Jump to content

Can or should we count information as physical entity?


1x0
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, 1x0 said:

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.  

You misunderstand me.

I chose that equation not because it is 'wrong'. 

It really is a simple straightforward equation with a simple straightforward solution.

I just don't think anyone has ever bothered to calculate that solution.

There are untold numbers of such equations, that no one has bothered with or needed a solution for.

 

Are you claiming there is zero information in their solution, because the solution has yet to be worked out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Strange said:

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".

2

How can they move relative to one another?

There is an exact distance between them at the moment of observation.

Even they have the different physical environments they exist in (person 1 in a black hole, person 2 between two galaxies in the interstellar space) the distance between them, the actual spatial distance is real and determinable.

Even they move in proportion to one another by time, since they have a same moment of existence (independent from the observer) the changes in the spatial distance could be determined.

From which point of the Universe I would not be able to determine the distance between the 2 people? It might be that the perception of space is relative to the observers in the different physical environments but would that change the actual physical reality: distance?

For example, here we have the 2 people, one in the black hole and one in the interstellar space, and I am able to recognize with Hubble that their distance is 1 million light year. This is my perception. Then we have a second observer who is a mighty Giant (100 000 lightyear in size) nearby the original observation of our persons and for this Giant, the distance which I recognize as 1 million lightyear long is what is 20 meter for me. So does the relative perception of space and time change the actual facts of reality? 

What can happen that We (as observers try to figure out how much time it would take to cover the distance) are not aware of every impact the observed would "suffer" during the journey. This would not change the fact that we measured and by that we estimated wrong the time and distance of the journey but do not change the exact distance and time between the 2 at the moment of the observation. 

The forces of nature impact the velocity of the person covering the distance recognizable but how relativity impact reality? There must be just one distance with an exact time it can be covered with. 

 

Does reality changes by the relative recognitions you mean? How those perceptions differ when you say they move relative to one another? How can I perceive it as a 3rd party?   

 

Edited by 1x0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, studiot said:

Are you claiming there is zero information in their solution, because the solution has yet to be worked out?

No. Such fact that zero information by definition can not exist. At least I know they are possible or not. Calculatable or not. Relevant or not.

They can give mathematical results.

They can have functions we not yet recognized but that does not make them unexistent...

Such equations cannot contain zero information. 

I wonder how would you express the right side of the equation? What that 0 is meaning? 

Edited by 1x0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 1x0 said:

How can they move relative to one another?

Why does that matter, and what does it have to do with information being a physical entity? We know that two objects can move relative to each other.

Which returns us to the point that you have not addressed. How do you determine a spacetime coordinate with no references? 

5 hours ago, 1x0 said:

There is an exact distance between them at the moment of observation.

Even they have the different physical environments they exist in (person 1 in a black hole, person 2 between two galaxies in the interstellar space) the distance between them, the actual spatial distance is real and determinable.

No, Strange is quite correct. Observers in different frames of reference will disagree on time and distance.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 1x0 said:

How can they move relative to one another?

Many things are in motion. That motion is relative to something else. 

5 hours ago, 1x0 said:

There is an exact distance between them at the moment of observation.

But that distance will depend who measures it. If you measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon, you will get a different answer than someone flying past in a spaceship.

Quote

Even they move in proportion to one another by time, since they have a same moment of existence (independent from the observer) the changes in the spatial distance could be determined.

There is no measurement independent of the observer. Each observer may make a different measurement of the spatial distance.

6 hours ago, 1x0 said:

From which point of the Universe I would not be able to determine the distance between the 2 people?

You can determine the distance, from your frame of reference. Someone else might measure a different distance.

6 hours ago, 1x0 said:

It might be that the perception of space is relative to the observers in the different physical environments but would that change the actual physical reality: distance?

Yes.

6 hours ago, 1x0 said:

How those perceptions differ when you say they move relative to one another?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

This has been known for well over 100 years. I am surprised you haven't heard of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 1x0 said:

No. Such fact that zero information by definition can not exist. At least I know they are possible or not. Calculatable or not. Relevant or not.

They can give mathematical results.

They can have functions we not yet recognized but that does not make them unexistent...

Such equations cannot contain zero information. 

I wonder how would you express the right side of the equation? What that 0 is meaning? 

The equation is just a simple high school quadratic with some unusual numbers in the coefficients.

The solution could be obtained using the usual formula.

I did this because I wanted to be sure no one had ever bothered to actually obtain the solution for real.

