arfa brane:
So heating some water to make a coffee, is taking a number from one column and moving to another column?
No. When you heat water, you cause the water molecules to move around, rotate and vibrate more, by doing something that causes those molecules to jiggle around. In an electric kettle, for instance, the water is placed in contact with some hot metal, and the metal atoms physically bump into the neighbouring water molecules. Notice that, in this description, the word "energy" does not appear.
But there's water, and there's heat from a source of heat; the water gets heated. Where are the two columns you say I need, so I can heat up the water?
If you like, you can open your energy ledger and describe the process as some electrical energy being moved to the column corresponding to kinetic energy in the heating element, then moved to the column corresponding to kinetic energy of the water molecules. The temperature of the water is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the water molecules. To find it, you could, in principle, look at how fast the water molecules are moving and then grab your calculator to fill in the "kinetic energy" column in your energy ledger. Then, by the miracle of averaging, combined with some calibration, you get a temperature reading out. Alternatively, you could just stick a (calibrated) thermometer in the water.
Or say I start the engine in my car, it starts because a battery has electrical energy, and because the fuel has chemical energy. Where are these columns you mention?
Those columns are the ones you're labelling "electrical energy" and "chemical energy". The physical processes that start your car are not the same thing as the energy numbers you write down.
Why does this number not exist independently of the electron? What do you think it means, when there are numbers that are completely independent of physics, that really are just numbers and nothing else?
There are numbers in physics and numbers outside (e.g. I have 3 sheep).
I can bottle a sheep (if I have a large enough bottle), but I can't bottle the number "3".
You can settle our little dispute very quickly right now, if you can produce a bottle of "pure" energy for me. Can you do that, or not? If not, why not?
Well, that's complete bullshit James, sorry. You're a physics joke.
Ah, an attempt at argument by
ad hominem insult. Poor show, arfa brane. Can't you do any better than that?
What happened to you, man? I always thought you were more capable than this.
Then why do you make that mistake?
Please try to keep up. Re-read what I wrote.
Yes James; information is physical. I see you have some catching up to do.
If information was a concept, how would you transmit it or store it?
If I get out my HB pencil and write down my name, say, then the information is "stored" in the graphite markings on the paper. The graphite and paper is the physical storage medium of that information. But by themselves, graphite markings on paper are just that. The
information in my name is entire conceptual: the idea that those markings represent sounds in a language, that this particular combination of phonemes represents a proper name, etc. All of
that is entirely in your head; none of it is in the graphite.
Why would someone, as you just did, ask "how the information content of this post you're reading manifests itself physically". That's pretty asinine, you must actually be an idiot.
Clearly, you're hopelessly confused and the only refuge you can find lies in insults. Try to come up with an actual argument or two. That would be more constructive. Also, just as a hint: if you expect somebody to converse politely with you, you ought to try practising some politeness yourself. Otherwise you come across as a crass bore.
Good job. I hope you stay ignorant and never bother to question your knowledge of . . . anything at all. God help us all if you do.
You're an Aussie, right? That's pretty obvious too, you goddam moron.
Personal insult not enough for you? Now you feel like you need to insult an entire nation of people? Does that make you feel better about your failings?
Richard Feynman wasn't an idiot, but he probably didn't understand information in the modern sense either. Computer Science was in its infancy in the 1950's, in much the same way your understanding of it is.
Feynman, as it turns out, was a
very bright guy. He gave a very interesting talk about miniaturisation and information storage, years ahead of its time. You should look it up. You might learn something.