Entities and attributes in science

That is generally true of any information. When discussing what it is, you have the difficulty that most of the information humans process, is meaningful. This is not a coincidence, how could it be?

I consider that question to have the capacity to be meaningful. Information is a pattern--of recognizable symbols.
If a physical substrate is a requirement for information to exist, is the substrate an entity? I suppose.

But why is it important to know this?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry, the question "can you put information in a bottle", is self referential. Can you see how?
That is, assuming the bottle is made of a material substance.

It effectively is asking if you have a material bottle, does it have a bottle in it? Which of course it does.
Or if you have a string of 1s and 0s, does it have a string of 1s and 0s in it? etc

Consider the possibility that the presence or absence of a bottle is information. Actually that's a common everyday piece of information in a world where bottles exist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's not a problem - unless you don't understand recursive functionality.

It is true that the presence of a bottle is, itself, a form of meta-information, but it is certainly possible to still answer the question of whether you can put information in a bottle, such that the bottle is considered only the messenger, not the message.

(E.g. A bottle-delivery conveyor is set up that delivers a bottle every day at the exact same time. Once you know this routine, the messenger no longer conveys any information - only the message.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One is able to distinguish between what humans process as information, and the notion of information in general.
I.e. we can talk about trees existing in a forest even if no-one sees them.
But you are still diverting this thread from the issue of entity/attribute to one of information.

Primarily because that is the topic of this thread.
It is not about information in general.
Please can you stick to the topic of this thread.
If you want to talk more generally about information, start a thread about it.

So let me ask you again: do you consider information to be an entity or an attribute?

 

Information is an entity. Meaning is one of its attributes.
Another attribute of information is that it can move from place to place (you can put some in a bottle and throw it in the ocean, say).

A bottle is an entity. That a bottle is capable of containing other entities is an attribute.
Humans are entities, an attribute of humans is that they can be confused about what information means. As in this particular thread, and to the point of being angry about their confusion.

I'm not angry about that, I'm somewhat bemused.

 

Information by itself makes exactly zero sense. It's meaningless.
Tiassa is right about James R's posting style. It's fallacious. He invents nonexistent problems to trip up the unwary. He does it on purpose because that is all he has. He doesn't seem to, or maybe it's an act, understand very much at all about the physical world. He asks "what does physical mean?", then attacks whatever you say about that word. He's a troll.

The argument he makes is conclusory: since information does not exist by itself, that means you can't put it in a bottle by itself. Since James R doesn't know what he's talking about, you can't put anything he says in a bottle.
The simple matter isn't simple at all. Perhaps James R needs a brain transplant.

Oooh, look at that, I'm trolling! I'm copying James R, head troll at sciformorons.

A comment about this site, if anyone here cares. James R is a science shithead. He wants you and me to believe he knows things, things that science itself will shrug its shoulders about.
He knows what energy is, he knows all about information theory, he understands gauge theories.
But, he doesn't. He has a bunch of useless, meaningless ideas about physics that I don't want to go anywhere near. I want to put him on ignore. He probably wants to ban me.

As if that somehow will matter. This site is pretty dead though, don't you think? Moribund, I think is the appropriate term. I seriously doubt anything can save it from eventual obscurity. Other science sites aren't like this one, why is that?

Oh wait, I know that one--it's the people here.

 

Good catch! I did wonder, seeing as his preoccupation is one of arfa's, namely information, though perhaps it was just coincidence.

But now something in his brain has gone FUNGG!! and he has been unable to contain himself, running up the Jolly Roger and dispelling all doubt.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You guys are going to have this site all to yourself soon. It's about there already.

On the other hand, I find it significant that the subjects of discussion I engage in here, are discussed in quite a different way at other sites.

The difference is entirely due to moderators, like James R and his lapdog, exchemist. It's quite pathetic.
My advice to anyone wanting to discuss anything, is don't try it here.

The rational people abandoned this site a while ago. It's very much a personal arena for James and exchemist. The other moderators aren't interested. They don't contribute to discussions about scientific subjects, likely because they don't know much about it.

It just isn't interesting apart from the psychiatric ward ambience.
Hang on, I'll put all that information in a bottle, by itself. Just for you, ok?
I'll make sure I post some meaningless questions, later on, after you've had your meds.

 

Poor old Arfa will find other science sites a bit more challenging than this one, in terms of what behaviour is tolerated. On the .net site he lasted only a month before being suspended for incivility. I suspect some form of dementia. As a sock he managed to control it reasonably well, until he had a few encounters with James, whereupon he lost it.
I may have a look around to see if he pops up elsewhere.