The Nature of Energy: A Philosophical Perspective

[Rade]

...You may think it anthropocentric to say that information requires a mind - I would suggest it's anthropomorphic to say otherwise.

I do not see it this way. Information only requires a "set of things" for information to be present. There was information in the universe (just as there was matter and energy) long before there was a mind to know of such existence.

 

[baywax]

I don't think so.

if you pay me five dollars an hour for five hours, that's equal to $25 right?
you can express this in an equation:

5($/h)*5h = 25$

These terms are equivalent quantitatively, not qualitatively. That is, that $25 in bills, is not the same thing as the five hours of work I did qualitatively (they look, feel, taste different.. the dollar has mass... my work does not), but the way we've arranged the deal, they were equivalent quantitatively. thus,

information = energy

is not exactly correct; you'd have the conversion from information to energy in there (just like I had a pay rate ($/h). For example, you might be able to find out how much energy it will cost you to store or transfer information: you can do this by using a quantitative comparison as I did with work.

Energy and information can be stated in terms of each other quantitatively, but they're very different qualitatively.

I think you're on to something here Pythagorean. The differences between states that are qualitative and quantitative are many.

Quantitatively if I send information to the engine of a car it won't matter how much I send the car will remain unmoved whereas the quantitative amount of energy in the form of gasoline sent to the car moves it at speeds according to each increment of gas.

But, is it the quality of the information that is the gasoline that is moving the car?

The quality of that information that is the things that make up gas is purely, basic petrochemical information... in its most basic form... gasoline. When I write the word, Gasoline, this is information in the weakest sense because it is only a representative of the actual source of information which is the purest form of that information, gasoline.

If there was somehow, someway to configure the representation of gasoline in an expertly configured way so that the qualitative and quantitative properties of that information matched the original info... we might be able to move a car with it.

For instance, take ID. theft for example. This sort of (mis)representation seems to be able to move large sums of money around in the bank. Why, then, couldn't the same principle apply to deceiving an engine to turn over?

edit :-|

 

[Pythagorean]

\
For instance, take ID. theft for example. This sort of (mis)representation seems to be able to move large sums of money around in the bank. Why, then, couldn't the same principle apply to deceiving an engine to turn over?

edit :-|

completely different set of rules. Banks follow human rules (subject to constant changes) while cars use the rules of physics (which haven't ever changed that we know of).

Information is more likened to state than energy, methinks. You can measure the energy of a particle in a state, and (in quantum) certain states are eigenvectors to the energies (which are the eigenvalues) so they have an important relationship.

Energy can also be degenerate. That is, you can have a number of different states that all return the same value of energy.

 

[Gost_D]

I agree that information has been around longer than humans. As sapiens we are simply able to put a term to the phenomenon. What the thread and the op suggests is that energy itself, which is responsible for the current universe, is "information".

We know energy takes many forms. Transmutations take place where energy is working as/with matter or waves. The duality between the two states is unimportant, the configurations caused by or taken by energy are what we term information. Does this mean the energy equals information?

Can we run a car on information?

I would like to ask to read the arXiv link (http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043) before answering (though it needs to have some physical education to understand).

This link contains a number of conjectures (seem as rather reasonable), incliding that:
(1) – the World consists of the particles and space; at that particles are the "Information patterns" – SOME CYCLIC algorithms which consist of some fundamental logical elements (FLE) – analogues of the LE in computer’s chips; FLE in turn are some logical structures also. I.e. all in the World and besides are "the words", and these "words" are solid enough so we can to go, move on cars, etc. on its.
(2) – the particles can combine in more complex structures that are, so, the informational structures (IS) also.
(3) – all these IS are informational time and space currents, while the ENERGY (INCLUDING THE ENERGY IN THE REST – i.e. REST MASS – "the MATTER") is the TIME INFORMATIONAL CURRENT (IC, multiplied on the Dirac’s constant, but here it is non-essential), which specifically changes at given physical interaction.

So the movement of a car is in reality the changing (exchanging, unifying, etc. by/of the time and space ICs – see the link) in corresponding IS that consists in this case of the car, gasoline, road, Earth, Moon, etc. At that the role of driver is to use some additional information - a specific algorithm which changes all this system so, that car will run from point A to point B.
More – see the link, there aren’t possibility to rewrite all text in the forum post.

 

[baywax]

I would like to ask to read the arXiv link (http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043) before answering (though it needs to have some physical education to understand).

This link contains a number of conjectures (seem as rather reasonable), incliding that:
(1) – the World consists of the particles and space; at that particles are the "Information patterns" – SOME CYCLIC algorithms which consist of some fundamental logical elements (FLE) – analogues of the LE in computer’s chips; FLE in turn are some logical structures also. I.e. all in the World and besides are "the words", and these "words" are solid enough so we can to go, move on cars, etc. on its.
(2) – the particles can combine in more complex structures that are, so, the informational structures (IS) also.
(3) – all these IS are informational time and space currents, while the ENERGY (INCLUDING THE ENERGY IN THE REST – i.e. REST MASS – "the MATTER") is the TIME INFORMATIONAL CURRENT (IC, multiplied on the Dirac’s constant, but here it is non-essential), which specifically changes at given physical interaction.

So the movement of a car is in reality the changing (exchanging, unifying, etc. by/of the time and space ICs – see the link) in corresponding IS that consists in this case of the car, gasoline, road, Earth, Moon, etc. At that the role of driver is to use some additional information - a specific algorithm which changes all this system so, that car will run from point A to point B.
More – see the link, there aren’t possibility to rewrite all text in the forum post.

What an excellent find Gost D! I'll have to go over it later but it looks like defining information has been a topic for quite some time.

