Can or should we count information as physical entity?

[1x0]

Every physical entity present a certain level of information.

 

Information exist beyond the observable physical reality (metaphysical values as consciousness, intelligence, knowledge, personality etc)

 

Does/should physical descriptions count with the presence of information?

 

Can/should we count information as physical entity?

Edited May 21, 2015 by 1x0

[Strange]

Can/should we count information as physical entity?

 

What properties does it have, and how do you measure them?

[1x0]

 

What properties does it have, and how do you measure them?

Can we look at matter as matterialized information?

 

Mathematics? Measure the presented value in proportion to nothing and in proportion to everything?

[Strange]

Can we look at matter as matterialized information?

 

You tell me. What properties does information have that become "materialized"? How much mass does information have?

 

Also, what definition of information are you using?

Edited May 21, 2015 by Strange

[1x0]

 

You tell me. What properties does information have that become "materialized"? How much mass does information have?

 

Also, what definition of information are you using?

The will of existence maybe?

 

I mean if evolution is real then it has to be a continous development from the smalles physical entity (maybe nothing) towards the physically presented values. Or?

 

The complex internet as the weight of a strawberry?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/8865093/Internet-weighs-the-same-as-a-strawberry.html

[Phi for All]

I mean if evolution is real then it has to be a continous development from the smalles physical entity (maybe nothing) towards the physically presented values.

 

Why?

[Strange]

The will of existence maybe?

 

What properties does that have? How would you measure them?

 

 

I mean if evolution is real then it has to be a continous development from the smalles physical entity (maybe nothing) towards the physically presented values.

 

No it doesn't.

[1x0]

 

Why?

Does space evolving? - Yes, everything diverge. Space expands. As we currently understand started from an infinitly small point and evolved to its current size.

 

Does time evolving? - I would say so. You can not go back to the past, Nothing will be younger. I would say that time is evolving and present a linear development since the beginning of time. If I understood it right we count it since the big bang. It evolved to 13.8 billion years as the age of our Universe

 

Does information evolving? Yes I think so. At the beginning there were information was about the properties of space, time, energy, matter. Now after 13.8 billion years later information is about complex biological systems with conscience and other metaphysical properies. I would say that information evolved.

 

Does energy and matter evolving? Slippery question. If the other 3 is evolving why this 2 would not evolve? I was thinking if it is true that we have a gravitational constand and this constant is existing in expanding space doesn´t that mean that the amount of energy/matter in the system has to increase to maintain a stabil gravitational constant? Does this gravitational constant the same as it was 13.8 billion years ago? Can we measure any changes in this gravitational constant?

[Strange]

Does space evolving? - Yes, everything diverge. Space expands. As we currently understand started from an infinitly small point and evolved to its current size.

 

I assumed that "if evolution is real" was referring to biological evolution. Apparently I was wrong.

 

If you are just using the word "evolution" to mean "change" then it is probably reasonable to say that (almost) everything changes. Hardly a useful insight. Not even an insight, really.

[StringJunky]

Information seems to be a property of things. In the absence of things, information can't exist. A bit like energy.

[Phi for All]

Can we look at matter as matterialized information?

 

This was your answer to the question, "What properties does information have?" So not an answer.

 

You're pretty far out in the weeds on this one (for a mainstream physics section), so I think you really need to clarify what you mean by information. Do you make a distinction between data and information? To me, data is out there, waiting to be turned into information. If data is used to inform someone of something, then it becomes information. Information requires something or someone to be informed, imo. And information seems to be subjective. An object might contain a million bits of data, but only have a hundred bits of information useful for me.

 

And I agree with Strange, you're confusing the issue with your references to "evolution". I know this isn't the biology section, but "evolve" has specific meanings, none of which you need here. As Strange mentions, that things change is hardly a great insight.

 

I don't think you can turn information into a material. As StringJunky mentions, it's a property of something else, which may or may not be a physical entity itself. I can't come over and borrow a cup of information. I wonder if it isn't an emergent property as well, small bits of data combining to make something bigger that has informational value the data alone doesn't have. As far as information changing with time, I think this is absolutely true, because the entity being informed is changing with time as well. However, I think the data remains the same. Only how the data is interpreted as information changes.

[StringJunky]

 

This was your answer to the question, "What properties does information have?" So not an answer.

 

You're pretty far out in the weeds on this one (for a mainstream physics section), so I think you really need to clarify what you mean by information. Do you make a distinction between data and information? To me, data is out there, waiting to be turned into information. If data is used to inform someone of something, then it becomes information. Information requires something or someone to be informed, imo. And information seems to be subjective. An object might contain a million bits of data, but only have a hundred bits of information useful for me.

