It's really nice to see intelligent people having fun discussing things that are at the limit of human understanding... Amazing and touching.

The thing I'm familiar tje most about Seth Lloyd is his idea about black holes being idealized computing environments.

Out of all the scientists and Nobel prize winners I have heard over the years, I find Seth Lloyd to be most insightful.

When using language to describe the universe, surely every character must be a piece of information. However, when verifying the language with measurement, the story looks a little different. It turns out, the smaller the scale, the harder it is to differentiate between states 0 and 1. They enter superposition. Perhaps potential information would be a better concept to describe this verification problem - a mix of information and randomness. I have no doubt that information is indispensable when forming language, I'm just not convinced it's a universal concept. It seems to me that the assumption of non information is just as often the more useful assumption!

This guy seems pretty cool, I share his philosophy at the end there.

If systems interact, information is processed.

Who or what is being informed? What is it made of? Putting it another way, how does information produce activity? This is analogous to the problem of separation of instructions and data in computers.

@Pleasing_view

4 ай бұрын

Take for instance, you touching a cold surface. The contact between your hand and the cold surface is exchanging information of temperature difference (zeroth law). The universe is like a one big organism that everything it encompasses has to be from it itself (universe) to correlate efficiently.

@womagrid

4 ай бұрын

@@Pleasing_view Thanks but I understand that interactions at all scales transfer information. The point is that data has no agency. If something is using the data to implement a functional universe, then either it is also made of information, so we have different kinds of information, requiring yet more information to describe the difference, or there is something other than information.

@Pleasing_view

4 ай бұрын

@@womagrid everything (matter that is) has information that can can correlate with another under physical (pressure, magnetic field and etc) or chemical (endothamic or exothamic)

@womagrid

4 ай бұрын

@@Pleasing_view I know. I'm sorry but this misses the point. I'm addressing the claim that everything else can be derived from information, thinking also about the MEI equivalence principle, simulation hypothesis etc.

@Pleasing_view

4 ай бұрын

@@womagrid I don't think we can diminish our reality to a mere hologram or simulation. We are part of it coz we are made out of it

maybe bits of information from quantum time / energy?

So would it be 10^120^120 total bits of information since the BB?

EVERYTHING as simply quantum information is not only a beautiful and very credible idea, but there is ALSO credible evidence to support its validity.. One opinion.

1:38 and what is the nature of that information... is it random or structured 🤔

If we’re counting the elementary particles of the universe, what makes the number we arrive at more fundamental than the particles themselves?

Most of all the plants in our entire universe and solar systems are equally and binarily balanced with the their own suns gravitational fields since the beginning of their birth place. Basically our planets and moons all started out from a little size disks emanating heat and potential life, for example the moment the radiation started decaying, gas and other chemicals came into existence and begin mixing into different chemical compounds that cause the disks to rise into gas bubbles size planets consist of two spaces, the first space is the outer space bubble and the inner space bubble is the second. The first layer is non soiled mix gases and the second layer is liquid gases and the both are divided levitating fields, the bubble of liquid levitates inside a bubble of different types of non solid chemical compounds that came from liquid iron and circulate around the entire liquid field which balancing and help stabilized the growth of the planet space bubble. What is mine blowing is how everything falls into perspective with the galaxy entire gravitational field basically all planets are created inside a liquid bubbles and while going through that growth process gravity determines what size and the difference in mass for each planet particular gravitational timeline for example for a planet to fit on a particular gravitational timeline gravity will automatically break off a piece of extra access from the planet doing its early liquid development stage and shape it into a moon and put a certain distance or tidal locked between the both to match up with the solar system gravitational timeline. All planets and moons are perfectly balanced with their own sun and if anyone of them move off track the sun will spin out of control and the sun gravitational field connection will eventually go off balance and the sun will begin growing into a giant red dwarf Star and then eventually die.

Of course. On a blank slate, many dots per inch of information form in position to create a new 3d graphic.

i don't think it is, i mean it has to be information about something, data without context is meaningless

@willasacco9898

5 ай бұрын

Yes - Are we missing something or can information me essentially the same as matter, energy and space time?

"Nothing Unreal Exists" -T'Planahath, Matron of Vulcan Philosophy...

I think I'd quite like to know what quick mental arithmetic was done to arrive at the idea that one could pinpoint a proton with 70 or 80 bits. And then 50 or 60 bits + 1 to include its spin. Was velocity mentioned at all? Am I too naive as to not know its irrelevance? Certainly I do know how vastly different 50 and 80 bits are in base 10 ...

@RogerSchlafly

5 ай бұрын

No, he did not mention velocity. Also more than 1 bit is needed for spin.

@Seth Lloyd, in your description of a proton, I understand your point. Here is my injection on this. The information description of things, I call "their soul". It is the complete and accurate description of some thing. I think it is extremely important that we catalog these souls and study them closely. I think it will be very important to us.

@dennistucker1153

5 ай бұрын

@@bennyskim good points. Given our current technology, I would say it would need to be secure database, viewable by all, editable by experts it the subject matter. For finer details, idk.

yeah it makes the most sense it's fundamental.

