On the nature of information

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Magical Realist, Nov 3, 2015.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    *Information* is exchanged during a quantum event. According to Tegmark, this information exchange is always mathematical in nature. This is why and how we have been able to *discover* the fundamental mathematical function of the unverse, through our symbolic descriptions of these mathematical functions.
    A mathematical function is an exchange of information at any level down to Planck scale. It has nothing to do with sentience. It is a fundamental universal function or *constant*.

    Humans need not be involved in this function, it is fundamental to the *essential chronological functions* of the uiverse, from any point of observation. All dynamic events are fundamentally mathematical. If it weren't so, there would be chaos.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    Is there a limit to how many "exchanges" of information can occur in a given volume of space? Apparently there is a quantum limit and it's quite easy to derive, although various misconceptions even amongst quite educated people can lead them to an incorrect formulation.

    At least, that's how Seth Lloyd sees it.

    And, in my experience (I've done a bit of information theory, solid state physics, yada yada) it's about how information is defined. That is, it "requires" a physical context; usually you have a sender and a receiver and a channel. The sender encodes information in some signal, the receiver decodes the signal.

    The encoding/decoding is independent of the process of transmitting encoded information down a channel, which might introduce errors, noise etc. So an encoding that can allow for certain kinds of errors is more useful, obviously.

    Note that, a definition of information, given some physical context, is quite arbitrary--is the light bulb on or off? What are all the electrons doing as they interact with the bulb (much much more information than the answer to the first question).

    It isn't a big stretch to see that a receiver might need to first "understand" or interpret an encoding; this is in Seth Lloyd's paradigm just what we or any observers do when we observe events. Events of course, require clocks to have any meaning. So the question devolves to: how many events can be reliably "received" up to some factor of time? Is that Planck time or does time need to be grainier, and so on.

    p.s. I refer in this post to an online lecture given by Lloyd, which I will spend time finding again, or rather, using certain information stored in my brain to decode other information, and, well, perhaps you can see where I'm going here.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Looking forward to any *information* about this subject. As layman, I rely heavily on narratives from *learned fellows* . If I understand the narrative, I usually understand the *principle* on which it is founded..

    One question: can information be exchanged through direct physical contact, such as in compounding chemicals?
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2015
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I have posted this seeral times, but with mods permission, I will post it once more to newcomers (viewers) to the thread,
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuGI6pQFZC0

    @6:50 into the presentation it addresses the importance of Pi (an undefinable number), which may have some relationship *probability theory*, which in turn may apply to your bolded (by me) statement.
     
  8. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832


    Deriving general relativity . . . ? Oh well, it's the first part of the lecture that's about what I mentioned earlier.
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Not in science, it isn't.
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    1) The fact that information is exchanged in a quantum event does not mean that there is something called "causal energy". You seem to have made this concept up and it seems meaningless to me. Or can you quote a reference to it from anywhere scientifically reliable?

    2) Nor does the fact that information is exchanged in a quantum event mean that information IS energy. It isn't, as I have previously pointed out.

    3) As for the statement that a mathematical function is an "exchange" of information, that is also not so. A mathematical function, like a written sentence in a book, contains information. But no exchange occurs unless that information is processed or transmitted somehow.

    4) Mathematics has no dependence on Planck scale or any other concept in physics. Maths is maths, i.e. abstract, and does not depend on physics.

    Frankly, I think you are being woolly in your thinking and are getting perilously close to quantum woo here.
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Thanks for the link..Just from a quick peek, I'll check all of his lectures.......sounds very interesting.
    Thank you for that important question.
    I could glibly say that *energy* itself is a form of *information* and the propagation of energy is an abstraction of *passing on information* i.e. *exchange of energetic information* , i.e. *Causality*). But now that you asked
    I agree, IMO, the Mathematical function is an inherent property (a latent potential or constant) of space-time, Tegmark proposes that the universe does not just have *some* mathematical properties, but that it has *only* mathematical properties. *Values*

    The more I think about this, the more sense it makes. IMO, the logic is inescapable.

    The processing of these values when an *exchange* occurs is part of the Mathematical function also. We have discovered most of these *universal constants* and as they are logical we have been able to describe these functions symbolically into human mathematics.

    Thus the Information (the abstract values) needs not be specifically transmitted and received. They are timelessly constant and pervade all of reality at all times (in one form or another), they are the *essence* of this universe.

    Bohm calls this process of *unfolding of the Implicate universal potentials into Explicated reality*
    Tegmark goes one step further and proposes this *unfolding of the Implicate is always a purely mathematical function.*

    IMO, this conceptually consistent with Renate Loll's *Causal Dynamical Triangulation* or *CDT*
    I agree, but go one step further by saying "Mathematics don't depend on physics, the Physics depend on the mathematical Function"
    Perhaps I do an inadequate job of explaining my adoption of the works done by Tegmark, Bohm, and Loll.
    But my specific argument was based on this persuasive Tegmark's presentation; Decoding the Universe: The Great Math Mystery - NEW 2015 Documentary
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    True, but it is in Information Theory:
    IOW, a mathematical function.
     
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Where in information theory do you find this definition of extropy? I looked in Wiki but could not find it. Can you provide a reference from a credible source?

    When I googled it I got this:" the pseudoscientific principle that life will expand indefinitely and in an orderly, progressive way throughout the entire universe by the means of human intelligence and technology."

    In other words, some sources at least seem to think it is ballocks.
     
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Well OK I don't want to put you off your studies but I do think it is important to be careful with the meaning of words when science is being discussed. The fact that energy may be involved in the transmission of information does not mean that information IS energy or vice versa. That is lazy thinking.

