On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Constantine Pseudonymous <bsor...@gmail.com
> wrote:

> > Ultimately physics is just  set of well defined rules (algorithms) and
> > matter and energy is just information.
> How do you exactly distinguish "matter" and "energy"... what do you on
> one hand consider to be "matter" and on the other consider to be
> "energy..... and how are both just information? Can you define
> information for me... do you mean it in a literal sense, have you
> observed this information as distinct object of perception?
First let me ask you, how do you define matter?

The road that leads to the conclusion that all is information comes from
repeated questions of "Well what is that made of?"  Start with a tree:
What are trees made of?  Bark, Wood, Leaves
What are bark, wood and leaves made of? Cells
What are cells made of? Molecules
What are molecules made of? Atoms
What are atoms made of? Sub atomic particles
What are sub atomic particles made of? Vibrating strings
What are vibrating strings made of? Small filaments of energy
What are small filaments of energy made of?

Here we have only a description that describes their behavior, we cannot say
strings are anything more fundamental than mathematical objects, yet we can
say their description is made of information.

> >     It is not unreasonable to imagine that information sits at the core
> of
> >
> > > physics, just as it sits at the core of a computer.
> Do you = information?
Define what you mean by you.  If you mean mind, then I would say yes, my
mind is a pattern (not the matter).  The matter constituting my mind is
constantly replaced.  As Feynman pointed out, last weeks potatoes are
storing last years memories.  Every 8 days half the water molecules in your
body are replaced (and your brain is about 85% water).

> And do your organs which "process" that information... are they merely
> information too? Does information interact with and process itself and
> then reveal itself to information (the I)? Is everything just
> information in motion being comprehended by information?

There is information, and relations between information.  (The relations
themselves can be described in terms of information).

> > >     It from bit. Otherwise put, every 'it'—every particle, every field
> of
> > > force, even the space-time continuum itself—derives its function, its
> > > meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts
> > > indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions,
> > > binary choices, bits. 'It from bit' symbolizes the idea that every item
> of
> > > the physical world has at bottom—a very deep bottom, in most
> instances—an
> > > immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in
> the
> > > last analysis from the posing of yes–no questions and the registering
> of
> > > equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are
> > > information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory
> universe.
> > > (John Archibald Wheeler 1990: 5)
> Only yes and no? but we experience in life that there are sometimes
> neither/nor's and not just either/or's.... we also experience
> combinations... we experience "yes and no".  Why is it binary, why not
> a triad, and why so rigidly one or the other?

Binary form is just the simplest symbol set for representing information.
 If you wanted to you could use only 1's, but then each description would
require as many of those symbols as the number one is trying to represent.
 For example, to represent 7 using a single symbol would look like: | | | |
| | |.  Using two symbols, we only require Log2(value) of symbols to
represent it.  For example most people use the former approach to count on
their hands, they can count up to 10.  Most people don't realize they can
use their hands to count up to 1023.  Simply give each finger a value: 512,
256, 128, 64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1.  Now depending on which finger is up, add
the corresponding value.  You can represent all numbers from 0 - 1023 with
this approach.  That is all binary is.  You could use trinary if you wanted,
and then you need only Log3(value) symbols to represent a number, but then
you also need 3 different symbols.

> You say that every "item" of the physical world has at bottom a
> immaterial source and explanation....

(I just want to clarify, that was a quote from John Wheeler, not myself, but
I am sympathetic to his view)

> but this is completely
> elusive.... are you saying every particular item literally can be
> traced back to an immaterial source? All this sounds like pure
> speculation right now... not that there is anything wrong with
> speculation.
> If all things that are apparently physical (including our body) are
> really just "information" (is information another word for thought or
> idea,

Information has a slightly more rigid definition than thought or idea.
 See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)
In short, information is a measure of the reduction of uncertainty it

> and if so, how many different way's can we understand the notion
> of notion, the idea of ideas... for example, are they made up of
> particles or something, or they perhaps composite in a subtler form of
> matter or something).... well how can we make this idea more
> meaningful to us... because it strikes me as incredibly unilluminating
> or lacking in descriptive power and high-definition.
The reason I went down the road of saying everything is ultimately
information (from the perspective of a conscious being at least) is to show
that even what some consider concrete and indisputable (particles, fields,
etc.) is to us observers, really only information.  Russel Standish actually
showed in his book how the Schrödinger equation in quantum mechanics can be
derived entirely as a theory of observation.  This should cast doubt on the
idea that matter is imbued with some magical property that is necessary for
intelligent machines.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to