(0:24) *SL: **_"At bottom it's bits!"_* ... There cannot be anything that is more fundamental than *"pure Information"* because anything you can observe or deal with necessarily exudes information. It then becomes a _"Chicken and the Egg"_ type of paradoxical debate. Does the physical egg give rise to the information that the egg [resents, or does information constitute the entirety of the egg itself. .... _I subscribe to the latter!_ Just because there are all kinds of *descriptive information* attached to the egg, the egg is not _limited_ to "description-only data" only. The shell, yoke, whites, and everything the egg presents within reality is also comprised of information.

@rebokfleetfoot

5 ай бұрын

the chicken clearly, by the theorem of multiplicative transverse, in a nut shell, the chicken produces many eggs, but the egg only produces one chicken,, so if the egg came first there would soon be no chickens :L()

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

5 ай бұрын

@@rebokfleetfoot *"the chicken clearly, by the theorem of multiplicative transverse, in a nut shell, the chicken produces many eggs, but the egg only produces one chicken,, so if the egg came first there would soon be no chickens"* ... I'm often criticized for writing long comments, but if I don't, then issues like this ensue. I'm not literally referencing the "Chicken or the Egg?" debate and seeking its resolution. All I'm saying is that the debate over whether information comes first followed by the structure, or the structure first followed by the information it produces is similar to the "Chicken or the Egg?" paradox. Some claim information precedes structure and others claim the opposite.

@simonhibbs887

5 ай бұрын

@@rebokfleetfoot I quite like that, thank you. It's a fun point.

the thing is we can't really understand the question without a unified theory, if some day we have that, then we can say we can explain everything in the context of data and a unified theory, but even then the data does not mean anything without the theory

I’ve yet to hear any proponents of the “all is information” hypothesis, explain the hypothesis in a manner that doesn’t make it seem like just much ado about nothing. What advancements in thinking, science, philosophy or even mathematics are we likely to get from this new idea?

@simonhibbs887

5 ай бұрын

I think it's just a useful way to think about the world. Too many people don't understand what information is or how it relates to the physical world, the technologies we use, etc. The account of information Seth promotes is the basis for modern quantum mechanics, the physics of computation, information science, and hence most of the technologies of the modern world. We're finding that the limits of information and computation correspond in interesting ways to other limits in physics, such as how computational complexity relates to thermodynamic limits.

@longcastle4863

5 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Okay, but what in what you say, suggests that information should be considered the fundamental building block of reality, rather than the things we now consider the fundamental building blocks of reality? What improvement in how we do science or understand the world, for example, results from this new way of viewing reality? When we look at the patterns produced on the screen in the double split experiment, how do we justify saying, the information we get as a result of this experiment is more fundamental _and real!_ than the electrons or photons that produced the pattern. I’d even settle for being pointed to a KZread video that explains this clearly and well, because I honestly haven’t found one. The whole thing just doesn’t seem to have any teeth to it, if you know what I mean.

@simonhibbs887

5 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 >"What improvement in how we do science or understand the world, for example, results from this new way of viewing reality?" Good question. There's a lot of work going on relating computational complexity and the physics of computation relating it to thermodynamic equilibria and limits, and entropy. >"When we look at the patterns produced on the screen in the double split experiment, how do we justify saying, the information we get as a result of this experiment is more fundamental and real! than the electrons or photons that produced the pattern." He's not saying the information we get out of it is more real, he's saying the phenomena themselves are inherently informational. So there are the phenomena, the electrons and such and they are informational, and there's the data we derive from the experiment that's also informational. He's also not saying the information inherent to the phenomena, the attributes of the phenomena are more fundamental, he's saying they're the same thing. That the inherent information is the phenomenon. The conventional view is that there's the phenomenon and it has information associated with it. He's not really saying there's information and the phenomenon is derived from that, he's saying they share an identity. The phenomenon is it's attributes. I'm not quite sure I go that far, but I think it's an interesting view worth thinking about.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

5 ай бұрын

*" What advancements in thinking, science, philosophy or even mathematics are we likely to get from this new idea?"* ... Some might write a 282-page book about what is gained from it.

His answer is correct since the question "what's the nature of reality" implies that there's a "reality", which in tern implies a sentient observer. A better question, then, would be, how a sentient observer perceives its environment, which we can call, reality.

@longcastle4863

5 ай бұрын

A sentient observer perceives reality through its sensory perceptual apparatuses-which are basically, for humans and many other animals, the the five senses and corresponding brain parts that turns such sensory input into the perceptions we can experience, evaluate and use. A lot of the things we experience thus can be called information. But how that then redounds to “reality, at its most basic, fundamental or elemental level, is information”, seems to be lacking quite a few logical steps. Imo.

@simonhibbs887

5 ай бұрын

Sentient observers clearly exist, but there’s no reason to suppose that they are necessary to existence. It’s quite plausible that observers are contingent, and we have observational evidence that the universe existed just fine without us in the past.