 

[baywax]

completely different set of rules. Banks follow human rules (subject to constant changes) while cars use the rules of physics (which haven't ever changed that we know of).

Information is more likened to state than energy, methinks. You can measure the energy of a particle in a state, and (in quantum) certain states are eigenvectors to the energies (which are the eigenvalues) so they have an important relationship.

Energy can also be degenerate. That is, you can have a number of different states that all return the same value of energy.

So information quite possibly won't equal energy is what you're telling me! I am beginning to agree because you are able to experience energy without any information but you will never experience information without energy. The two are not interdependent. Energy appears to be slightly more basic than information.

 

[Gost_D]

What an excellent find Gost D! I'll have to go over it later but it looks like defining information has been a topic for quite some time.

And (next post to Pythagorean)
"….The two [energy and information] are not interdependent. Energy appears to be slightly more basic than information."
_______________
It seems that you hadn’t over the article in the arXiv link pointed in the Gost_D posts #47;#54 (and these posts as a whole also) when posted to Pythagorean.

At that – the link http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043 v2 is some revised version of v1, but didn’t replace the v1 totally, including – in v1 more attention is paid to the problem of the information definition.

As some resume (specifically relating to your posts) of the links in this case:
(1) – it is shown that (i)- existed "definitions" of the information are always tautologies – "the information is the information",and
(ii) – such a situation is inevitable – the information is utmost general and fundamental concept so can be defined only through itself;
(2) – so the information should be defined with supplement notion relating to the existence condition;
(3) - the information exists (at least realizes in our World) at least in two modes – fixed and dynamic, at that the energy (generally speaking – the energy is only some human language code (term) for defining something that helps us to understand the behavior
of physical systems) is the physical value that relates to the dynamic mode of the information existence.

 

[baywax]

And (next post to Pythagorean)
"….The two [energy and information] are not interdependent. Energy appears to be slightly more basic than information."
_______________
It seems that you hadn’t over the article in the arXiv link pointed in the Gost_D posts #47;#54 (and these posts as a whole also) when posted to Pythagorean.

At that – the link http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043 v2 is some revised version of v1, but didn’t replace the v1 totally, including – in v1 more attention is paid to the problem of the information definition.

As some resume (specifically relating to your posts) of the links in this case:
(1) – it is shown that (i)- existed "definitions" of the information are always tautologies – "the information is the information",and
(ii) – such a situation is inevitable – the information is utmost general and fundamental concept so can be defined only through itself;
(2) – so the information should be defined with supplement notion relating to the existence condition;
(3) - the information exists (at least realizes in our World) at least in two modes – fixed and dynamic, at that the energy (generally speaking – the energy is only some human language code (term) for defining something that helps us to understand the behavior
of physical systems) is the physical value that relates to the dynamic mode of the information existence.

So what they're saying is that words/symbols are the physical values that relate the dynamic mode of information existence.

I would disagree because a symbol or word is a representative of the information generated by physical states. That information is causal in that it influences other physical states. When we end up deciphering the causality of the information that has caused the influence we encode it as "information" but it is, in reality, the symbolic and representative value of the actual, physical information being generated by interactions or single action of a primary source.

Take the information generated by a cog turning in a machine. The cog turns and the information that is the speed, angle, torque etc... of that rotation influences the next cog to turn according to its size, braking, clutch... etc... That is pure and physical information being transferred amongst other components of the machine. When we, as cognitive sapiens, interpret these actions we symbolize the process and symbolize the action as "information". What I'm saying is that information is the actual actions and physical states we observe. This is made obvious by the fact that we term these actions and states "information". The fact that we might then take this information a step further and translate it as "words" and "symbols" has nothing to do with the original state of the information... which is purely physical.

My position is bolstered further by the discovery of genetically stored information. The fact that a chromosome and its genetic code can end up directing the construction of a living organism demonstrates how information is literally a physical arrangement of matter. See also the storage of information on CDs etc.. this is information in the form of physical arrangements that enact physical results (such as sound, visuals, and more symbolic arrangements).

 

[Gost_D]

"So what they're saying is that words/symbols are the physical values that relate the dynamic mode of information existence. I would disagree because a symbol or word is a representative of the information generated by physical states..."

"My position is bolstered further by the discovery of genetically stored information..."
_______________

(1) I wrote already, that before answer in this thread it would be rather useful at first:
- to read arXiv link that pointed out in the Gost_D posts, as well as the posts itself;
- to attempt to understand what was read, taking into account that the approach is rather unusual and requires some time to evaluate.
Including (see also, e.g. post of 03.03.08 04:17) - indeed, "words/symbols are the physical values". Though in a language which is, to some extent, unintelligible till now.
When the words are much "less" then Planck's length - it is necessary to built at least bi-stable logical structure which is Planck length.

(2) as to that biological information is something huge comparing to the material thing's one - that's illusion if you are (and you were in fact in your post) in frame of traditional - Shannon - interpretation of the information concept. A quantity of "Shannon's" information necessary to describe a stone can be larger then for describing of a biological being of near mass.

 

[Gost_D]

I was waiting on an answer on my previous post, with a question something as "so you say, that there aren’t any differences between biological and material beings?" – but the question is absentee…

So I ask and answer. Yes, there are the differences between biological and material beings. But the matter is in the point that the information can not be reduced to Shannon interpretation. One of the properties of the information is that the information very often is "absolutely accurate" so the interactions of the Nature's informational systems are often extreemly bifurctative.
E.g. – for the physics the accuracy 10^(-7) is very good, but if somebody make a mistake on 1 in last figure of phone number when phoned to somewhere – the result will be very unexpected.
So – besides the (Shannon) "quantity" of the information there is the information’s "quality". And biological information is "high quality" information which was very specifically "selected" at a number of bifurcations at the World evolution.
But this "selection" leaded also to the fact that this selected information lost the property to interact only on the "true" information, as it is always in Material World and possessed a property to produce/ to apprehend the false information.

