Can or should we count information as physical entity?

Recommended Posts

On 2015. 05. 21. at 7:00 PM, Strange said:

What properties does it have, and how do you measure them?

Space and time. Statistically.

• Replies 156
• Created

Popular Days

3 hours ago, 1x0 said:

Space and time. Statistically.

Does information have space and time? Can you explain that?

Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

Does information have space and time? Can you explain that?

Or does spacetime has information?

Every point of observation will result in information and every observation will happen in space-time. Space-time itself has a fundamental level of information giving the exact coordinates of the observer, the observation and the result (conclusion) of the observation in the Universe. So every observed entity has a certain level of physically recognizable information. Space, Time, Waves, Photons, electrons, atoms......

Share on other sites

The information seems physical as the observer can not impact the observed entities fundamental, physically determined and then information guided functions.

Like the functions of a hydrogen atom in a blood cell in your body. With simple observation, you can not change its physically determined functions (you can not force it to behave like a Silicon atom) or impact its any other information based, chemically determined functions while it is participating in the structure of the blood cell.

Information guides function.

Share on other sites

The question is here how information is saved in the physical reality. Could energy and matter be responsible to maintain information?

Share on other sites

Could you express something whose I cannot realize mathematically recognizable or statistically expressible value? Let it be the fundamental space and time of the observation or the observer. We can observe the changes in the physical reality (brainwaves) while an information is processed.

Quote

Can or should we count information as physical entity?

What about imaginary situations, for instance

We could calculate all sorts of things about  imaginary universes where the charge on the electron was different from that observed in our universe.

We could go further we could do this for many imaginary universes where that charge only varies slightly and for others where that variation is great.

Thus we could develop a scale of universes where things were hardly different from our own up to ones where everything was totally different.

We would have lots of first order information about these imaginary universes and second order information about the differences between them.

Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 1x0 said:

The information seems physical as the observer can not impact the observed entities fundamental, physically determined and then information guided functions.

Like the functions of a hydrogen atom in a blood cell in your body. With simple observation, you can not change its physically determined functions (you can not force it to behave like a Silicon atom) or impact its any other information based, chemically determined functions while it is participating in the structure of the blood cell.

Information guides function.

I don't understand how this is relevant. Maybe it would help if you define exactly what you mean by "information".

Do you mean something like Shannon's information theory? This allows information to be quantified, but I'm not sure if it is what you are thinking of.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/22/shannon-information-theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
http://www.science4all.org/article/shannons-information-theory/

Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 1x0 said:

Or does spacetime has information?

Every point of observation will result in information and every observation will happen in space-time. Space-time itself has a fundamental level of information giving the exact coordinates of the observer, the observation and the result (conclusion) of the observation in the Universe. So every observed entity has a certain level of physically recognizable information. Space, Time, Waves, Photons, electrons, atoms......

How do you find these exact spacetime coordinates with only spacetime?

3 hours ago, 1x0 said:

The information seems physical as the observer can not impact the observed entities fundamental, physically determined and then information guided functions.

Like the functions of a hydrogen atom in a blood cell in your body. With simple observation, you can not change its physically determined functions (you can not force it to behave like a Silicon atom) or impact its any other information based, chemically determined functions while it is participating in the structure of the blood cell.

Information guides function.

This is so vague as to be almost meaningless. Information-free, as it were.

You claim observation cannot change function. So what? How does that mean that information is some physical entity?

3 hours ago, 1x0 said:

Could you express something whose I cannot realize mathematically recognizable or statistically expressible value? Let it be the fundamental space and time of the observation or the observer. We can observe the changes in the physical reality (brainwaves) while an information is processed.

What do brainwaves have to do with physical reality?

Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Strange said:

I don't understand how this is relevant. Maybe it would help if you define exactly what you mean by "information".

My understanding of information is starting with the fundamental bits of space(time), physically presented, mathematically recognizable and digitally expressible. Shannons approach to information seems similar braking down information to its fundamental elements.