@longcastle4863

5 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 What do you think? If another sentient species arose, like us but in a galaxy far far away, would they arrive at the very same information systems we have? and even further, the exact same formulas and equations, theories and models we have, once the appropriate translations into each other’s systems were made? Edit: by like us, I just mean living things that translate reality into a number of different sensory perceptual experiences.

@kavorka8855

5 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 sorry I didn't get your point. Seth, a top few experts in entropy, information and quantum computation, think reality itself is information, and explains his opinion quite well in this short video. What's lacking, perhaps, is a sentient observer. If you removed this sentient observer out of the way, then anything can be anything. Atoms, electrons, quarks, etc may still continue functioning the way they need to, but there won't be "reality" anymore because reality implies a sentient information processor. So basically the key here is "really", which means an "admired observation", admired or pondered upon observation. But what Steth says here is obviously deeper. Wolfram has similar view, that there's computation and information behind behind everything or reality.

@kavorka8855

5 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 you're quite right. We have to be careful about the unhelpful and often reckless ideologies, such as postmodernism, that try to undermine science and the immense progress that weve achieved through it.

sorry but it is a fallacy that information is finite in any subsystem of nature, and that it is discreet information, that isn't something possible to check, it is only something possible to put on a piece of paper as a model. even when you model a proton with qcd it sure takes more than some multiple of the quantum numbers to characterize it. it is literally impossible to prove or demonstrate an upper bound on the amount of discreet information necessary to describe any subsystem in nature faithfully.

@williamgragilla7007

4 ай бұрын

Pretty sure the entropy of a black hole is proportional to the area, not volume.

Is information objective? I think not. If a bit answers a yes/no question, then the bit varies on who is asking the questions.

Do particle positions in the universe actually contain information? If we describe positions of particles by how many bits there need to be to have a certain precision (like a precision of one Planck length) then the particles near have much less information in their positions than those being in the farthest reaches of the Universe...!!??

@simonhibbs887

5 ай бұрын

It's interesting to think 'where' the information about position is encoded. Is it inherent to the particle, or is it an attribute of space and time? Hard to say. Also he does point out that the position information is assumed to be relative to the observable universe, so we don't know what the 'true' scale needs to be. Relative distance isn't an issue in this though, these attributes would have to be relative to all of spacetime, not some arbitrary fixed origin point.

☀️

I think, on an intuotive level, there's an explanatory gap (that maybe someone like Seth Lloyd could fill) that's created when they say that everything is "information" caused by the lack of what information itself fundamentally is. In other words, simply saying that the universe is fundamentally 'information' is unsatisfying because you haven't really told us what that means. It might help to explain state machines, and how the universe itself is one. By what mechanism does the universe flip states, andvwhat is ultimately 'flipping' in the universe?

@simonhibbs887

5 ай бұрын

I think he summarises this in the first few minutes of the interview, to summarise it's the state of a physical system.

unless it is an open notion of information that we can't track fully, then sure, some form of continuous information.

2:00 if something doesn't exist, does it not carry information that it doesn't exist at least

@simonhibbs887

5 ай бұрын

Nonexistence is the absence of attributes, so the absence of information. We can describe or enumerate things that don’t exist, such as unicorns, and those descriptions are real and physical and have attributes. Unicorns don’t exist and so don’t have attributes.

What people call reality is actually words, and the meanings are fundamental. For example, your present body is a word, and you are its meaning.

I agree w Seth Lloyd that information is important, but his reference to bits implies the presence of a computer. Computers never occur in nature. In yesterday’s interview, What Is Consciousness, Roger Penrose cites Gödel’s theorem to object to the computational approach. I side with Penrose. Information is important, but there’s a gap that needs to be addressed. I think that gap is associational (CS Peirce) - association as key to the symmetries that cascade out from the void. Might the Feynman diagrams be whispering tips for us to follow?

this just all sounds like taking a model literally, and asking what information do we use when we try to model something. the "best we can do" in that way, has nothing to do with the information density in nature, we can't prove or figure out that upper bound, it can''t be done and anyone who thinks that is possible needs to seriously rethink their reasoning. the upper bound is just what physical systems actually exist, not what physical systems we think exist or can posit, that is just a partial analysis void of any proofs of upper bounds for nature itself.

Information in the objective world doesn’t seem discreet the way we perceive it. It could be a continuous flow. But in our subjective psychological world it is discreet because life has two feedback loops going on. One with the environment and the other within itself in brain. A biological existence at the first place is needed so accordingly brain tries to sync with the environment through the first loop. And then a higher experiential need is felt (scientific discovery and inventions), where the inner second loop is activated. But in both the cases the brain functions in a discreet way owing to the constraints it faces by its design architecture. If the universe changes faster than what you can make sense out of it, then life can’t exist biologically. The cognitive faculties will fail to adapt. So a delicate threshold balance seems to be maintained between both the loops before new information hits the organism. Thus it processes information in discreet format. E.g, every time we blink our eyes we misses out many information but we live biologically without complaining, because that rate of blinking doesn’t affect the delicate balance between both the loops needed for survival. Therefore what we finally perceive as information is in bits, but not necessarily or theoretically it should be like. Information from the universal non-observer’s perspective can still be A CONTINUOUS FLOW or more discreet at minute level than we perceive it like in qubits, it’s not 1 or 0 but takes values in between as well. If that’s the case then we need to redefine what information is??

