SSDS

It seems that you didn’t read other SSDS’s posts in this thread. Again: (1) the denial of the primary (absolute) reference frame in standard SRT (s-SRT) leads to non-avoidable contradictions in this version of the theory, first of all: (i) - the twin paradox - as the "clock paradox" and as the "energy paradox", and (ii) – in standard version it turns out be possible simultaneous existence of "many Matters" in unique Universe having different energies/ masses, what is impossible evidently. (2) it seems evidently counterintuitive to think that, e.g., every fast particle in an accelerator "transforms the spacetime" in whole Universe; since the EM force that accelerates a particle impacts only on the particle and by no means impact on the spacetime (at least such an interaction is unknown, including – is unknown in the s-SRT). (3) It is well known, that the non-existence of an absolute reference frame cannot be proven in the s-SRT, so, e.g., in Lorentz’s SRT version such a frame is introduced without any problems. Though the rest of contradictions in this version remain. (4) now next version SRT (as a section of the informational model, http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 section 4.2.2) is developed, that doesn’t contain the contradictions, when Lorentz transformations (LT) remain be valid – but not for the spacetime. The time dilation , the length contraction, etc. indeed have the place to be, but that are real changings of real material "rigid" bodies – i.e. which conserve their states at the impact. If impact is too heavy, the body breaks down and every of the debris "has own LT state"; but, again, - nothing happens with the spacetime; any spacetime transformations are unnecessary. Cheers It isn’t correct. A photon isn’t some magical particle that in any frame moves with constant speed (and to conserve the constancy "transforms spacetime"), it is rather usual particle; one among others. And it moves with the speed "c" practically in primary absolute frame only – in other frames its speed isn’t equal to c. E.g., - well known SRT example, where on a moving along X- axis platform there is a light source that shines in an Y direction (e.g., - on the platform’s ceiling ) and the light returns after reflection in a mirror. It is evident that the real light speed in the Y direction isn’t equal to c, it is equal to [c/(Lorentz factor)]. And only because of that the clock on the platform, which was impacted [as a part of platform’ by the force that accelerated the platform to its ("inertial") speed (as well as the light source]) runs slower in the same factor, the measured speed of light becomes be equal to c. Cheers

- Indeed, the QM and the SRT turn out to be the one theory. Besides – as I see too much discussion about the reference frames here - again: (1) any version of the SRT, including the standard one, cannot – and so doesn’t - prohibit the existence of some "primary" reference frame(s). (2) the "equivalence" of [relatively moving] reference frames is simply a corollary of the time symmetry in mechanics. In reality the frames can be identified, if some other criterions are applied. For example – let be twins in some R-frame, both have space shifts. Further one twin go to travel and is returning with (constant) speed near c nearly to homebody, who didn’t fly. If both measure the speeds of each other – they obtain identical values – as well any other mechanical interactions will be identical also. But the traveler is capable to determine what R-frame is "primary" - just when he has seen that the homebody’s ship fuel tanks are full. (3) At that the existence of primary R-frame(s, independently on a rotation) for our Universe (more correct – for Matter of our Universe) directly follows from that there is only one("s", see above) where total energy of Matter is minimal; when in any others, moving relatively to this R-frame with different speeds the energies are different also, what is impossible since Matter is unique. The statements like as "moving with respect to the whole universe actually has no meaning" are some declarations only, which weren’t proved till now. (4) Further seems non- reasonable to think about the other R-frames that in these frames the whole spacetime becomes be transformed – in reality only "rigid" material systems that were impacted by some force momentum transform; including – those "rigid" systems can be formed by gravity, so, e.g., the movement of some bodies, including satellites, relative to primary R-frame cannot be detected. However, it seems possible to detect some R-frame moving relatively Earth R-frame – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 Cheers

Again (SSDS post #36 13 July 2011 - 01:57 AM) - #2 by any means doesnt follow from #1. So the #3 is non-correct. There isnt of any "space contraction" outside the spaceship;there is only that a clock in the "spaceship" becomes go slower (be "time dilated") because of it is/was impacted by engine force. At that the engine by any means doesnt impact on "spacetime" and therefore with the spacetime nothing happens. Analogously - it seems rather non- plausible to think that, e.g., every electron in an accelerator kneads the whole spacetime in Universe as Klichko Arreola. Again the result, that spaceships speed turns out to be greater then speed of light, in this case isnt strange, simply you use "wrong clock" which is in partially non-inertial object. Cheers P.S. Did you read SSDS post #44 Yesterday, 02:02 AM-?