 

Please remember also that the phrase

"There exists"

Has quite a different meaning in Mathematics and Physics.

You can often even prove the mathematical existence of something (mathematical), without actually finding it.

But in Physics youhave to find it before you can claim its existence for definite.
The recent search for the Higgs Boson is a famous case in point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Which returns us to the point that you have not addressed. How do you determine a spacetime coordinate with no references? 

Quote
 

Hmmm. The whole discussion is about reference points. I say that space(time) itself contains fundamental information about mathematically recognizable reference point (presented as information like the sense of Nothing(the beginning). Or is it everything at the beginning and science now says that yes the all mighty all energetic singularity is there at the beginning? Where is it coming from? 

I think if we are able to determine the time of no existence: Nothing and apply what our observations from the physical reality suggest to the consequences of existence (information) presented fundamentally as space and time....

So if I am aware of the beginning, and I would be aware of the velocity of the expansion of space(time) I would be able to determine any points exact whereabouts in the system. I would have the "original" reference point 0 to coordinate. 

 

*Nothing: The common physical, mathematical, I dare philosophical reference point, the sense what any physical entity - like an ant - can perceive too, what expending space-time suggests: the lowest possible physical state.

Edited by 1x0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

I say that space(time) itself contains fundamental information about mathematically recognizable reference point

The evidence contradicts this.

10 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

Where is it coming from?

Where is what coming from?

10 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

So if I am aware of the beginning, and I would be aware of the velocity of the expansion of space(time) I would be able to determine any points exact whereabouts in the system. I would have the "original" reference point 0 to coordinate.

We don't know if there is any beginning. If there was, you could label it as zero. Or you could label now as zero and that time as minus 13 billion years. Or you could label the creation of the solar system as zero which would make the Big Bang about -9 billion years and now about +4.5 billion years. These are all equally valid. 

But what does any of this have to do with the subject of the thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 1x0 said:

Hmmm. The whole discussion is about reference points. I say that space(time) itself contains fundamental information about mathematically recognizable reference point  

Please provide evidence that this is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Strange said:

This has been known for well over 100 years. I am surprised you haven't heard of it.

  1. The laws of physics are invariant (i.e. identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference).
  2. The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.

As far as I realize my own statements, they are supporting these postulates. Actually, it feels like they are exactly about this. 

6 hours ago, Strange said:

You can determine the distance, from your frame of reference. Someone else might measure a different distance.

If this statement would be true it would harm both postulates.  Because we perceive the speed and of light and the distance it covers the same from anywhere the universe. If the second notion is true than what makes you say the perception and the measurement itself can differ?

It feels like I am the one here trying to protect the rigidity what the first notion recognizes :)

I do not see why relativity would exclude a fine start.

If nothing else exists than information based space-time, its perception, as this simple space-time basically would be everything that is existing in that moment of the observation, so it could be recognized as a singular event. Then would the appearance of energy and matter be a singular event 0.000....01 sec after space appeared? If space appeared with velocity it will start to expand and by definition has to have time (information) about its existence. Time gives spaces its radius it feels like....

So that is why the question arose can I count information(time) as a physical entity. Could energy and matter creation (evolution) be based on such a correlation? Why the theory of relativity exclude such correlation? If cause and causality based fine evolution is not possible than on what the existence of energy and matter is based on? What made a singularity (infinite dense entity in infinite small space) expand? Which force can that be? 

The question is which part of Einstein's theory against a step by step the fine start?

What makes scientists say that reality is absolutely infinite?  

 

Edited by 1x0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

If this statement would be true it would harm both postulates. 

This fact is derived from the postulates.

Quote

If the second notion is true than what makes you say the perception and the measurement itself can differ?

Maybe you should start a new thread where you ask someone to explain the basic concepts of relativity to you. This isn't the place for that.

27 minutes ago, 1x0 said:

What makes scientists say that reality is absolutely infinite?

They don't. We don't know (and probably can't know) if the universes finite or infinite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to sweep the semantics as far away from the OP question as possible, one could argue that information cannot exist without a carrier like a electromagnetic wave or brain or computer chip or piece of paper to exist in but this does not mean that information itself is matter or physical entity like in the OP. Information is a human term and is used to describe the data which we gather in our brains or other carriers. The information which I have gathered in my own brain tells me that it is not a physical entity but a theoretical construct used by humans and other species to communicate, consisting of tools like language for example, we wouldn't call language a physical entity so I don't see a point in calling information a physical entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, koti said:

Trying to sweep the semantics as far away from the OP question as possible, one could argue that information cannot exist without a carrier like a electromagnetic wave or brain or computer chip or piece of paper to exist in but this does not mean that information itself is matter or physical entity like in the OP. Information is a human term and is used to describe the data which we gather in our brains or other carriers. The information which I have gathered in my own brain tells me that it is not a physical entity but a theoretical construct used by humans and other species to communicate, consisting of tools like language for example, we wouldn't call language a physical entity so I don't see a point in calling information a physical entity.