Which is more fundamental, computation or information?

@kylebowles9820

5 ай бұрын

How circuits and other computations are modeled, there are two classes: combinational logic and sequential logic. It appears the universe is sequential logic where the laws of physics are the transition function for the information over time. Having one without the other would yield a universe with no information (nothing) or no transition function so no change or time at all.

If everything is information then laws of nature, physics and universe and fundamental constant of universe and 4 forces are also information?

Intention is fundamental.

But even something as basic as position potentially is a real number which requires infinite bits to fully define, so his simple description of 0's and 1's breaks down as an adequate fundamental.

@kylebowles9820

5 ай бұрын

Can't have infinite precision, check out the planck length and it's relationship to energy for example. Then there's Heisenberg uncertainty, not only is it not knowable but it's truly not defined past a certain precision

@petermartin5030

5 ай бұрын

@@kylebowles9820 So if you go to quantum mechanics, you still have infinite precision, but now it is in the probabilities.

@vonneumann6161

5 ай бұрын

The real number is just an approximation of physics because it’s useful for calculus. It’s the same as using the Dirac delta function in science. An infinitely high and infinitely narrow function does not exist in the real world. It’s just an approximation to make the calculations easy. You seem to be thinking that the universe is the math itself you do on paper but it’s not true. The math is an approximation of reality. Just a convenient tool. Just like the concept of infinity. There is no such thing as a continuous random variable in the real world. At least we haven’t observed it and we will never observe it. Let’s say you measured the position of a particle with a camera. What you’re actually measuring is the position of some discrete set of pixels on an image. But there are too many pixels for a human to count so we treat them as continuous on paper. It’s a made up human concept

@petermartin5030

5 ай бұрын

@@vonneumann6161 Agree, but surely information, especially if conceived in 1's and 0's is also a useful fictional representation that happens to suit how our minds work?

@vonneumann6161

5 ай бұрын

@@petermartin5030 I agree

I read this guy’s paper on complexity as thermodynamic depth a while back. Now I see the guy I can’t stop staring at his hair..

@marcc16

5 ай бұрын

TLDR?

The sound in this video has an annoying 2200hz background noise.

Information is the new era for physics. Information can describe phenomena, but what describes information.

@longcastle4863

5 ай бұрын

My prediction is that “information is fundamental” is an idea that will fade faster, even, than the so-called hard problem of consciousness, but probably with much less fanfare. A nothing burger, hold the bread, the cheese and all the condiments.

@blijebij

5 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 I think personally (its ofc just my perspective), that you could be wrong there. My angle on it is, Information is not a complete perspective! So while I think its very important, take the holographic principle from van 't hooft with the famous 1 bit planckscale, or Verlinde's entropic gravity. I do not think it will fade away and is just cheesy, but..... its an incomplete perspective. Wich means there is still a missing link. So while it is important it is not the bottom of Reality.

@blijebij

5 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 Is there a special reason why you think information will not have a lasting role in physics?

@longcastle4863

5 ай бұрын

@@blijebij I think it will fade fast because it lacks logic. Information is a human invention. It is our way of breaking reality down into useable parts, workable formats. What are the logical steps that then take us from all this information being helpful human made descriptions of reality, to all these descriptions being actual reality itself. Somewhere something is missing, it seems to me, in how people who advocate for information being fundamental arrive at that conclusion.

@abelincoln8885

5 ай бұрын

Information .. is an abstraact construct .. from the Mind ... of an intelligence. Nature & natural processes ... can not make & enformce rules & laws ... ethics & morals .... or Funcitons with clear purpose, processes, properties, & .... design. Space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy .... of the Universe ... are natural Funcitons ... with purpose, properteis, processes & design. And natural System like the Universe .... must have an unnatural origin ... because there was no space, time, Laws of Nature matter & energy ... before the Natural System existened.

So from what he says around 5:25, this theory is linked to us and our ability to perceive this information? That's a bit anthropocentric. Or is this some kind of strength of this theory.

@simonhibbs887

5 ай бұрын

It doesn’t depend on us, it’s basically an objectivist theory I suppose. We can just reason about it and describe it in the way he does there.

The James Webb Space Telescope revelations has made this conversation sound very dated very quickly.

@simonhibbs887

5 ай бұрын

How?

@marcv2648

5 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Mature galaxies and stars much farther away and deeper in time. Well accepted theory honed for decades can not explain this. Has implications for all areas of cosmology. Some crazy compensations like doubling the age of universe trying to save the current paradigm. Also a noticeable silence from some corners that previously had everything figured out. Lots of implications and downstream effects.