Click on the link; next - click on "PDF only" in upper right corner (below "Download:") Cheers - That isn't "the whole point ", that is a convention in the standard SRT. When in this SRT there is no of a prohibition for a reference frame that has "zero velocity relative to the universe" (when such a frame is suggested to exist in Lorentz version of the theory). Cheers

It seems you didn’t look through the SSDS post of 6 July 2011 - 10:00 AM (page 1, at end). There isn’t something too strange in that an observer in [partially] non-inertially moving macroscopic object (e.g., in a spaceship), can obtain, when using only the instruments on this ship, that his speed is greater then the speed of light. Though the example you considered is rather curious. Besides – again, it seems as very probable (how to test such a model – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 , besides – the model doesn’t contain the contradictions of standard SRT) that the space and the time are absolute so aren’t transformed because of some body becomes to move. The observed effects – length contraction (that has been measured firstly by Michelson, Morley, FitzGerald and Lorentz in 1887 -1892 ) and the time dilation are applied to the body only – not to the whole space "in the frame where the body is at rest" - after the body was impacted and got some momentum /[kinetic] energy. Cheers

There arent too problems in this case, if you understand that the space and time are absolute and Lorentz transformations arent applied to all spacetime, but are valid only for rigid systems volumes. If some particle, including a photon, moves with some speed in the space, it doesnt "compress" whole spacetime in Universe and so the photon doesn't "see zero distance"; it "see" whole space well. At that the space and the time arent identical physical characteristics, though are rather like; in this case the main difference is that if a particle (roughly speaking, more correct see this forum, thread "light speed thought experiment, arXiv link in last [sSDSs] post) moves on a step in the space, it always moves on a step in time; those steps in time can be "real" and "virtual". So, e.g., a photon moves "really" in the space direction only, with speed C (having zero rest mass in space) and (practically) "virtually" in time, so it doesnt "come out" the time anybody can see a ray of light. If a ("massive") particle moves in time direction only - with speed C (having zero rest mass in time direction, what is possible in the primary reference frame in Universe only), it is at rest doesnt move- in the space. Cheers

Well - indeed, if traveler measures and controls to be equal (it’s always possible) his proper +/- acceleration when boosting (slowing down) to Alpha C and proper time by own clock, he can return in the homebody’s reference frame practically with zero speed. If he, after stop, will measure the distance "Alpha C- Earth" (e.g., by the parallax method) and obtain his speed value, it will turn out that his speed is 1.7 c. Besides - the "twin paradox" is considered as usual as "clock paradox", but it has also another side: if the traveler, moving in the inertial section of the travel, will measure the homebody’s energy, this energy will be rather large – when homebody didn’t spend any energy. Moreover, if both of twin will measure the mass/ energy of Matter in our Universe, they obtain different values – when Matter is unique and so has unique mass. Thus standard SRT contains rather evident self-contradictions that follow, as it seems, from the "absolutization" of the relativity principle - Minkovsky’s "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality" - isn’t correct, space by itself, and time by itself, aren’t doomed to fade away; they are absolute. And there exists a fundamental reference frame – where Matter’s energy is minimal. Besides – see the thread "light speed thought experiment" in this forum. Cheers