And this feature can be used to differ between material and biological things…

 

[baywax]

I was waiting on an answer on my previous post, with a question something as "so you say, that there aren’t any differences between biological and material beings?" – but the question is absentee…

So I ask and answer. Yes, there are the differences between biological and material beings. But the matter is in the point that the information can not be reduced to Shannon interpretation. One of the properties of the information is that the information very often is "absolutely accurate" so the interactions of the Nature's informational systems are often extreemly bifurctative.
E.g. – for the physics the accuracy 10^(-7) is very good, but if somebody make a mistake on 1 in last figure of phone number when phoned to somewhere – the result will be very unexpected.
So – besides the (Shannon) "quantity" of the information there is the information’s "quality". And biological information is "high quality" information which was very specifically "selected" at a number of bifurcations at the World evolution.
But this "selection" leaded also to the fact that this selected information lost the property to interact only on the "true" information, as it is always in Material World and possessed a property to produce/ to apprehend the false information.

And this feature can be used to differ between material and biological things…

So, I sort of see what you're saying. If a cell passes its information along to another cell, the information is often very accurate. The resulting organism will then have a chance to screw up the information due to other information in the environment and how it interacts with the resultant organism.

Where as a cog in a machine (physics) will not have as much chance of screwing up the information it passes along to other cogs in the machine...

however, if it isn't oiled properly or there are other environmental challenges, the information may be corrupted and that corrupt info will be passed along to the rest of the machine, resulting in failure of the machine.

In nature, if there is corrupt information being passed around it is either made to work with the system (components become part of another system) within nature or it is eliminated because of its inability to maintain a synergy with the rest of nature.

However, this concept or principal applies to everything in nature and i doubt there is a distinction between either the organic or non-organic matter involved.

At the onset of the big bang, the information was pretty simple... almost pure and raw energy. As it began to collide with itself and form diverse combinations, the information that is contained in this energy began to become more complex.

 

[Gost_D]

To: baywax
(That seems as main ideas. The rest see baywax above)


(1) "However, this concept or principal applies to everything in nature and i doubt there is a distinction between either the organic or non-organic matter involved."
-----------
– it isn’t so. The only objective reality is the set "Information", when the matter, biological beings, consciousness, religious phenomena, etc. are some realizations, "some modes of existence of a information" in this set. I.e., the matter, biological beings…. are some systems of some informational structures (IS) which interact each-other(s) through mediating by some another ISs. The principal difference between "material" IS and “biological” IS that follows from the fact that "the quality" of the information in these IS is different, is:
when material ISs, the mediators for material ISs and the results of mediations (i.e. - interactions) between material ISs are always by using ONLY true information, the "biological" ISs CAN produce and – and that is more common – CAN apprehend the false information. At that, of course, if a biological IS will address to material one with false information, the result will be sometimes not too good. But if a snake well pretend to be a twig, it lives usually longer then a one which does that not well.
_____________________
(2) "At the onset of the big bang, the information was pretty simple... almost pure and raw energy. As it began to collide with itself and form diverse combinations, the information that is contained in this energy began to become more complex"
-----------
From the link that I pointed out earlier (http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043), follows that it seems the energy really is not "fundamental" thing – it is the time informational current (IC) multiplied by Dirac’s constant when for a particle the time-IC is the rate of cycles particle’s closed algorithm having the length equal corresponding Compton length.
For the larger ISs – its’ time-ICs are some sums of the particles minus/ plus the ICs which are "busy" at the interactions between particles to result in a IS’s state.
So the statement "the information was pretty simple... almost pure and raw energy" has, as it seems, not too much sense.

So there occur the problem of definition of the "primary" information that was some logical singularity and which started up the "World program" (with "World computer" at the "same time").
As I wrote earlier, there is, e.g., an illustration – for 5 Euclid’s postulates one can make a PC-code that will prove on PC a huge (infinite) number of different theorems, but all this "informational tail" will not contain any new information comparing to the information that was already in the postulates; and the World evolution seems as some continuous "logical inferences" from some "initial postulates" which "were stated" in the set "Information" in some moment…

 

[baywax]

To: baywax
(That seems as main ideas. The rest see baywax above) (1) "However, this concept or principal applies to everything in nature and i doubt there is a distinction between either the organic or non-organic matter involved."
-----------
– it isn’t so. The only objective reality is the set "Information", when the matter, biological beings, consciousness, religious phenomena, etc. are some realizations, "some modes of existence of a information" in this set. I.e., the matter, biological beings…. are some systems of some informational structures (IS) which interact each-other(s) through mediating by some another ISs. The principal difference between "material" IS and “biological” IS that follows from the fact that "the quality" of the information in these IS is different, is:
when material ISs, the mediators for material ISs and the results of mediations (i.e. - interactions) between material ISs are always by using ONLY true information, the "biological" ISs CAN produce and – and that is more common – CAN apprehend the false information. At that, of course, if a biological IS will address to material one with false information, the result will be sometimes not too good. But if a snake well pretend to be a twig, it lives usually longer then a one which does that not well.
_____________________
(2) "At the onset of the big bang, the information was pretty simple... almost pure and raw energy. As it began to collide with itself and form diverse combinations, the information that is contained in this energy began to become more complex"
-----------
From the link that I pointed out earlier (http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043), follows that it seems the energy really is not "fundamental" thing – it is the time informational current (IC) multiplied by Dirac’s constant when for a particle the time-IC is the rate of cycles particle’s closed algorithm having the length equal corresponding Compton length.
For the larger ISs – its’ time-ICs are some sums of the particles minus/ plus the ICs which are "busy" at the interactions between particles to result in a IS’s state.
So the statement "the information was pretty simple... almost pure and raw energy" has, as it seems, not too much sense.