@simonhibbs887

5 ай бұрын

@@marcv2648 >"Mature galaxies and stars much farther away and deeper in time. Well accepted theory honed for decades can not explain this..... Some crazy compensations like doubling the age of universe trying to save the current paradigm. " Oh right, you're talking about the fact that galaxies formed in the early universe more rapidly than expected. We knew our previous theories of galaxy formation were only provisional. The observational evidence from the JWST has helped explain this and we now have much better theories of galaxy formation as a result. This has no implications at all for calculations of the age of the universe.

a bit is the smallest element of our understanding, not necessarily an element of reality -- that is an ontological statement, which no proper scientist should attempt.

This seems like a tautology. I measured it, therefore it is a measurement.

I’m still not convinced that bits are the end all be all. What gives these information-holding bits the qualities they possess? How do we know that the fundamental particles we observe today by smashing particles together arent a Darwinian-esque evolution of some other fundamental particles that went extinct millions or billions of years ago?

Is information independent of observation? I think so, because if it weren't independent of observation, then I would never make a mistake or misinterpret information. 2 + 2 = 4, even if I think it's 5. My observation is skewed, but the math remains true whether I agree or not. I am hesitant to label something fundamental, but I feel information is fundamental, and consciousness is not. 2 is 2, regardless if there is someone around to calculate it. There was information since the beginning and will be until the end. Consciousness?....meh. consciousness is not relevant to answer information being fundamental, on a universal level....()perhaps it is for me on a personal level). A thing can exist without being observed....that's why I know my truck is in the driveway even if I don't visit it every moment of my life. When I go outside, it is still where I parked it. -- now if I can only remember where I left my keys!

it is expected and natural that we would not be able to read off all the information in a subsystem, in a comprehensible way. because we can't be conscious of our entire state, just like the screen of a computer can't capture all the bits it is processing. a bit is just a piece in a game, that always just has one legal move and that can be stored in different places. a real bit doesn't exist, it is a theoretical device in computational information theory, a real bit in nature as we use them are complicated condensed matter systems of semi conductors that process way more information in nature than in our schemes of tracking the value of the bits we use in our computations, that is also true for all the other kinds of information we can define and use reliably, so saying nature can be described by our notions of information is silly at best.

What is information , information to whom, only human made machines can measure something as information..? measurement itself induces change of state of what we measure..!!

... 1:23 well it sounds that information is something that the thing is doing as opposed to the information being the thing do I get that right? 1:35 SL: yeah so so you can say yeah so everything carries with it bits of information all right so that's fine I think that's pretty uncontroversial (right) so uh you know proton up zero proton spinning down one so everything has bits of information (1:53 so there's nothing that exists that doesn't carry information exactly ) okay right that's right (you know that make sense) right not to carry information you'd have not to exist (right) you know nothing has no states and so it doesn't carry information so (but) as long as you exist then you carry information (I'm making progress) all right so but now your question was is it really made out of information 2:15 well okay so let's say ... so as you try to look closer and closer to say what is there beyond information okay you look closer you find another bit of information that characterizes a proton say it's got spin it's composed of quarks ... you find more bits of information but at some point you find no more information that the information stops the information is finite and you've described everything and you've described everything so what is it if not information okay ( 3:08 so let's just take a proton how many bits of information would you need to describe a proton?) 3:15 ... then there a few more maybe another 10 bits or so to character as its spin (right) actually that's probably pretty much it because once you have a proton then it can either be spinning up or spinning down so let's say about 10^(50~60 +1) bits, and that's it and there isn't anything more to say about this proton. 3:58 (Let's now go to the opposite extreme let's look at the whole universe and look at it as if it were information ) as if what do you mean as if. ... okay 4:12 6:57 is that on a static basis like right now or defining it or is that a historical basis from the beginning of the big bang this 13.7 billion years ago the total history of our universe is contained with that 7:13 yeah so actually this ... 10^120. 8:15 what's the implication of all this? I mean is this just interesting and fun or is there some serious deep meaning to us SL: it's just interesting and fun no no what do you mean serious deep meaning comes only from things that are interesting (that's good point I like that I like that well that's right that's right) 【Me Too! For example, an irrational number, π, holding infinite decimals, strongly suggests infinity the real!】

Perhaps dark matter is thermal "information" that has reached its final entropy and is now in equilibrium.

Info /energy bits or tiny packs of hi and low continuous layers of feilds also have other characteristics of harmony, visual effects, etc etc. Of course this is filtered by human dashboard and has to be tuned for these 5 senses. We can only identify what's symmetry by also knowing what's Entropic or chaos..this only occurs with human emergence, the moment the flame goes out thats over . Universe itself doesn't have anything but uniform beauty. We add divisions. Jesus salvation is one with the word that is the most precise scientific method when strengthened by measurements . Obviously info is one with words that man made math or time is a sublet of . And energy is also one with such tiny packs of info. Human dashboard all 5 senses use these tools of approximation to understand the paradoxical reality around us that we Navagate through .

So much talk about what is conveyed by the Universe and so little about the relationship with the receiver of the information🤷🏻 Can information even exist without a receiver? Of course the receiver itself is also information. Information processing itself is the fundamental dynamic of the Universe?