Is it? If there are two systems ,one inside the other then does the "sub system" not contain intrinsically less information that the system containing it?

 

Is this question related to entropy? Does entropy destroy information? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, geordief said:

Is it? If there are two systems ,one inside the other then does the "sub system" not contain intrinsically less information that the system containing it?

 

Is this question related to entropy? Does entropy destroy information? 

I would say yes and yes. This might suggest that information has some kind of physicsl form but it doesn’t. Concept of information in the context of entropy is used in a specific way trying to explain what happens inside the event horizon of a black hole. I don’t think it changes anything though, information might not be accessible anymore in specific situations, Hawking reffers to it as information being destroyed but it does not mean it is a physical entity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 1x0 said:
  1. The laws of physics are invariant (i.e. identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference).
  2. The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.

As far as I realize my own statements, they are supporting these postulates. Actually, it feels like they are exactly about this. 

If spacetime contained information, then physics might not be invariant between frames, or with position and/or time. This would depends on details which you have not provided.

3 hours ago, 1x0 said:

 So that is why the question arose can I count information(time) as a physical entity. 

Time is not physical.

3 hours ago, 1x0 said:

What makes scientists say that reality is absolutely infinite?  

I don't think scientists (physicists, in particular) say anything about reality. We make models about how the universe behaves, not about what reality is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1x0;

Hello. It has been a long time since I talked to you. You are still working on the same problem and writing interesting threads. I wish I could help you more, but I don't have the answers either -- I don't think anyone has them . . . . yet.   1+ simply because your threads are interesting.

But I am enjoying reading this thread, and hopefully will be able to comment before it goes too far off topic, or someone closes it down.

In the meantime, I would like to make an explanation, to Swansont regarding the following question, on your behalf. I think I can get him to understand what I think you meant -- if it would not offend. If I am wrong, please let me know.

 

On ‎2‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 8:18 AM, swansont said:

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

I don't think the idea is to "find" these coordinates as much as it is to know that they have to exist. That the information or data exists.

Following is 1x0's statement that you initially responded to:

Quote

 

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......  

 

This is very much like an argument that I made many years ago. I was refuting the idea that a consciously-aware all-knowing "God" created the Universe, and made the observation that awareness can not exist without space and therefore time. In order for awareness to exist, there has to be someone/something that is capable of being aware, and there has to be someone/something to be aware of -- two separate things. Two  different points. This means there has to be space and therefore time in order for these points to exist and for awareness to work. Conclusion: there was no awareness before there was space/time/matter -- the Universe.

Observation is much the same in that space/time is required in order for it to work, but 1x0 has brought the idea to another level and noted that information is passed by awareness and by observation. So is this information created by the awareness or observation, or is it a fundamental property of space time? He thinks it is fundamental. I really don't know.

Gee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2018 at 4:46 PM, Strange said:

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".

I'm fairly confident that the math shows the existence of an absolute now, which isn't universal and which differs mathematically from the past or future.  Interestingly, these same mathematical necessities are responsible for the understanding that there is no absolute direction but there does exist a universal direction (established by the arrow of time.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, koti said:

I would say yes and yes. This might suggest that information has some kind of physicsl form but it doesn’t. Concept of information in the context of entropy is used in a specific way trying to explain what happens inside the event horizon of a black hole. I don’t think it changes anything though, information might not be accessible anymore in specific situations, Hawking reffers to it as information being destroyed but it does not mean it is a physical entity. 

No I wasn't suggesting that "information has some kind of physical form" just that ,as someone else said it was a property  of the system and not ,as you implied by your  "Information is a human term" (my  bold)  somehow dependent on its measurement or gathering.(maybe you didn't mean that either).