So there occur the problem of definition of the "primary" information that was some logical singularity and which started up the "World program" (with "World computer" at the "same time").
As I wrote earlier, there is, e.g., an illustration – for 5 Euclid’s postulates one can make a PC-code that will prove on PC a huge (infinite) number of different theorems, but all this "informational tail" will not contain any new information comparing to the information that was already in the postulates; and the World evolution seems as some continuous "logical inferences" from some "initial postulates" which "were stated" in the set "Information" in some moment…

Ah, I see. The information at the onset is the same information we have today yet in some instances it has been re-configured by "logical inference". This brings up something I keep mentioning which is configuration of information. Or is it the configuration of energy that provides the information? Yet again, how can energy be configured without information providing the "initial postulate" for the configuration.

This would suggest that "nature" forms the "initial postulates" program and provides the guidelines (or "information") for its components (ie: energy + lack of energy etc...).

5 Euclid’s postulates:

1. A straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points.
2. Any straight line segment can be extended indefinitely, to form a straight line.
3. Given any straight line segment, a circle can be drawn having the segment as radius and one endpoint as center.
4. All right angles are congruent.
5. If two lines are drawn which intersect a third in such a way that the sum of the inner angles on one side is less than two right angles, then the two lines inevitably must intersect each other on that side if extended far enough. The converse is also assumed, although not stated directly. If the inner angles are 180° or more the lines do not meet on that side. Parallel lines never meet, hence the angles on either side sum to 180°.

These were never considered complete but your illustration gives us what we're discussing which is some of the postulates that remain in place since the big bang if not shortly after the big bang. I just wonder if the parameters for nature's postulates exist beyond any physical event such as the BB or if they developed during the chaos of that event.

 

[Gost_D]

(Some baywax quote)

…Or is it the configuration of energy that provides the information? Yet again, how can energy be configured without information providing the "initial postulate" for the configuration.
This would suggest that "nature" forms the "initial postulates" program and provides the guidelines (or "information") for its components (ie: energy + lack of energy etc...).
………..
….These [5 Euclid’s postulates] were never considered complete but your illustration gives us what we're discussing which is some of the postulates that remain in place since the big bang if not shortly after the big bang. I just wonder if the parameters for nature's postulates exist beyond any physical event such as the BB or if they developed during the chaos of that event.
_________________

Once again. I would like to note that when I write an answer I think that the question appeared after the man who asked have read the arXiv link above – I can not to repeat this link in the posts.

So – as I wrote in my former post – the energy is not "fundamental" thing. For some informational structure (IS) –and all what exist are the ISs – the energy is the time informational current of the time informational current (IC) multiplied by Dirac’s constant when for a particle the time-IC is the rate of cycles particle’s closed algorithm having the length equal corresponding Compton length. For the larger ISs – its’ time-ICs are some sums of the particles minus/ plus the ICs which are "busy" at the interactions between particles to result in a IS’s state. So the statement "the information was pretty simple... almost pure and raw energy", or "Or is it the configuration of energy that provides the information?" have, as it seems, not too much sense.

So your questions, as I understood, should be in some another sense:

- Yea, the information in the set "Information" – so in any IS, including large one as our Material World, - can exist in two modes – fixed and dynamic. For fixed mode existence (intuitively) – there aren’t too much problems, but what force the information to change? Yea, all information in the infinity number of Euclid’s geometry theorems is equal to the information that was already in the postulates, but to prove these theorems somebody must to start the proving? Or, eventually - from where "an energy" appears for dynamic mode of the information?
-------------

- I (and nobody else till now) can not to answer completely. Suggested information concept is too new and requires, of course, the development. But some observations can be noted now.

1. To produce "a large amount of the energy" – or, more correct, - to run a large IC – there isn’t often necessity to be 'very energetic' - e.g. – to make a snow avalanche or some explosion it is necessary to make rather small effort to use 'existed fixed information' to produce a large "energy release".

2. the time-IC is the rate of cycles – so the shorter a particle’s algorithm the larger its IC (i.e. – rest and relativistic masses). In our World smallest code has Planck mass particles which is equal 2pi*(Planck length). So – the larger code (larger amount of 'fixed information' – that’s interesting, isn’t it?) – then the less "energy" is necessary for this particle to exist.

3. The dynamic mode of the information is inevitable if there appear some logical cause-effect relations in some IS, when such a relations are inherent for the information and, so, - for the set "Information" at all. So the questions rest – why these relations can be realized? And – what is very important - with what speed? This speed can not be infinity since the information is principally discrete and any couple of single relations must be "spaced" in “the time”. In our world smallest time to change is Planck time when the speed of light is not “fundamental” constant – that is the speed of "FLE switchings" (e.g. – on some linear interval in the case of light) when one FLE has the dimension equal Planck length. Why our World has this limitation – that is the question for further concept development.

4. Next question. Yea, all in the World are the ISs and all these ISs, as the World as a whole, are so the parts (set’s elements) in the set "Information", so must to interact with the set – but why our World is rather stable system which exists so long?
- And this is the question for further concept development, though already now it is possible to have some reasonable notions in the concept. First of all – it should be noted, that all, at least stable, elementary particles that constitute eventually the World are cyclic algorithms, i.e. its are "all-sufficient" beings that "haven’t necessity" to interact with the environment. But from another hand – all these particles (and anything else) can not "to escape" from the set "Information" and so must interact with It. The last effect becomes apparent as the randomness of the particles movements/ interactions on the microworld scale.