That haircut is fundamental

This is remarkably unconvincing. This picture of how many bits of information are required to describe a proton is nonsense. He ignores the relation between position and momentum, the complications introduced by general relativity, the wave function, the fact that the thing *is* a proton and not an electron or a whale, and so on. And how are these bits of information differentiated from each other? How are some bits "about" space and others "about" charge? How do physical laws constrain the relations between the values of the bits, and why? What is the structure of this information space? Where is the information that provides meaning to that structure?

@simonhibbs887

5 ай бұрын

It assumes a framework of the 'laws of physics' and the information is relative to that. In information science terms physics takes the role of the 'data dictionary'. The fact that it's a proton is defined by it's attributes though, so that's inherent to the information he already described, no need to say 'not a whale'. If it has X, Y, Z, attributes then it's a proton by definition. It's an interesting question where the position of a particle comes from, is it an inherent attribute of the particle itself, or an attribute of spacetime? In the end, the information is somewhere though. Personally I think we can't say thing like that reality is composed of information, or mathematics. It seems likely to me that information is fundamental in at least some sense, to say that something exists is to say that it has attributes and it seems like those attributes must be enumerable, and I don't see how we can say that without an account of information.

@worldnotworld

5 ай бұрын

​@@simonhibbs887 Thanks for that. The problems are are still there, though. That "it" is a proton: what "it" are we talking about? This is a general problem with reductive theories, not just this one: their ontologies don't correspond to the entities they reduce; i.e. there are no stars or whales or protons. In this case, if there aren't entities to have information about, then the bits carry no meaning are not information. Information is always an _intentional_ notion. Furthermore, all the other questions still remain about what constrains the information space according to the laws of physics, what information those laws themselves contain, how bits of information are distinguished from each other, and so on. Without some imaginable answer to those questions it's not reasonable to suggest that information is fundamental.

@simonhibbs887

5 ай бұрын

@@worldnotworld >"That "it" is a proton: what "it" are we talking about?" The observed phenomenon to which we assign that label. >"i.e. there are no stars or whales or protons." There are observations of phenomena to which we assign those labels. >Information is always an intentional notion." I'm not sure what you mean by that. It sound like you're talking about the meaning of information, not the information itself. Meaning is contextual and can relate to the correspondences between sets of information and their actionability. >"Furthermore, all the other questions still remain about what constrains the information space according to the laws of physics, what information those laws themselves contain, how bits of information are distinguished from each other, and so on." We have accounts of most of that in the fundamentals of information science and the physics of computation. Specifically on scientific laws, I hold the view that they are purely descriptive. They're predictive mathematical descriptions of observed physical systems and their processes.

@marcv2648

5 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 Well this is one of the issues that separates this kind of thinking from reality. There are also going to multiple emergent data structures and abstraction layers all the way up the stack. All of which could be considered information.

@simonhibbs887

5 ай бұрын

@@marcv2648 It's interesting, information has these fascinating referential behaviours. So we have the attributes of a physical system itself, it's identity. That's a full and sufficient account of the information it expresses. However that information can also correspond to information encoded somewhere else. So a physical system might be a map of some other physical system, we'd call that the environment it's a map of. Then we can have metadata about the map such as when it was made and by who. Then we can have metadata about that, etc. There are endless mutually referential loops entwining sets of information with each other. So we can have a map of a library and the map can show the location in the library where you can find the map of the library, and also where to find the index card with the metadata about the map, etc, etc. All of these exist physically. In a sense this is all obvious, we act on this sort of network of correspondences and relationships between information every day. On the other hand it's metaphysically fascinating that a physical world utterly drenched in meaning and actionable informational correspondences exists. No wonder so many people resort to concepts like the supernatural to make sense of it all.

Why call horizon "edge of the universe"? Earth's horizon isn't the edge of the planet. WE ARE ON THE EDGE OF THE EARTH WE ARE ON THE EDGE OF THE UNIVERSE

In the beginning was the word!

@longcastle4863

5 ай бұрын

The God of the Bible frequently used words to advocate for genocide and the killing of infants and children. The God of the Bible also used words to excuse rape and to advocate for parents killing their children for speaking disrespectfully to them. Too bad such a despicable God learned too late to keep his despicable mouth shut. But with all the hate and division and intolerance preached by Christians these days, perhaps God now feels he can take a rest. His followers have finally got the message: God is hate, God is division, God is intolerance.

@longcastle4863

5 ай бұрын

And the Word told the Israelites to murder all the young children and women of a city-except for the young girls. Because if you can determine that the young girls are virgins, then you can take them as your sexual slaves. Maybe better if such a horrible God had learned to keep his mouth shut.

No, 10 to the 90th power is not a number you can comprehend. Just because you can write it down doesn't mean you can comprehend it. I'd say even comprehending much above 10 to the 12th you're going to start to get nauseous.