Indeed, this paper, as well as others arXiv ones - http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 (The Information as Absolute), http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 (The informational physics indeed can help to understand Nature) and http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 (The informational physics – possible tests) aren’t published in any “peer-reviewed” journal. Though were submitted – "The Information as Absolute" was rejected by 5 philosophical journals, "The informational physics – possible tests" by two; "The informational conception and basic physics" (a shortened version of http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819) – by two. Last case – "The informational conception…" was submitted in the EJTP journal (chief editors Ignazio Licata and Ammar Sakkaj) 07 of September 2010. After two months on our question – where are the Reviewers’ remarks? – the editors answered – that two months is normal and all OK. But the remarks didn’t appear till now when the editors ceased to answer after 22 of November 2010. The last EJTP issue appeared this May without our paper. At that some similar, in certain sense, papers of Tegmark, Floridi, Bostrom, etc. were published in the same journals, though are evidently speculative and in fact don’t add something new to that was in Pythagorean "all from numbers" and in a couple of first strings in the Bible’s Geneses. And if somebody will count the "peer-reviewed" papers relating to "Many worlds", "Many minds" , "Anthropic principle" and other trash – the papers’ number will be pretty large. So why the arXiv papers above weren’t published? – the answer directly follows from this DrRocet’s comment. The comment doesn’t contain any reasonable objections – that is impossible, the infoconception is rigorously proven. So the comment is in fact senseless – but negative. And since, as it is very seems, the editors in "peer- reviewed" journals are some DrRocets also, the odds for the papers to be published are , it seems, near zero. So the submittings for us now is a game – when the paper will be rejected? Though – God bless – arXiv exists. But the arXiv is very large box, so I'm forced to walk through the scientific forums to info people about the conception. On another hand – here is some positive thing – when "those people" appear, I write the post "relating to the Many world conception" in a number of forums. After the post appears, the activity of "those people" becomes be lesser, in 2010 they disappeared in a week after posting. But now the process goes two months already, and doesn’t stop. It seems too much money were spent… Cheers

That isn't so, in principle absolute speed can be measured - see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 (and http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 , till (including) section 4.2.2) Some comments additionally. First of all - there isn't, in certain sense, in realty such a thing as "reference frame" except to "absolute frame". All other "frames" exist only as systems where components are concatenated by some forces; i.e. - constitute "a wagon" . "Free bodies" don't belong to the "frame". So, e.g. for a couple of satellites moving at the same orbit and having practically the same (orbital) speed (and so, of course, belonging to the same "reference frame") the speed of this frame can be measured without reference to any other body, e.g. - Earth; only by using the instruments in the satellites. Though to measure the "absolute speed" is impossible in this case since the satellites, Sun, Earth, etc. constituted the "wagon" under gravity force. But for "free" satellites - e.g. somewhere in space where gravity is weak comparing the forces that moved the satellites in this space two-point, the absolute speed of the satellites can be measured. More - see the links. Cheers P.S. The physical model in the links above is grounded on the informational conception ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712) which sometime seems as not too real. But now the conception got some unexpected publicty - Google shows more then 100 000 links answering on "You’re living in a computer simulation, and math proves it" . Though the "sensation" is a full rubbish, it resembles in certain sense the informational conception.

Regrettably I'm forced to repeat this post now. But this May besides those non-virtual people, in the Net a sensation appeared also, e.g.: http://io9.com/5799396/youre-living-in-a-computer-simulation-and-math-proves-it The novelty resembles in certain sense the informational conception. Though it is a full rubbish, in one month (May) the "novelty" was widely spread; Google shows more then 100 000 links answering on "You’re living in a computer simulation, and math proves it" . But here a good thing appears - in fact, the informational conception got a publicity... Cheers

Now a little changed version of the paper with a description of some experiments aimed at a testing of the informational model in physics appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979, v3. Cheers

Again because of absence of comments in this thread I quoted a posting from some other forum... (the link above, thread "What’s so special about light?") ____________________ Now the paper with a description of some experiments aimed at a testing of the informational model in physics appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979, v2. Three experiments are considered – two relating to the gravity randomness and one – relating to the SRT test. Though in this thread the SRT problems were discussed and seems be made rather clear, a number of threads appeared where the same problems were touched again. All the problems arise from non-selfconsistence of standard ("axiomatized") SRT version. First of all – it leads to the twin paradox. The resolutions of the paradox as, e.g., "… Special relativity, by its very formulation, applies only in inertial reference frames…Therefore on cannon apply the equations that describe time dilation in the reference frame of the traveling twin by only in reference frame of the non-traveling twin.." Or "…Actually acceleration, and acceleration and gravity are equivalent (see the "equivalence principle" of general relativity) is the key to the resolution of the twin "paradox"… " – seem as quite non- satisfactory. Indeed – the main contraction of elapsed time for the traveller occurs just in the inertial path of the way, when the contribution of the acceleration/deceleration interval is comparatively small and is lesser with increase of the inertial path. On another hand – if the masses of the twins are let – 70 kg (even 700 kg) – such masses aren’t so large to recall about GR – here we have practically purely flat spacetime and purely SRT problem. Another SSRT flow is the assertion that all "inertial frames" are equivalent, where any frame relates to whole spacetime in Universe. From this follows rather questionable implication that, e.g., every moving particle (which, of course, "have its reference frame") transforms whole spacetime; besides – because of relating to this particle all Matter in Universe "moves with [practically] the same (-)speed", the particle enlarges the energy of Matter - for some protons in the spacetime that is equivalent 10^17 of initial mass. So the first SRT version that was developed by Vogt, FitzGerald and Lorentz basing on the experiment (M-M experiment) and the relativity principle (Maxwell equation must be invariant in inertial frames) seems as was more adequate. The informational model haven’t the flows that are pointed above. The acceleration indeed have a role, but in SRT it only indicate that the traveller’s momentum rises/ decreases with corresponding rising / decreasing the traveller’s "own (individual, proper) time". When homebody’s momentum and the time are the same – to save some years is necessary to spend some energy. On another hand – what is the mechanism that leads to changing of a FLE state at some impact (at acceleration)? – that is very important problem; and its solving possibly will allow to widen the informational model into "GR region". Cheers