Etc…

 

[Gost_D]

Today the arXiv link
http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043

(The information and the matter)

was revised relating to the gravity - version 3, p.3.10 "the gravity again"

It seems that there is the possibility to made the "inform" gravity theory for moving bodies also...

 

[baywax]

Today the arXiv link
http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043

(The information and the matter)

was revised relating to the gravity - version 3, p.3.10 "the gravity again"

It seems that there is the possibility to made the "inform" gravity theory for moving bodies also...

I don't know if you know the old saying... "what came first, the chicken or the egg?"

That is my question now, with regard to information.

Does a physical event determine the information or
does the information determine the physical event?

Which comes first?

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't know if you know the old saying... "what came first, the chicken or the egg?"

That is my question now, with regard to information.

Does a physical event determine the information or
does the information determine the physical event?

Which comes first?

must they, necessarily? Is it possible that they're just both consequences of reality?

My gut says the physical event determines the information, and that the idea of information is a human concept that arises when they try to understand the physical event.

 

[baywax]

must they, necessarily? Is it possible that they're just both consequences of reality?

My gut says the physical event determines the information, and that the idea of information is a human concept that arises when they try to understand the physical event.

That sounds more like an intelligent or cognitive way of interpreting information than a "gut" feeling about information.

My gut feeling about information is that it is the physical event and does not require recognition to be information. And I think this is why I mistake energy as information, because, in the same way an egg holds all the potential and "information" of a chicken, energy holds all the information of a physical event.

 

[Pythagorean]

That sounds more like an intelligent or cognitive way of interpreting information than a "gut" feeling about information.

My gut feeling about information is that it is the physical event and does not require recognition to be information. And I think this is why I mistake energy as information, because, in the same way an egg holds all the potential and "information" of a chicken, energy holds all the information of a physical event.

I suppose I meant intuitively, which I assume to be the same thing. I just mean that this is how I feel about it, but I haven't conceived of the mechanism in the brain responsible or how one would even test such a hypothesis.

 

[baywax]

I suppose I meant intuitively, which I assume to be the same thing. I just mean that this is how I feel about it, but I haven't conceived of the mechanism in the brain responsible or how one would even test such a hypothesis.

Thank you Pythagorean,

I mean, the brain recognizing information is just another physical event that is in tandem with the other physical events leading up to that point.

Although it is true that a cognitive assessment of an event interprets it as information, so to does cognition recognize and interpret light, gravity and so on. It doesn't mean that light is "light" it means we have interpreted it as such.

By what means are we able to interpret the phenomenon of light other than by its information? And by what means does light enable sugar production (a physical event) in plants other than by imparting its information to the process of photosynthesis?

Perhaps this is a matter for semantics since it is the terms and how we use them in this question that determines the validity of the pursuit.

 

[Gost_D]

(baywax 03.21) "I don't know if you know the old saying... "what came first, the chicken or the egg?"
That is my question now, with regard to information.
Does a physical event determine the information or
does the information determine the physical event?

Which comes first?"
-------
(Pythagorean, 03.21) "…must they, necessarily? Is it possible that they're just both consequences of reality?
My gut says the physical event determines the information, and that the idea of information is a human concept that arises when they try to understand the physical event."
-------
(baywax , 03.22) "I mean, the brain recognizing information is just another physical event that is in tandem with the other physical events leading up to that point.

Although it is true that a cognitive assessment of an event interprets it as information, so to does cognition recognize and interpret light, gravity and so on. It doesn't mean that light is "light" it means we have interpreted it as such.

By what means are we able to interpret the phenomenon of light other than by its information? And by what means does light enable sugar production (a physical event) in plants other than by imparting its information to the process of photosynthesis?

Perhaps this is a matter for semantics since it is the terms and how we use them in this question that determines the validity of the pursuit."
____________________

To baywax and Pythagorean

(1) As to "chicken or the egg first" problem – this problem doesn’t exist. Only after genome ("fixed information") changing in an egg, a new chicken will born, so the egg came always first.

(2) (next once again). Do you read the arXiv link that a number of times was pointed in the Gost_D posts (the article "the Information and the Matter", http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043) – as well as Gost_D posts in this thread? I remind:

(i) the information is objective and so doesn’t require a brain; all/ everything that exist are the informational structures (IS), i.e. – some logical consequences on "a unknown language", all/ everything are "the words", but these words are hard enough so we can go on these words. Though we themselves are "the words" also. And all IS are the elements of the set Information, at that any/all IS contains all information about all/any another IS, including all information about its (specific IS and all another ISs) "past, present and future" states/"lives" - from infinity "time back" to infinity "time forward";

(ii) at that, if in the Material World the informational exchange (between material IS, e.g. – elementary particles) happens only by using true information, in "non-material" World there happen sometimes an exchange by false information. That critically differs "non-material" beings, i.e. "alive" and "conscious" beings from "material" ones – these beings can walk through the set Information outside the material limits. The "conscious" beings can, also, to cognize the set Information by using the languages and logical rules, first of all – because of that the languages and logical rules are immanently inherent to the set Information.
(iii) – as to the "what is first" problem else – see, also, post Gost_D 03.17
(iiii) - etc. – see the arXiv link above, I can not to print all this article in the posts.

 

[Vosh]

After having my "What Is Energy Made Of?" thread running in the Quantum Physics section I learned.. after the some great replies.. that energy is more of an abstract concept that explains interactions, transfers and potentials or storage... many times the analogy of money was used.

With this in mind I have decided that the Philosophy section might be a better proving ground for the study of the concept of energy so...