@simonhibbs887

5 ай бұрын

1, 2, many. 🙂

It is interesting to read in the Gospel of John: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

@longcastle4863

5 ай бұрын

John didn’t write that gospel, which, anyway, is mostly just stories from the Synoptics being pumped up with some of the Greek Gnosticism popular at the time and which had already found its way into second temple Jewish apocalyptic thinking-which was the religious framework Jesus operated out of and which was already ongoing in the first and second centuries BCE.

Information is not fundamental, as it always secondary to knowledge. Information is about "transmission," and can be inaccurate. By definition, knowledge has to be accurate, otherwise it is not knowledge.

you can't just take simplified and might i say even wrong ideas about our modeling of the world and turn it into onto logically confident statements about bounds on information, that is just a silly thing to do, if he put any bound on the number of bits it takes to describe a proton, then if you do the same with neutrons and make a whole bunch of radioactive nuclei, then wait for each one to decay, you had a certain number of bits for each nucleon, and nowhere in there is a function that tells you when each one will decay, so the result involves necessarily more bits than you started with, and you are just screwed, it doesn't make any sense to talk like this even practically. building quantum computers, and knowing basic math doesn't make you smarter than nature, nature makes its own sense, what we have done in terms of physics and engineering up to now necessarily has to be way less sophisticated than what nature does. i am pretty tired of people who assume they know it all just because some of their knowledge is usable for something, that doesn't mean anything. a system that can store N bits must have at least N+1 bits to have any chance of operations or structure to store those bits, a system of N+1 bits, has to have at least N+2 bits and so on, you lose.

Dark matter is the key. Levitation activity is the perfect touch for life to exist because it allows balance and coordination plus communication and information to flow freely through all living species and things. for example; planet earth and its moon came into existence through a binary connection with the sun as a small and hot spinning flat baby disk of radiation that decayed into spewing hot liquid iron and gas and from that swelled into a giant hot liquid iron balloon levitating inside the center of a giant hot gas bubble moving around toward equilibrium to set balanced with the flow of gravity which gravity breaks off a piece of mass from the iron liquid bubble to begin creating the moon so the both can balance out perfectly with the solar system. The two pieces once they are well balanced they will begin consuming all the gases from their environment while levitating in a permanent position forever as a binary planet and moon operating on gravity time line as a single system l believe Jupiter and other giant gas planets have newborn binary moons and planets protected deep within them and inside an incubator until they have successfully sucked all the gas from around their environment and grown into full blown planets and moons. Earth is a living organism and maybe the moon too.

Annoying background noise

Odd that he doesn't know the diametre of the observable universe is 93 billion light years across (radius is 46.5 billion).

Of course, information is power. What you understand you are in control and what is beyond your comprehension controls YOU. - Thomas Soler (One World Religion)

But what's going on with his hair?

Machines are fundamental. Information is about something.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

5 ай бұрын

*"Machines are fundamental. Information is about something."* ... Can a "machine" demonstrate no information whatsoever?

@matterasmachine

5 ай бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC information describes something. It does not exist alone.

@mesplin3

5 ай бұрын

​@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC No. If the machine exists, then that answers a yes/no question (Does this machine exist?).

@simonhibbs887

5 ай бұрын

​@@matterasmachine True, and at a minimum the information encoded in the state of a physical system describes that system. It is it's identity.A really important concept here is meaning. Where meaning comes in is that the states of physical systems can correspond to each other, so two systems can have the same or similar states, or one system can contain state that corresponds to the state of another. For example consider a map, it's a physical system. It's structure defines it's state. However that state also corresponds to another physical state, the environment it's a map of. Given a process to interpret one in terms of the other, such as a robot that can use the map to navigate the corresponding environment, these correspondences become actionable. So meaning is an actionable correspondence between the states of physical systems. So yes information is about something, and at a minimum it's about itself, but it can also be about other things in different contexts.

@matterasmachine

5 ай бұрын

@@mesplin3 machine exectutes

This information bluff phich. Guys believes for instance information show spin up and spin down. It is phich proceendings not information because phich still in proceess . Guys shows information are phich mediocre proceendings.

you give him a basic question and he goes off on a tangent and doesn't answer the question

a shame to go beyond comment nb. 69, but hey. no we don't know more about how much information is in the universe than the origin of life, that is an absurd statement. we don't know in what form nature holds information, we only know what form the information in our models exist.... this is just a classic case of a scientist that is forgetting that what he is doing is essentially being an arrogant mystic meta physician. show me a bit that can exist without a sub straight, aka some physical system we don't fully understand, or stop talking in this fashion, it is just confusing people for no reason and not adding anything to anyone understanding. saying the world is literally made out of bits is like saying the world is literally made out of gears, it is just an assumption that your intuition is a fundamental building block. takes em back to fyenman being asked about magnetic fields, and saying he cant explain them in terms of strings. with bits the only way we know of storing or manipulating them, is taking physically processes we somewhat understand the phenomenology of and making reliable mechanisms of storing an manipulating binary states under some congruence. the bit there is not fundamental in nature, to suggest otherwise is silly, just like saying we should explain the properties of electrons by a set of literal hard body gears pushing on each other, what you are doing is an even worse version of the same thing, because it sounds sensible if you haven't at all thought carefully about the subject. i am sorry to lambast you for this, but it is the same kind of mistake, and it is really bad, it is like listening to a science journalist that thinks he understands everything and should be able to write completely misconstrued things about scientific papers.