    But I am coming to realise, sadly, that the term "energy"is one that lay people have real difficulty grasping. I suppose it is rather an abstract concept. But if in doubt I think it worth keeping hold of the simplest definition of it: energy is the capacity to do mechanical work, i.e. the capacity to apply a force through a distance: W = F x d. How can information apply a force through a distance? It can't - the idea is ridiculous.

    You can also look at it via dimensional analysis (a useful tool to checked what concepts may be related to one another):- Because F = ma, the dimensions of Force are Mass x Length/(Time x Time), or ML/T². (Acceleration is measured in metres per second per second, i.e. L/T²). So the dimensions of mechanical work are ML²/T² and these therefore are the dimensions of energy. For example, Einstein's mass/energy equivalence obeys these dimensional rules: Energy = Mass x c x c , the dimensions of which are M x L/T x L/T , i.e ML²/T².

    In contrast, information, expressed in bits or bytes or whatever, consists of pure numbers - with no associated dimensions. Information therefore cannot be expressible as energy, or somehow converted into it. They are chalk and cheese. Comparing information with energy is like trying to compare kilograms with hours, as this Wiki article explains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    [1uote]Write4U said:
    True, but it is in Information Theory:
    IOW, a mathematical function.[/quote]

    I apologize, I was referring to *entropy of informationheory*, not *extropy*. My mistake (sloppy reading).
     
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Ah, now it makes sense. Entropy is used in information theory- what is called Shannon entropy, a somewhat different concept to thermodynamic entropy, thought not entirely unrelated. This was discussed at the start of this thread.
     
  17. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,466
    Does learning new information increase the mass of the human brain?

    here are some links:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurogenesis

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/eyes-the-brain/201101/how-grow-new-neurons-in-your-brain

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10920/

    ................
    It seems that new information gets new neurons and pathways, while unused pathways are shut down and the neurons reabsorbed.
    So, does the brain's mass increase? Yes, most likely, but the space is limited, so it's most likely only temporary.?
    .............
    If I could only remember what I can't remember?
     
  18. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,623
    Only one observer is between what you see and you (because you are not observing yourself, you are observing reality, observation of reality is reality creating itself through itself, therefore, reality must perceive itself to be reality, or THE I AM THAT I AM) yourself (because one's self-perception, ie the "who?" cannot be answered without self-perception functioning as one within the one reality, "I AM" = "non-I AM" each character (let us suppose english = gibberish or non-sense to you, the information I am sending would equate to meaningless garbage and thus would not become created in the one mind, each of my additional informational reception by each of you becomes created by an unknown amount of minds and "self-perception" = REALITY. "I DEFINE WHO I AM, THEREFORE I AM" "My situation/ my concepts/ my"[insert concept here]" analog does not get registered/observed/imagined (and thus become meaningful in reality, thus non-existent stays non-existent and reality can be observed as it is non-separation or not separate from mind (THE REALITY INCLUDES THE MINDS WHILE THE MINDS INCLUDE THE REALITY THAT IS THE ONE SELF AS THE ONE, THE I AM THAT VOID/ SOUL CONSTANT/ CHRIST CONSCIOUSNESS/ BUDDHA NATURE/ LIMITLESS BEING/ WHO I AM IS REALITY AND SELF-DEFINED/ALWAYS HAVING BEEN DEFINED **BY** REALITY PRIOR TO YOURSELF BEING DEFINED **THROUGH** OBSERVATION (I.E. WE HAVE TO CARE FOR EACH OTHER IN ORDER FOR EACH OTHER TO GAIN SELF-PERCEPTION AND SELF-DEFINITION THOSE WHO LOVE, WE ARE ONE LOVE, THIS IS WHY LOVE IS REGISTERED AND OBSERVED AS SELF-DEFINING/ALWAYS HAVING BEEN DEFINED/LOVE EXISTS IN REALITY BECAUSE WE MAKE LOVE REAL/ EVERYTIME WE CONCEPTUALIZE/ SEPARATE, WE HAVE A **DIFFERENCE IN SAMENESS**.
     
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Well, out of this lot, the phrase "meaningless garbage" is at least something I recognise.
     
    Spellbound likes this.
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    IMO, your first biblical phrase "I AM THAT, I AM" is more accurate than the second "I AM WHO I AM".

    I would still phrase it differently to: " INFORMATION DEFINES WHAT IT BECOMES IN REALITY". An objective statement of the mathematical function, without attaching a subjective self-awareness.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2015
    Spellbound likes this.
  21. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    Energy is also related to time via the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. Here, instead of work, you need to talk about measuring the energy of some particle in some interval of time--the shorter the interval the less certain the measurement. It isn't classical at all.
    You seem to be overlooking that information is physical, it isn't "pure numbers". The bits in your computer have "electronic dimensions", they are physical. I contend that your representation of information as dimensionless numbers, is in fact wrong.

    In other words, any number is informational only if it has a physical representation, otherwise it remains strictly mathematical, like pi. But then, we can conceive of this number, pi, that conception is physical and hence, informational.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2015
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    But that only proves the inadequacy of our observational abilities. We ar able to observe down to Planck scale, (10^-15) but it is estimated the lowest level of existence is somewhere at 10^-30. If you use the exponential function to calculate this, it becomes clear that what we can actually observe is but a tiny portion of the fabric of space. IMO, time is related to Pi, an open-ended non-number related to probability theory.

    True, but the sequence of bits carry information of numerical values and equations within the physical electronic dimensions.
    Tegmark explained this in the computer simulation in his presentation. See multiple previous links in this thread.
    oh well, I'll post it once more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuGI6pQFZC0
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2015
  23. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    No, it doesn't, because it applies to any quantum measurement including the ones we don't observe directly.
    That's just agreeing with what I said; to summarize what you said, information and the flow of information are physical, they must have a physical basis.
     

Share This Page