Where does energy come from?

I wish I knew!

What is energy?

The ability to do work.

Is energy anything at all? (aprez David Letterman)

Is energy information?

Energy is the ability to do work. Information is the communication of knowledge. I can hear someone saying that the universe and everything in it communicates knowledge to us... but it wasn't knowledge until it ended up in our mind. This reminds me of another philosophical question; where is green? The color green doesn't exist except in our mind. It's not found in the brain. It's not a physical thing in the world; merely a frequency of EM radiation. Where is that thing we call the color gree? Or any color? Or any perception, come to that? We see the colors, but they don't exist anywhere, except in our mindscape, which can't be pointed to in the brain, but the neocortex makes it. F*cks with your head.

All replys are appreciated. Thank you.[/QUOTE]

 

[baywax]

It's not a physical thing in the world; merely a frequency of EM radiation.

Excuse me? A frequency of Em radiation is a physical attribute.

I think what you're saying is that nothing exists except in the brain... which is highly suspect and extremely ego/anthropocentric.

 

[Gost_D]

I wish I knew!

The ability to do work.

Energy is the ability to do work. Information is the communication of knowledge. I can hear someone saying that the universe and everything in it communicates knowledge to us... but it wasn't knowledge until it ended up in our mind. This reminds me of another philosophical question; where is green? The color green doesn't exist except in our mind. It's not found in the brain. It's not a physical thing in the world; merely a frequency of EM radiation. Where is that thing we call the color gree? Or any color? Or any perception, come to that? We see the colors, but they don't exist anywhere, except in our mindscape, which can't be pointed to in the brain, but the neocortex makes it. F*cks with your head.

All replys are appreciated. Thank you.

[/QUOTE]


It seems you read nothing else the first post in this thread (Quantumcarl 05.31.06, 23:03 ) in 2006 y.The discussion in the thread in fact was ceased in 2006.
--------

But was revived – in 2008 (Gost_D 02.25.08, 01:15 #42, a couple pages ago.)

To take participation in the thread now it would be rather useful at first to read the discussion in 2008, including the URL links pointed out in the thread. In other case – from the experience in the thread – there will be only repetition of some, as it seems, rather banal questions on which there are the answers already.

 

[baywax]

Sorry everybody, I haven't put much time into this thread.

I think we can safely say there are two questions here:

1. By what criteria can we distinguish energy from information?

2. Does the "work" created by energy become information or does energy = information?

 

[Noone]

After having my "What Is Energy Made Of?" thread running in the Quantum Physics section I learned.. after the some great replies.. that energy is more of an abstract concept that explains interactions, transfers and potentials or storage... many times the analogy of money was used.

With this in mind I have decided that the Philosophy section might be a better proving ground for the study of the concept of energy so...

Where does energy come from?

What is energy?

Is energy anything at all? (aprez David Letterman)

Is energy information?

All replys are appreciated. Thank you.

To answer the question within your title...

Energy can only be information if we can create it into a system that would translate into word's that we could understand...(hence 0010011 we can't understand until we translate it into a way we can understand)

So the answer must be yes and no, in one way it is yes, which would make it no in another way...

I will adress Is energy anything at all?

Energy can be seen as the power of operating, whether exerted or not.

So yes it is somthing, but it can also be seen as nothing that is somthing, and that somthing would be the function's that it can and cannot do, within are physical universe

 

[rdhdangel]

science and physics can only go so far to prove the theory of energy, they have a good start but there is somethings i just don't think science can fully understand, that is one. energy is a natrually occurring phenominon...not much is known about energy. reason science and pyshics can not completely understand is because energy is somewhat of a phenominon. any phenominon can not be provent with reason simply because it defies reason. u can only fully understand phenominon with thine mind open to all possible explanations.

i do believe that energy comes from the within earth... in my own theory its the energy pull from the from the Earth that gives Earth its gravity and magnetic pull. the sun is aslo a form of energy that effects earth(obviously) is strong enough to keep all nine planets in orbit around the sun. but the most powerful and strongest form of energy is god who created the universe. even if you are reading this and you are an athest or agonostic...you have to admit something must have created the universe, the big bang theory could not be possible other wise.

everything on this Earth has energy because everything has atoms. atoms are a amazing form of energy. they can start out as a single form of energy and bond and exchange electrons with other atoms to create a entirely new substance. humans have a very intracite energy, we are the most remarkable form of energy. we can control energy, where as other creatures can not. we use energy in a benificial way. i believe that yes we can exchange energy, share energy, and intensify energy. the basic energy pionts in a human are the hands heart and head, each persons energy unique and different, think of it in the sense of an atom. the persons explanation above mine is correct. but there is so much more to it. you can do some amazing things if you understand your own energy. there are soo many possiblities if you just open your mind to the mere idea. yes i know there are some who are skeptical about what energy is, but keep in mind that all things can be possible...something u have to learn on ur own. i find it to be very true people fear what they do not understand and will do everything in their power to disprove it.

 

[Gost_D]

To answer the question within your title...

Energy can only be information if we can create it into a system that would translate into word's that we could understand...(hence 0010011 we can't understand until we translate it into a way we can understand)

So the answer must be yes and no, in one way it is yes, which would make it no in another way...

I will adress Is energy anything at all?

Energy can be seen as the power of operating, whether exerted or not.

So yes it is somthing, but it can also be seen as nothing that is somthing, and that somthing would be the function's that it can and cannot do, within are physical universe

Since your post is like Vosh’s above I should to repeat my answer to Vosh:
_________________
It seems you read nothing else the first post in this thread (Quantumcarl 05.31.06, 23:03 ) in 2006 y.The discussion in the thread in fact was ceased in 2006.
--------

But was revived – in 2008 (Gost_D 02.25.08, 01:15 #42, a couple pages ago.)