dynamical information is also information, how come you can't predict the weather for a month if it is a finite system of bits.... this philosophy is just a scientist forgetting that science with no metaphysics is impossible, then proceeding to do the worst kind of metaphysical mystical exercise, reasoning carefully about eh universe, without reasoning carefully at all, which lands you at doing no science and no careful thinking about metaphysics. just give me one example of a bit where there is not any sub straight system for its existence and manipulation that is vastly richer in character than it? you can't because no such thing exists anywhere, so the assumption that the world is literally bits is about as supported as the notion that the world is literally the carts in mario cart, or banas, or maybe cheese, we have no evidence for those either. science needs rescuing from this crap, some people are better, some people understand that to avoid doing metaphysics in your science you must do it prior to it and take either an open mind attitude to the science where you don't say such things, or you try to reason carefully about it. reasoning sloppily about it just leads to bad science, and bad communication that no longer has anything to do with any of the science of information or nature.

@longcastle4863

5 ай бұрын

Scientists have been doing science without metaphysics since the time of Aristotle at least. And no important scientific finding can ever be said to have only been possible because of the metaphysics employed. In fact, the biggest hindrance to scientific discovery in the course of mankind’s short history so far, has often been religion, which, let’s face it, is metaphysics gone wild.

First the Greeks said it was Fire, after that Energeia, following its the unmoved mover, its the One, its God, than its, its Becoming, its Presence... oh and after all that in the newest generation Being is Information If you have to say that Information *IS* than you have already failed

Matter and energy cannot make or direct themselves. Information isn’t physical. It’s invisible. It’s spiritual. Now we the physical that can’t make itself and we have the spiritual that we can’t account for. Physical things consist of energy, not bits. Bits of energy perhaps but without information.

@tomjackson7755

5 ай бұрын

Remember Jungle just because you make up some nonsense it doesn't make it true.

@JungleJargon

5 ай бұрын

@@tomjackson7755 Speak for yourself.

@tomjackson7755

5 ай бұрын

@@JungleJargon I not the one here making up nonsense Jungle. That is your specialty. Just because something isn't physical doesn't make it 'spiritual'. We can account for the 'spiritual'. It is nonsense that people like you have made up and have made up fictional 'powers' that it can do.

@JungleJargon

5 ай бұрын

@@tomjackson7755 You aren’t fictional and neither is your Maker.

@tomjackson7755

5 ай бұрын

@@JungleJargon Oh look you got something right. I'm not fictional and neither is my mother and father.

The guest obviously has no clue about ongoing advancements in abiogenesis research. Physicists thinking they own all the sciences because math works best at the level of reality they have chosen to study is frankly getting tiresome.

@simonhibbs887

5 ай бұрын

I don’t really see how anything Seth said contradicts anything from abiogenesis research.

@longcastle4863

5 ай бұрын

⁠@@simonhibbs887 4:30…

@simonhibbs887

5 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 Oh I see, but that's correct. We know a lot more about the origins of life than we did then but we still know the physics processes that were occurring in the early universe in fine detail. We can even calculate precise interaction limits down to tiny fractions of a second after T=0 of the big bang. We can't do that with the origin of life. That's not a strike against abiogenesis research, which is making huge progress, it's just that they are very different kinds of research. We can directly measure photons in the cosmic microwave background that were emitted in physical interactions over 13 billion years ago. We can't make measurements like that of chemical interactions in early life. I think that's all he's saying.

@longcastle4863

5 ай бұрын

@@simonhibbs887 What you say is probably correct, although I do think there’s a lot of subjectivity in what one chaoses to pit against the other. In abiogenesis research there are pretty clear indicators that chemical natural selection slowly merged into biological natural selection over the course of hundreds of thousand of years in the early part of this planet’s history. And that this involved a process of hundreds of thousands to many millions of tiny micro evolutionary baby steps-so that even determining the exact moment that non living matter transferred over into living matter, also becomes dependent on the criteria one chooses as a definition for “life”. Still, it seems to me, we have a lot better understanding of how living matter emerged out of non living matter, than we do in understanding how our particular part of the universe emerged some 13 billion years ago out of something else. Although I do think the hypothesis of a multiverse driven by a system of ongoing cosmic inflation events will eventually be found to be supported by the data (generally), our knowledge how our universe began at present is nowhere near as settled science as our understanding of how life began on this planet.

I read today in the BBC news "Al Jazeera journalist's son killed in Gaza". I have been saying unambiguously for years to end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. It is important that you understand you have nothing to lose.

@simonhibbs887

5 ай бұрын

>"Al Jazeera journalist's son killed in Gaza". What did that, or any of the recent conflict over there have to do with atheism?

Move over materialists, theologians and all other people. Here comes info Ma'n ! Anyway this should gladden the heart of my friend Simon, @simonhibbs887 !