On the nature of information

But that does not contradict what I said. It confirms it.

I don't disagree, but as I understand it, according to Tegmark the physical basis itself consists of mathematical constructs.
Thus, IMO. what we call "physical" interaction is actually an exchange of mathematical values in according to the appropriate *abstract* mathematical laws and functions of this universe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, there has to be a difference between mathematical "information", and physical infomation.
Physics is and always has been an informational science--if it's physical we can learn (get some information) about it. Information is mathematical because physics is (by some unknown coincidence).

On the other hand, is something mathematical necessarily also physical? I don't think that follows.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Physics is a mathematical discipline. Looking at a cup of coffee does not a physicist make.

Also, it is not coincidence that the science of physics is mathematical. It is how the physical world works.

Perhaps mathematics is man's greatest intellectual accomplishment. But every mathematician will tell you that they are just *discovering* the inherent mathematical nature and functions of the Universe.

I never claimed that. On the contrary, IMO, *universal mathematical functions* are latent hierarchical potentials of spacetime itself and may remain latent, until a specific mathematical potential Implication results in a dynamic event and becomes Explicated in OUR reality.

I am a fan of Bohmian mechanics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have to say I'm not a fan of the idea that information exchange is an exchange of mathematical values, since this can only be true if "mathematics", i.e. numbers, i.e. some kind of code, is defined for such an exchange. In particular, that an exchange is also a process means there must be some kind of flow defined, hence energy hence physics are there too.

Hence the claim, 'information and energy are not the same' sounds less reasonable, I think. Or depending on what is meant by "the same".

And I note that the arguments look very much like those you expect to have about heat and energy, or what temperature is, say.

 

What units do you measure information in, then? Five oranges are physical. But that does not stop five being a dimensionless number, does it?

The fact information may be physical does not mean it has the units of energy. That is my only point here. It is rubbish to assert that information is energy, that's all.

As for energy being "related to" time, well Planck's Constant has the units of Joule-seconds, and ΔE.Δt >/=h/2π, but so what? Energy is still the ability to do work, even if that work is accelerating an electron through a potential difference of 1 volt, or something. There is noting inherently "classical" about defining energy in terms of mechanical work.

 

Quite, but representing information as a number doesn't make information dimensionless either.

But erasing a bit uses up energy--the energy is no longer "available". Changing a number from 1 to 0 mathematically, does nothing physical.

Ah, but mechanical work, and mechanics generally, imply causality and locality. Causality is definitely a classical idea. The piston moves because of the steam inside it, the wheel moves because the piston is attached to it through some levers. Mechanics implies a causal chain of events.

 

IMO, *implication* itself is a probabilistic mathematical function and a *causal chain of events* is a dynamic mathematical function..

 

Other than change the mathematical function of the value in a binary system perhaps?

 

Actually, I'm leaning towards changing a number "mathematically" not making much sense. Mathematics doesn't describe this thing called change unless it describes physical systems.

Like, the set of real numbers has addition and multiplication, but that only says any real number is a sum of real numbers, or a product of real numbers. "Change", isn't defined as such.

And a comment about five oranges and the information concerned: you can communicate in any number of ways the fact that you have five oranges, including sending me the oranges so I can count them myself. Communicating the information involves the use of this stuff, energy. If you destroy the oranges and still send the information, it's still physical because it requires a physical transmission method.

 

You need energy to transmit information, sure. What I seem have trouble getting through to a number of people is that information is one thing and its transmission is something else. If you muddle them up, you can end up with quantum woo.

 

But are we not speaking of universal functional constants in the propagation or exchange of all causal information effecting a deterministic physical or geometric change from one state of order into another state of order?

True, but here you are speaking of Human mathematical symbolic representations of natural values and functions. In human maths *change* (from one state to a new state) effected by a mathematical functuion is called the "result".

True, but in that scenario you introduce a falsehood, thus the message will be meaningless, in fact misleading.

Nature plays tricks like that with *mirages* and *wave distortions*, optical illusions which are also physically meaningless and misleading. But that kind of information does require physical transmission, true.

But nature does not create rainbows for human entertainment. They are purely mathematical functions of local conditions, following strict universal mathematical functions and laws (constants).
But we can numerically break down and symbolize all the colors of the spectrum with numerical values of the amount of primary colors present in the hue.

 

Not true. QM entities still do work, or have work done on them. What do you think happens where a photon excites an electron from its ground state to an excited state? The energy of the photon is absorbed and work is done, against the confining potential that attracts the electron to the nucleus: it is moved radially outwards (through a distance) against the attractive force: F x d - that is, mechanical work. The concept of work is not applicable only to c.19th steam engines

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.