Because of absence of comments in this thread I quoted already a posting from some other forum. Now it seems a sense to continue such a practice. However, since the discussion was seems rather interesting but long, there is no room for quotation and so I point out here only URLs of two threads: Main address:http://www.thescienceforum.com/Physics-forum-22f.php?sid=3a9a67800d59f2d4ca49afcece200b68; 2-th and 3-th pages. The threads: (1) What’s so special about light? And (2) 1/0 The first thread was cleaned by moderator from spamming and so is readable practically as a whole. The second – is spammed, so one should choose the posting "SSDZ - Guitarist" as a rule. The discussions in these threads seem as practically complete, so maybe there is no necessity to post something else – only to read; besides – for answering on new posts it is tooo hot here now… Cheers

In June 2009 under some reasons I was forced to place in a number of forums a post “relating to well known "Many World" concept”. That remedied the situation on a some time (though with a non-virtual help of some specific service also), but now, as it seems, I’m forced to post this post again: Formally "Many World" concept resembles in some details the informational concept suggested in the arXiv links above (http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 ) – both concepts are in some sense "deterministic"; both presuppose that "always" there exist "myriads" of "copies"/ histories of evolution of, e.g., our "World", etc. – the last is in an accordance with Feinman’s suggest that a particle chooses it’s trajectory from a "ready menu of trajectories"; and that is pointed out in conclusion sections of the arXiv links. But in reality the concepts are principally different. First of all the "Many World Universe" isn’t the Set "Information" – in the Set there can exist any "Universe" when the MW interpretation is intended for some explanation of existed Quantum Mechanics’ outcomes. It bases on [shredinger] wave function representation of the (whole) Universe (so and of a World) evolution, but just this ("this World’s QM") representation is valid perhaps only in the case when the MW Universe "is made" from just this (specific for our World) FLEs (FLE – see the links). For another FLEs it will be another science, including QM. So in the Set this "Many World Universe", if exists, occupies only vary (practically infinitesimal) sub-set. At second, the MW concept doesn’t answer on main philosophical questions (see also SSDZ thread http://www.philosophychatforum.com/v...127325#p127325 in "Odds&Ends" section) - from where and how did this MW Universe (as well as "the Universe wave function") happen? Etc. Though in the MW concept (more correctly – in some concept’s presentations, as, e.g. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/) there are, as it seems, some another problems. For instance the concept principally presupposes the existence of some "splitted" observers – "At the present moment there are many different "Lev"s in different worlds (not more than one in each world), but it is meaningless to say that now there is another "I" [plato.stanford above]. There aren’t till now any experimental data about such a observes / "sentient beings" which live in "miriads" of Worlds. And, e.g., some people, who seems attempt to send me in some another World, well know that I never will appear in this case in this World in future. Moreover, such a presuppose isn’t evident – for example there is some well known analogue to "MW splitting" – Huygens’ principle for the light wave propagation in space, when every point of the light wave front is the source of "many wave". But these "many wave" interfere and "only one wave" remains so that, if there aren’t on the light way some screens, the light propagation in "wave representation" and "corpuscle representation" become be equivalent. That can be true for any "material" particle and – with much larger probability – for any "MW observer"… Cheers