As for my entropy observation ,I know very little about it ,it just struck me as possibly relevant.(are you sure it doesn't apply much more generally than just to the BH scenario?I had the idea that entropy  was a really fundamental idea -which I struggle badly with)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, geordief said:

No I wasn't suggesting that "information has some kind of physical form" just that ,as someone else said it was a property  of the system and not ,as you implied by your  "Information is a human term" (my  bold)  somehow dependent on its measurement or gathering.(maybe you didn't mean that either).

As for my entropy observation ,I know very little about it ,it just struck me as possibly relevant.(are you sure it doesn't apply much more generally than just to the BH scenario?I had the idea that entropy  was a really fundamental idea -which I struggle badly with)

Yes, it does sound a lot more right that information is a property of a system. My definition is unfortunate, while writing it I was thinking about different kinds of information (like a piece of information in a fictitious movie for example) but it doesn’t seem right, well spotted. Entropy in simple words is measure of disorder of a system so it does apply to more than just black holes ofcourse. In fact it applies to every aspect of the universe. Entropy in context of black holes is especially interesting thats why I mentioned it...how information/entropy behaves in black holes is one of the keys to understanding the big bang. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, studiot said:

I feel this thread is wandering further and further off topic, which was about information.

The rightness or wrongness of a particular physics theory is irrelevant to this.

I hope I will be able to keep this thread open. I try my best not to pull it off topic, although as information is everywhere so there are plenty of examples what we can play with trying to deny or approve: does information is physical or not. 

Here is a practical application why the question can appear from a different point of view maybe than physics but still existing. 

I am a veterinary surgeon and I work on a medical data managing software for my praxis and my patients. The software collects medically relevant information (signalment, symptoms, physical examination findings, laboratory results) helping the veterinarians work with statistical data comes from the uploaded medical information and the previously crafted medical database. The database is based on the scientific results of our profession, extracted from medical books. So I have a set of information recognizable during an examination: fewer, vomiting, cough and by bringing it in to the system, that is able to give the answer, that from all the diagnosis existing in our medical database which differential diagnosis could it be and how high is the chance of a certain diagnose to occur. With this information, the system further can support my examination process by telling which laboratory examination(blood test, x-ray, ultrasonography etc..) belonging to most of the most likely possible diagnoses and so should be executed to narrow down the list of differential diagnoses. The information I received shorten my examination process saving time for me and unnecessary costly examination for the owner i.e it has a recognizable economic benefit. These information I originally do not have but because the software can handle data physically recognizable I can have extra information which is basically transforming reality itself (i.e: the process of examination is different than it would be without the information)  So even the information is originally in the system ( i.e: from all possible medical problems how many contain the signalments had been possible to recognize with the examination, and how high is the possibility for that medical condition to occur if we see all diseases) because the lack of awareness of this information I execute examintation differently. So this previously unrecognizable information existing because we are able to perceive it mathematically get physical presented through a computer which digitally recognizes, visualizes and maintain this information in perpetuity. This information created time (even we count it as physical or not) for me (I still recognize the time I won as I can be more with my family) and economic benefits (lower veterinary costs) for the owner. So the information which would not exist without the mathematical calculation now present and has impacted the physical reality itself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, steveupson said:

I'm fairly confident that the math shows the existence of an absolute now, which isn't universal

What is "absolute" about it if it isn't universal? 

(I will ignore your attempt to drag your pet theory into this. Let's hope the moderators don't notice.)

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, steveupson said:

I'm fairly confident that the math shows the existence of an absolute now, which isn't universal and which differs mathematically from the past or future.  Interestingly, these same mathematical necessities are responsible for the understanding that there is no absolute direction but there does exist a universal direction (established by the arrow of time.)

There are too many contradictions in your post for me to understand it. It seems you are mixing up direction in space with the time arrow. Spacetime according to GR is inseperable but time and space are different concepts and direction applies very differently to them. Plus I fail to see how this applies to information in the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, koti said:

Plus I fail to see how this applies to information in the OP

+1

 

15 hours ago, studiot said:

I feel this thread is wandering further and further off topic, which was about information.

The rightness or wrongness of a particular physics theory is irrelevant to this.

 

Here is something to think about.

 

What if a theory is wrong?

For example

There is over 2000 years of information about the four Element theory of the Ancient Greeks, though that theory is now known to be wrong.

How does this affect the physical embodiment of either the theory or the history of the theory or the informatuion that asserts the theory is right or wrong.

 

In fact is there any limit to the information that could be stated about said theory?

 

For example

In the year 2525, if Man is still alive the Theory will be 2500 yerars old.

In the year 3535...... the theory will be 3510 year old

In the year 4545...... and so on for ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.