one view.
The other being: because the universe is a computer, the universe is a real computer.

Another one: Computer is the universe

Another one: the is universe computer.

What TF is that supposed to mean? I can't see what that has to do with anything??
Why bother even making such a remark, I think to myself, to what purpose?

The purpose is to retract the cautious endorsement of certain remarks about computation you made, as you've seemed to gone completely out to lunch.

In review, this whole thread seems to be nothing more than you writing down whatever random thoughts pop into your head about computers, and then going wildly overboard with certain (some commonplace, some not) interpretations.

Are you implying (surely not) that pattern-recognition has nothing to do with computation??
No, I was referring to the anyon remarks.

You guys are absolutely totally fucked over here aren't you?

You realise who else says the universe computes right?
You guys are complete wankers, really, But you can all get fucked OK?

You interpret what the fuck you want to interpret.

Here's another one: your computer needs fixing: that's the one between your collective ears.

So can you get an 'excitation' in this field that corresponds to a connection between 'massless' [electric] charge, and spin?

You can if you constrain electrons to a 2-d surface, because now their spin-1/2 states have one less dimension to interact in. You get the fractional quantum Hall effect.
FQHE anyons are examples of "topological charge"; they are effectively quanta of magnetic flux potential, like little vortices of paired electrons. But they behave like bosons too.

So what can the local topological charge expert say is wrong with this?

" We assume that the ground state is separated from the excited states by an energy gap (i.e, it is incompressible), as is the situation in fractional quantum Hall states in 2D electron systems. The lowest energy electrically-charged excitations are known as quasiparticles or quasiholes, depending on the sign of their electric charge. (The term “quasiparticle” is also sometimes used in a generic sense to mean both quasiparticle and quasihole as in the previous paragraph). These quasiparticles are local disturbances to the wavefunction of the electrons corresponding to a quantized amount of total charge."

Who do you think is saying this lot, and how does it contradict a word I've said, you fuckwits?

Scientists; my arse you are.

meh

It's kind of ur own definition. the 0 and 1 may look like 1 dimension of infobut they are tied together in strings of 7 sets which makes it into 3.5 dimensions of info. Also not all information is physical it's mostly theoretical.