To take participation in the thread now it would be rather useful at first to read the discussion in 2008, including the URL links pointed out in the thread.

There you will read, that:
- there exists only one objective thing – the set Information, when the Matter, Consciousness, religious phenomena, etc., are the modes of existence of the information –i.e. they are some sub-sets of the set Information; the information can realize in some conditions as dynamic and fixed forms (in the set It can exist in some unknown form also);
- the energy is not a fundamental thing, that is a physical value invented by physicists to describe the Nature, and in reality the energy is dynamic “materialized” information multiplied by Dirac’s constant;
- etc. – see above.
--------------
In other case – from the experience in the thread – there will be only repetition of some, as it seems, rather banal questions on which there are the answers already.

 

[rdhdangel]

i know what u mean but i think the person who posted was looking for a philoshopy explanation. if he wanted all those scientific theories he would have posted his question in the pyhsics and science boards. science and pyhsics can only explane so much. the problem i have with science is that it tries to prove that everything has a scientific reason that such things occure...science discredits any kind of spiritual explanation, but science can neither prove or disprove any spiritual matters. religion is not spiritual...there is a fine line between religion and spirituality. religion is set up by man and man has made religion very orthodox, religion is full of hypocrites. its really the blind leading the blind. spirituality is not orthodox at all. its purely having only gods spirit, and there is no need to go to church if ur truly a spiritual person

i briefly glanced at the other threads. could be right could be wrong...i gave the standing theory a new perspective...ur chioce if u want to accept it or not and open ur mind to a new theory. i see no need to try and explane energy with science and pyhsics only. they got a good start but there's a lot that science is discrediting and over looking in fully inderstanding energy. i believe that u have to bridge pyhsics/science and spirituality to get a good theory.

all humans have reason and intution, both defy each other...the scientist lean more towards reasoning. in a way its like a scale...u can't rely on reason alone...nor intution. it has to be equal to balance. much like reasoning defies phenonimon and vise versa.

when u try and prove energy with just pyhsics and science, you give urself a limited view, and a closed mind to any other theories. take for example, when everyone thought the world was flat. in the scripture isaiah ch. 40 verse 22 god described Earth as a sphere that hangs on nothing hundreds of years before society discovered that the world was round. that scripture clearly states that fact. its the same idea of theories about energy...right now people still have a limited view much like people once thought the world was flat. science will only scratch the surface and not get far in understanding of what energy actually is until they open their minds to the possiblities to what energy could be(open their minds to spiritual matters and use their own intution) like the scale.

 

[rdhdangel]

im not saying ur wrong. or that I am completely right. i do know there is a lot missing in the theories science has for energy. i just think we have to look at all possiblities and keep an open mind to fully understand energy. i did read the threads before mine and i found some of them could very well be true. i think energy has a lot to do with physical energy(atoms) as well as time and space. my best explanation to the time energy is that humans have always had a sense of time and date from tracking Earth's orbit of the sun, which the Earth's orbit of the sun times our whole year. when u think about it, its really quite amazing.

 

[Gost_D]

im not saying ur wrong. or that I am completely right. i do know there is a lot missing in the theories science has for energy. i just think we have to look at all possiblities and keep an open mind to fully understand energy. i did read the threads before mine and i found some of them could very well be true. i think energy has a lot to do with physical energy(atoms) as well as time and space. my best explanation to the time energy is that humans have always had a sense of time and date from tracking Earth's orbit of the sun, which the Earth's orbit of the sun times our whole year. when u think about it, its really quite amazing.

The thread is called "Does Energy = Information" and, since that energy and information are fundamental things, the topic is, undoubtedly, for the philosophy also.
But any discussion can be fruitful, or, at least, have some sense only, if main terms used are correctly and utmost fully defined. Including two above.

First - "energy" – is defined in physics, where for a particle/ body it is equal to the product of relativistic mass and square of the light speed. So defined value turns out very useful for describing and evaluating of wide situations in Material World, besides it, as well as two other global physical values, i.e. – momentum and angular momentum, conserves when physical processes pass; at that – these conversations are the sequences of fundamental constitutions of Nature – the energy conversation follows from uniformity of Time, for momentum – follows from uniformity of Space, etc.
But a huge number of attempts to define the second term, i.e. "Information" – were, in fact, fail till now and, correspondingly, till now there were a huge number of it’s definitions.

In Gost_D arXiv link above and in Gost_D 2008 comments to this link in this thread the term Information is defined correctly and it is proved that the Information is the utmost fundamental and general thing. Besides, that explains – why former attempts to define the information through something more general were fail – always the tautology occurred – "the information is the information".
And a lot of another interesting things arise under new informational approach…

 

[baywax]

Information is the utmost fundamental and general thing.

I know we often use the word "thing" to describe just about "everything" but, how can information be defined as a thing?

It seems to me that information is more of a quality or perhaps an order.

Let's break the word down in a very unscientific way.

• In • formation •

Formation

noun
1 the action of forming or process of being formed : the formation of the Great Rift Valley.
2 a structure or arrangement of something : a cloud formation.
• a formal arrangement of aircraft in flight or troops : a battle formation | the helicopters hovered overhead in formation.
• Geology an assemblage of rocks or series of strata having some common characteristic.
DERIVATIVES
formational |- sh ənl| adjective
ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin formation-, from formare ‘to form’ (see form ).

