yeah, who knows what the fundamental nature of all things is..... it could shock and surprise the hell out of us.... but for some reason I feel optimistic now that it isn't totally out of reach.
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Constantine Pseudonymous < > [email protected]> 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 > provides. > > >> 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. > > Jason > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" 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/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" 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/everything-list?hl=en.