It is important as the recognition of information requires clear reference points during the recognition. That is the space-time moment of the observation and the energy, matter, and information the observation sought to study. This space-time moment is Universal.

It cannot be exactly the same way anywhere else. If it would be possible what we would be speaking infinity and that is meaning infinite energy, matter, and information. Are there any signs of that?

A set in spacetime observed never again can happen exactly the same way. as it had be during the observation.

How can I express this recognition mathematically that it is Universally true?

Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, swansont said:

What do brainwaves have to do with physical reality?

They are presented, measurable and the functional changes observable.

Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

They are presented, measurable and the functional changes observable.

And does the lack of a conscious observer, (i.e. to have brainwaves) change the physical reality?

Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

How do you find these exact spacetime coordinates with only spacetime?

3 hours ago, 1x0 said:

Space(time) seems Universal. We have to recognize the rate of its evolution. (the velocity with which it expands) and its impact on energy and matter. Do you think that expanding space-time can have an impact on the amount of energy and matter presented in the Universe?

Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

And does the lack of a conscious observer, (i.e. to have brainwaves) change the physical reality?

I do not think so. Does the conscious observer change the physical reality?

On the other hand, if we count space-time as an unconscious entity, which basically not just "observes" reality but even more maintains every bit of it, than the unconscious "observer" has a significant impact. Has to be counted.

It looks like that space(time) has a fundamental impact on the evolution of the Universe.

Edited by 1x0
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

Space(time) seems Universal. We have to recognize the rate of its evolution. (the velocity with which it expands) and its impact on energy and matter. Do you think that expanding space-time can have an impact on the amount of energy and matter presented in the Universe?

That doesn't address the question I asked, and the claim you made.

29 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

I do not think so. Does the conscious observer change the physical reality?

So brainwaves are irrelevant.

You need to to do a better job of organizing and explaining your claims. (one reason you are in the mod queue. Your posts are regressing toward not being approved)

Quote

On the other hand, if we count space-time as an unconscious entity, which basically not just "observes" reality but even more maintains every bit of it, than the unconscious "observer" has a significant impact. Has to be counted.

It looks like that space(time) has a fundamental impact on the evolution of the Universe.

You need to support this notion, not just claim it.

Share on other sites

2 hours ago, studiot said:

What about imaginary situations, for instance

They have the biophysical structure (brain) the imagination has happened in. Physically presented. You will remember on the imaginary picture meaning that it is saved in reality. Physically presented. You can recall and even visualize it on a picture we call art for example. Then is it existing now?

Edited by 1x0
Reviewing
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

That doesn't address the question I asked, and the claim you made.

1 hour ago, 1x0 said:

Sorry. If I am aware of the velocity of space(time) at the first moment and eventually the changes in that velocity by time if that could be possible. Knowing this information I would be able to recognize every points exact whereabout in spacetime. I would not need more information.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You need to to do a better job of organizing and explaining your claims. (one reason you are in the mod queue. Your posts are regressing toward not being approved)

Quote

Please Swantont. I just try to think. I am not writing my Ph.D. and this is the philosophy section where we discuss a topic where our mainstream science cannot give a clear answer meaning philosophy has some space to play around. I do not wanna harm, I do not want to change anything, I am aware of my primitivity and lack of knowledge which I could not collect if I would live a 1000 years. I just want to understand some of the questions I am interested in and discuss it with intelligent human beings.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You need to support this notion, not just claim it.

How can I prove that everything is existing in spacetime?

My learned knowledge and observations suggest that. Isn't it true?

My thought is: if we are able to recognize information as far from as 13.8 billion lightyears, that should mean that the recognized photon has traveled in the same realm we exist in, as we are able to observe it here with Hubble, and that the space-time realm makes it possible to exist there and here as well for that photon. As the physical attributes of that observed photon do not seem to changes during this journey I think it suggests that the fundamentally applied physical laws are the same there and here.