Now extended and more systematic version of the informational model in physics appeared see http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 , V5; though it remains be rather desirable to have read the paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 before/ also. As it seems the SR theory becomes more understandable. Cheers

The discussion on a number of forums of the informational conception showed that some difficulties in the understanding of the conception sometimes take place. So a separate article for the conception was made - some extended compilation of corresponding sections of the papers "The information and the matter" and "The informational physics indeed can help to understand Nature?" - see http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 Cheers

Because of absence of comments in this forum I quote here A comment/ answer in some another one: [Comment] I accept with information: Therefore primes are God's language which are completely selfindependatn and therefore ale completely slefdefining - the most powerfull language which can be - is language build on primes, which is capable to cary tha maximum information in any possible sequence of symbols. It contains no redundancy to exactly formulate the thoughts and also works as universal translator, any finite language is it's subset - that means every todays human or programming language and also formal language of mathematics can be described by primes. [Answer] - that’s something adequate, to some extent, to the informational conception; but not (of course) completely. In particular – when you use the term "God" – it should be defined previously. If It is some self- organized Essence (having a self- identification, some aims, etc.) then It is some subsystem in the Set "Information" which appeared to be under some reason or because of that a self – organization is an intrinsic property of Information. On another hand, if a self – organization is an intrinsic property of Information, then the Set Itself can indeed be classified as the "Prime Creator", Deo, - as, e.g., G. Cantor said (see Wiki) "…The actual infinite arises in three contexts: first when it is realized in the most complete form, in a fully independent otherworldly being, in Deo, where I call it the Absolute Infinite or simply Absolute…" But, on another hand, here a problem appears – can we consider an Essence intelligent, when this Essence is absolutely complete and so cannot change anything in itself? Insofar as even the Essence will attempt to change something in itself, for example – to begin our Universe, It must absolutely exactly follow to the scenario of this change, when this scenario existed "always", including – "far before" of some Beginning… Cheers

Now next iteration of the informational concept appeared (http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 , V4) – some minor corrections and explanations; besides – as it seems, the concept allows to clear, to a certain extent, the question – What is the photon? – see new section 3.5.1.1. And – sorry - erratum: (1) Eq. (24a) should be as: (Vector sum) omega_r=omega_y+omega_x*(1-beta) (2) (Text between Eqs. 24c, 24d) There is:"Taking into account the equation for the flux of the rims, Eq.(22) and that the flux of FLE in the bunches should also the equation for the electric field of a moving charge:"; There should be: "Taking into account the equation for the flux of the rims, Eq.(22) and that the flux of FLE in the bunches should also be transformed (corresponding equation for the flux in a bunch - by Doppler factor), obtain the equation for the electric field of a moving charge:"; (3)Eq. (24d) – the exponent in the denominator must be 2, not 3. Cheers

It seems that it would be useful to add to the SSDZ post above some comments relating to "Many World" concept. Formally this concept resembles in some details the informational concept suggested in the SSDZ’s arXiv links above – both concepts are in some sense "deterministic"; both presuppose that "always" there exist "myriads" of "copies"/ histories of evolution of, e.g., our "World", etc. – the last is in an accordance with Feinman’s suggest that a particle chooses it’s trajectory from a "ready menu of trajectories"; and that is pointed out in conclusion sections of the arXiv links. But in reality the concepts are principally different. First of all the "Many World Universe" isn’t the Set "Information" – in the Set there can exist any "Universe" when the MW interpretation is intended for some explanation of existed Quantum Mechanics’ outcomes. It bases on [shredinger] wave function representation of the (whole) Universe (so and of a World) evolution, but just this ("this World’s QM") representation is valid perhaps only in the case when the MW Universe "is made" from just this (specific for our World) FLEs (FLE – see the links). For another FLEs it will be another science, including QM. So in the Set this "Many World Universe", if exists, occupies only vary (practically infinitesimal) sub-set. At second, the MW concept doesn’t answer on main philosophical questions (see also SSDZ thread http://www.philosophychatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=88&t=12208&p=127325#p127325 last post in "Odds&Ends" section) - from where and how did this MW Universe (as well as "the Universe wave function") happen? Etc. Though in the MW concept (more correctly – in some concept’s presentations, as, e.g. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/) there are, as it seems, some another problems. For instance the concept principally presupposes the existence of some "splitted" observers – "At the present moment there are many different "Lev"s in different worlds (not more than one in each world), but it is meaningless to say that now there is another "I" [plato.stanford above]. There aren’t till now any experimental data about such a observes / "sentient beings" which live in "miriads" of Worlds. And, e.g., some people, who seems attempt to send me in some another World, well know that I never will appear in this case in this World in future. Moreover, such a presuppose isn’t evident – for example there is some well known analogue to "MW splitting" – Huygens’ principle for the light wave propagation in space, when every point of the light wave front is the source of "many wave". But these "many wave" interfere and "only one wave" remains so that, if there aren’t on the light way some screens, the light propagation in "wave representation" and "corpuscle representation" become be equivalent. That can be true for any "material" particle and – with much larger probability – for any "MW observer"… Cheers:-)