Thesaurus
formation
noun
1 the formation of the island's sand ridges emergence, coming into being, genesis, development, evolution, shaping, origination. antonym destruction, disappearance.
2 the formation of a new government establishment, setting up, start, initiation, institution, foundation, inception, creation, inauguration, launch, flotation. antonym dissolution.
3 the aircraft were flying in tight formation configuration, arrangement, pattern, array, alignment, positioning, disposition, order.

Oxford Dictionary + ThesaurusSo the form of a formation seems to be time dependent in that time is required in order to disseminate the order of formation or to create the formation. Its incongruent in that "formation" is both a verb and a noun.

It appears that formation is more of a descriptor and tends to describe the result of an act or the act itself.

How does this apply to information?

Information is "gathered", if you will, along a sequence of events.

For example, let's say Mar's lost half its crust because a 100k sized asteroid hit it.

Let's call that info the first event in a chain of events. ( Although there is more information that leads up to that event, I don't want to get overly boring).

This initial event ends up distributing the results of that Martian impact around the solar system in the form of icy comets made of Martian Sea Water and other tid bits.

Today, the matter that is our brain is effected by the configuration or "formations" on the surface of Mars and by the icy array of comets that pass by from time to time.

So here we see a chain of events that, in our opinion, culminates in the information we receive from our studies about Mars and about Comets.

This shows the formation of the information. It has arrived to our physiological sensors as a collection of data that makes up a particular set of information. The data includes all the events that have taken place up to this time since the big bang or however else the universe started.

Does this help to explain my definition of information?

 

[Gost_D]

"I know we often use the word "thing" to describe just about "everything" but, how can information be defined as a thing? It seems to me that information is more of a quality or perhaps an order."

____________
(1) In my last post (and may be – in others) "thing" isn’t "everything" but "something".
(2) to the definition of the concept "Information" – see some discussion in http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043, version 1, first few pages.
(3) – as to "It seems to me that information is more of a quality or perhaps an order." Because of that the information is everything, it is, of course, a quality and an order also- those are some properties of the information. But, because of the information has utmost infinity of properties, to define the information through the properties is rather ungrateful work.

And – do you read the link above which was pointed out through this thread in 2008 many times?

 

[baywax]

And – do you read the link above which was pointed out through this thread in 2008 many times?

I've read portions of this link already. The english throws me off and pitting materialism and idealism against each other doesn't fit my information set. This is because idealism is a result of a material world, at least, that is my understanding of the sequence.

 

[Gost_D]

I've read portions of this link already. The english throws me off and pitting materialism and idealism against each other doesn't fit my information set. This is because idealism is a result of a material world, at least, that is my understanding of the sequence.

"I've read portions of this link already." – Well! And if you have read the links already totally then text below may be not too necessary to you!

"The english throws me off" – Sorry, there are some problems to me, indeed.
Though that is more relates to the version 1 – there are "lows/laws" "left/ right" and some others faults; in next version seemed a progress?

Else about the versions: the V1 is the first iteration and relates more, to some extent, to a history of the information problem also. Next versions are more relate to specific physics (authors are some physicists, first of all), and – to philosophy.

So - to materialism /idealism problem – that’s to V2-V4 (though – in afct -to V2 only, all next are some physics iterations).

From your post follows that you, it seems, (as, e.g., N. Wiener) are a materialist?
Then among the "portions" should be the conclusion of the link article in question.
Where it is pointed out that there aren’t difference between materialism and idealism if to see on that carefully.
BOTH ARE GROUNDED ONLY ON THE FAITH.
Simply idealists BELIEVE in God’s existence when materialists BELIEVE in God’s absence. And it is impossible to prove any point - that was proved by I. Kant more then 100 years ago.
At that the materialists believe also in the “Nature laws” when the existence of any of this laws is not (and can not be) proved.

So – the Material World, as well as Christian’s, Buddhism’s, Wudu’s – etc. - Worlds – all are some modes of existence/ realization of the Information set, when we – may be sapiens-sapiens – can to walk/percept/ cognize through these Worlds (some one people can walk by some another way then some other one) by using the Consciousness…

 

[MIC]

was there information before time? because with no energy, there is no information

 

[baywax]

was there information before time? because with no energy, there is no information

I couldn't say if energy was around before... energy.

Apparently energy can neither be created nor destroyed so... it sounds like its been around forever.

 

[Gost_D]

To:
- MIC
- baywax

The energy and the time are some parameters of DYNAMIC MODE OF EXISTENCE of some informational structures (IS) (e.g. - of the ISs in our Material World and of the IS "Material World" as a whole) in the set Information. For fixed mode of some IS's existence the time doesn’t exists. The energy is not fundamental value – the fundamental value is the informational time current. Any element of the set Information contains "at the same/ any time" ALL THIS SET in both – in dynamic and fixed modes, etc.
- All that is in the link http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043 with some FAQs/Gost_D comments in this thread - when I a number of times said here already – before taking part in this thread it is necessary to read the link and all 2008 year discussion…

 

[bassplayer142]

As far as I'm concerned energy is information because energy is something and to understand something is to have information of it. If energy is not information then how does it interact with anything else.

 

[Gost_D]

As far as I'm concerned energy is information because energy is something and to understand something is to have information of it. If energy is not information then how does it interact with anything else.

- to write something as "...I'm concerned energy is information..." it is necessary at first to define/ to understand - what is information.
And all I can add else - see, (e.g. There are too many such a posts already in this thread) previous post Gost_D of 15.04. - before taking part in this thread it is necessary to read the link http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043 and all 2008 year discussion.
And -(though this warning is the first in the tread) - the information concept in this link is rather unusual and require some thinking.

 

[cristo]

Can I please remind members that links to unpublished, un-peer-reviewed papers is not permitted, as per the PF rules. Please abide by this, regardless of whether we are in Philosophy or not.