1.
‘ It is important to realize that in physics today,
we have no knowledge of what energy is.
We do not have a picture that energy comes in little
blobs of a definite amount. ‘
( Feynman. 1987)
2.
Comment by Richard Norman
It is quite true that "information" means many things but in this
case
it has a technical meaning that is quite specific. The "information
content" of a physical system is a specification of its state. In
quantum mechanics, this is the wave function.
The problem is that, under quantum mechanics, the evolution of the
wave function is a unitary operator that preserves the information,
the specification. No two different states (wave functions) can
converge to a singlefuture state and every state must have a distinct
set of antecedents -- projected backwards (reverse time, if you will)
they cannot converge.
If information in this sense disappers, then these principles would
be
violated. This first really became crucial when considering what
happens in a black hole -- the "black hole information paradox."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
Using the simple mention of the word "information" as the trigger for
a philosophical discussion of alternate notions of the word is a
useful and interesting enough exercise. When "people" talk about
information in physics, such a discussion might be necessary. When
physicists talk about information in physics, they all know exactly
what it is about -- no massive ambiguity traded there.
On Dec 14, 7:33 am, Richard Norman
==.
P.S.
‘ Where did the information go?
The laws of physics dictate that information, like energy,
cannot be destroyed, which means it must go somewhere.’
/ Book ‘ The big questions’ by Michael Brooks.
Page 195-196. /
==.
On Dec 14, 2:01 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 11:35 pm, sadovnik socratus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Where does the information come from?
> > > > Can an electron be quant of information?
>
> > > I agree that the electron and photon are not what we think. I don't
> > > necessarily assume they are actual particles that exist independently
> > > of atoms in space. I think they are events - atomic moods which are
> > > shared, the content of which actually carries our sense of time and
> > > space through matter rather than being a substance moving in space
> > > between matter. It sounds crazy, but if you think about it
> > > impartially, I think you might find that it works.
>
> > ====================.
> > 1.
> > Electron = Energy = Electrical waves =
> > = Information = Consciousness = One chain of Evolution.
> > 2.
> > Proton = Atom = Complex Atom = Cell = Man = One chain of Evolution.
> > 3.
> > How is possible to understand their difference and unity
> > as one chain of Evolution ?
> > =.
> > S.
>
> My understanding is that an electron is a concept of a specific charge
> momentum conceived as an orbiting nuclear particle. Energy is a
> concept of general physical change over time, or, to quote the Wiki,
> "In physics, energy (Ancient Greek: ἐνέργεια energeia "activity,
> operation") is an indirectly observed quantity. It is often understood
> as the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical
> systems".
>
> It would be misleading to say that a concrete particle evolves into a
> general abstract principle. You could say that an electron has energy
> or an energy state, but so does everything else. Electrical waves are,
> like energy, an indirect observation. There may not literally be waves
> of electrical stuff flying through space (and I think that there
> isn't) but rather matter can be induced to oscillate in synchronized
> frequency and intensity with other instances of matter.
>
> I'm not sure where electrical waves = information comes from. If you
> are thinking that because we inform electronic computers by using
> electricity, then that equation would work with anything. I can inform
> a mechanical computer using waves of water or any kind of machine
> using waves of liquid or quantities of particles. Think of an abacus.
> We inform ourselves using the 'information' we can derive from our
> configuration of the beads of an abacus. Electrons or electrical waves
> aren't really relevant. There is energy, but the energy is just the
> nominal accounting of how I move my fingers, how the beads move, how
> the food I've eaten produces ATP in my cells to contract muscles and
> fire neurons, etc. That in itself doesn't produce any information.
> Indeed, if you don't know how to use an abacus, it's nothing but a
> strange sculpture. It can inform us aesthetically but not
> mathematically.
>
> Instead I would run the chain of evolution backward since, as human
> beings, we only know about consciousness first hand. Everything we
> know that we know is filtered through consciousness:
>
> Consciousness <> Awareness <> Perception <> Feeling <> Sensation <>
> Detection
>
> Each level is a nested holarchy so that consciousness is an awareness
> of awarenesses, awareness is a perception of perceptions, perception
> is a feeling of feelings, feeling is a sense of senses and sense is a
> detection of detections. Each level represents a perceptual frame of
> reference (which relates to inertial frame of reference in general
> relativity) so that consciousness is stories about a person in their
> universe, awareness tells an organism about it's world, perception
> relates to organs and their specialized channels of sense, feeling is
> about tissues and glands and their biochemistry - emotion, sensation
> and detection get into the cellular and molecular frames of reference.
>
> Information is an idea that consciousness has about how to conceive of
> itself in a way that doesn't seem subjective. It doesn't physically
> exist. It must be subjectively decoded. If anything, information
> 'insists'. I would say informally that the evolution looks more like
> this:
>
> <Human-Primate> consciousness <Mammal-Vertebrate> awareness <Organism-
> Body> perception <Organ-Tissue> feeling <Cell-Gene> sensation
> <Molecule-Atom> detection <quantum-arithmetic*>
>
> *quantum arithmetic embodiment is not a concrete realism but an
> analytical interpretation. It's how we make can make sense of the
> microcosm, but I suspect that we are mistaking atomic detection for
> quantum mechanics. It's just the sense that atoms make together, not
> literal particle/waves flying through space instantaneously. This may
> sound fringe and speculative, but I think that may actually be the
> correct interpretation.
>
> Craig- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