Those physical laws seem to be applied in/through space(time) appearing as spacetime would give a fundamental ground for existence,  meaning the physically determined attributes of the observed physical entity (photon) maintained throughout the realm.

Edited by 1x0
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 1x0 said:

My understanding of information is starting with the fundamental bits of space(time), physically presented, mathematically recognizable and digitally expressible.

As far as we know, space and time are continuous, not made up of "bits".

Quote

This space-time moment is Universal.

Space-time moments (events) are not universal, there are observer dependent.

2 hours ago, 1x0 said:

If it would be possible what we would be speaking infinity and that is meaning infinite energy, matter, and information. Are there any signs of that?

We don't know if the universe is finite or infinite.

Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Strange said:

As far as we know, space and time are continuous, not made up of "bits".

Quote

Why continuousness exclude the lowest unit of measurement? (recognized by Shannon but maybe not fully applied)

Edited by 1x0
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

Space-time moments (events) are not universal, there are observer dependent.

2 hours ago, 1x0 said:

How do you mean this? If I am the observer in which part of the Universe time did not pass or what was outside of space and how?

Edited by 1x0
Share on other sites

Quote

1x0 replied

5 hours ago, studiot said:

What about imaginary situations, for instance

They have the biophysical structure (brain) the imagination has happened in. Physically presented. You will remember on the imaginary picture meaning that it is saved in reality. Physically presented. You can recall and even visualize it on a picture we call art for example. Then is it existing now?

So far as I am aware the equation

$\frac{\pi }{{67}}{x^2} + \frac{x}{{113e}} - 989827 = 0$

Has never been explicitly solved, although it has solutions.

The numbers that are the solution express information, but your reply seems to suggest that if it were to be solved that information would somehow achieve physical embodiment, although there would be no difference in the information itself whether the equations was solved or not.

Edited by studiot
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, studiot said:

So far as I am aware the equation

π67x2+x113e989827=0

Has never been explicitly solved, although it has solutions.

Sadly I am not able to make sense of the left side of the equation. Could you express its content in worlds? Just like you would do to a limitedly intelligent high school student.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

The numbers that are the solution express information, but your reply seems to suggest that if it were to be solved that information would somehow achieve physical embodiment, although there would be no difference in the information itself whether the equations was solved or not.

I play with the thought of a finite but constantly evolving universe and yes I suggest that information could achieve physical embodiment (originating fundamentally from space(time)) and presented through time and evolution as different levels and kinds of energy and matter...(waves, photons, electrons, protons, gravity, gravitational wave...)

If space expands it should give a fundamental "pull" to the content is in it especially if that content would be created in proportion to the evolution of space itself (meaning as big space is as many energy and matter is in it). This would explain the precise fine balance of the observable reality and the rigidness of the Laws of Nature applied in the Universe.

Edited by 1x0
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, studiot said:

although there would be no difference in the information itself whether the equations was solved or not.

For this to answer I would need to know what the equation is meaning and what is it based on.

Edited by 1x0
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, studiot said:

The numbers that are the solution express information, but your reply seems to suggest that if it were to be solved that information would somehow achieve physical embodiment, although there would be no difference in the information itself whether the equations was solved or not.

If an equation cannot describe a part of physical reality than does the equation is wrong or the observed reality?

Do certain alignments between the solution of the equation and reality makes the whole equation true and complete?

It achieves physical embodiment as you will remember on the result (its written in reality stored in your brain (organized atoms in work).

Yes. The equation could be wrong and you still can have a perceivable result. Yes. The subjective understanding never will be able to describe reality as it is, although many points of it can be originating from and attached to reality.

Edited by 1x0
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 1x0 said:

How do you mean this? If I am the observer in which part of the Universe time did not pass or what was outside of space and how?

If two  people are moving relative to one another then they will measure distances and times differently. They will disagree over whether events are simultaneous and even which one happens first. In short, there is no universal "now".