Next iteration of the infoconcept - http://arXiv.org/abs/0812.2819 – V3, appeared. Main change is in sections 2.2.1 (Physics) and "Discussion and conclusion". It seems that Quantum mechanics and Special Relativity theory are something the same… Cheers

Hello All, Under the infoconcept (see links above) it seems rather reasonable to conjecture that there exists some threshold when at some distance, r, transmitted gravity momentum (near h/r) value becomes insufficient to change the t-IC of "receiving" particle and so gravity force on this distance between two Galaxies or between two protons becomes equal – i.e. equal to zero. How can that affect on the Universe’s structure? Cheers

Now some little edition of the inform concept appeared: http://arXiv.org/abs/0812.2819, V2. Including – the title, so now it is possible to make a references on the article… Cheers

Congratulations with Xmas coming! Now next iteration of the inform concept in the Physics appeared: http://arXiv.org/abs/0812.2819 Cheers

To: All The main topic of this thread is the informational approach in physics (see the link http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043, V5 , and may be the first couple of pages in V1) and besides all SDSS’s posts in the thread that contain (till now) some comments to this link (the posts practically don’t contain repetitions) To: Tsadi As to QM both – dynamic and fixed information in the Matter change as bit-by-bit, when one bit "on the particle level" corresponds to action quantum – Dirac constant. E.g. – p_X*delta(X), E*delta(t), delta(M), etc. On "lowest Matter level" fundamental logical elements (FLE, see the link) work, when the dimensions of FLE are equal the Planck length; flip time (one bit change) - Planck time; when for any particles, that are a close loop algorithms, these FLEs’ flips never stop, so this process is called in the paper as "informational currents".

Hi All Because of the discussion in this thread stopped albeit there were some reactions, it seems that the paper in the link above requires some additional comments. So: (A) - the suggested informational approach is strictly logically grounded. Indeed all that exists are the words. To understand that is necessary to take into account a few rather evident things: (1) – to detect on an experiment the existence of the information as some data and language – and that can make anybody practically at once; (2) – to understand, that the information is the objective thing and doesn’t require any "sapiens" to exist; (3) – to understand, that the information is unique thing which exists when there is no anything – that’s simply the cyclic statement "there is no anything besides the information that there is no anything…." All above is rather evident and only requires to get used to such a conclusion. (B) – All information about all exists in form of a Set "Information" which has a number of unique properties, when any concrete object(s) is (are) some sub-sets of this Set. Among main sub-sets we know, first of all, the Matter and the Consciousness. Because in philosophy there isn’t a consent – how should the elements/ objects of this sub-sets be classified, in the link above some rule is proposed, at that we call as "Matter object" the elements/subsets of the Set that can exchange by the information (i.e. - interact) only by using true information. If an object has capability to produce or to apprehend false information, what evidently leads out of "material sub-set" – it isn’t "material" in some sense; the examples – the alive beings, somebody’s consciousness. The last two ones – are besides the topics of this forum, but for the Matter one can obtain a number of consequences, that are in the link. In this post perhaps it is worth to note one: from that all is the information follows that all, including in the Matter subset, is discrete. And so do the gravity. So there is some sense to try to detect this effect and in the link (more detailed - though with an error because of the Plank constant was used instead of the Dirac’s one –in the Refs in this link) some experiments are suggested, first of all – the experiment with measurement of random distortion of the photon beam frequency (it seems better results should be in the maser band) in Earth gravity; when the GR predicts the frequency shift of total beam. Etc. - see the link Cheers