 

And I agree with Strange, you're confusing the issue with your references to "evolution". I know this isn't the biology section, but "evolve" has specific meanings, none of which you need here. As Strange mentions, that things change is hardly a great insight.

 

I don't think you can turn information into a material. As StringJunky mentions, it's a property of something else, which may or may not be a physical entity itself. I can't come over and borrow a cup of information. I wonder if it isn't an emergent property as well, small bits of data combining to make something bigger that has informational value the data alone doesn't have. As far as information changing with time, I think this is absolutely true, because the entity being informed is changing with time as well. However, I think the data remains the same. Only how the data is interpreted as information changes.

I never thought about information vs data when i wrote that. Yes, I agree, data is what you construct information with. I think you can think of information as a 'pattern' of data arranged via a medium, which can be transposed to another medium.

Edited May 21, 2015 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

I never thought about information vs data when i wrote that. Yes, I agree, data is what you construct information with. I think you can think of information as a 'pattern' of data arranged via a medium, which can be transposed to another medium.

 

I keep thinking about an object (any object, but let's use a bucket of water), which you and I both examine independently. There is more data about that object than you or I alone could turn into usable information, that others could glean more or less from. Also, there are data that you could turn into information that I could not, and vice-versa, just because of the differences in our knowledge.

 

Information seems to be subjective, but I suppose physical material can be that way. A bucket of water could be hydration for you, and a counterweight for me, and an alarm clock for someone else. I don't see what classifying information as a physical entity does to make anything clearer, better, or more understandable.

[StringJunky]

 

...I don't see what classifying information as a physical entity does to make anything clearer, better, or more understandable.

I agree, Its not physical.

[lucagrabacr]

Information is just how we perceive and try to understand things, and data is just sets of physical matters put together to portray information in ways that we understand. Therefore it's more psychological than physical since our perception of things is governed by how our brain and mind works.

 

Physical matters can be used to store and portray data or information, but data or information themselves can't materialize into physical objects unless there is an instrument, with sets of parameters, that works on constructing physical objects based off those data or information.

 

Say, a brick tower is 3 meters tall and weighs 10 kilograms. That information can't materialize into physical objects by itself. But we can use physical objects to store that information, and from that information we can materialize that information into physical objects by building the said tower, or by creating a machine that can build it.

 

You do need physical matters to store data and information, though, (A piece of paper, electronic storage, our brain) and to convey it (light, soundwave, radio wave, electronic means, and the likes)

 

Everything is physical, even those that are oftenly called as metaphysical need physical matters to exist.

Edited May 22, 2015 by lucagrabacr

[BR-549]

No, never.

There is only one entity in the cosmos.

Charge.

All force, energy and mass is exchanged thru the rotational resonance of charge.

That's all there is........nothing more.

It's actually quite simple and elegant.

Information, mathematics and scientists are ignored.

Only force and balance are obeyed.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Please stick to mainstream science when responding on the main fora. Promotion of personal ideas and speculation can be seen as hijacking and, if repeated, could lead to sanctions

[BR-549]

Imatfaal,

Please pardon me. I am new to the forum and still concerning the tone.

That said, with the other posts on this thread, I am confused by your comment.

Do you object to the word entity? If I substituted the word object, for the word entity, would that be ok?

Or are you objecting to my premise, which is there is only one kind of stuff or material in the cosmos?

One member can premise, that information is an object................but another member can not counter with...............it can not be, because there is only one object?

Please clarify so I don't offend again.

Thank you.

[Delta1212]

 

Imatfaal,

 

Please pardon me. I am new to the forum and still concerning the tone.

 

That said, with the other posts on this thread, I am confused by your comment.

 

Do you object to the word entity? If I substituted the word object, for the word entity, would that be ok?

 

Or are you objecting to my premise, which is there is only one kind of stuff or material in the cosmos?

 

One member can premise, that information is an object................but another member can not counter with...............it can not be, because there is only one object?

 

Please clarify so I don't offend again.

 

Thank you.

One member asked a question about how something should be classified. To some extent, all classifications are arbitrary, some are just better justified than others. I don't think there is much justification for defining either "information" or "physical entity" in such a way that the former can be categorized as the latter, but it's a perfectly legitimate philosophical question.

 

What you did, by contrast, was make a testable claim about how things work that doesn't fit with the empirical evidence we currently have available to us.

 

There is most certainly a difference between asking a question that doesn't have an objectively correct answer, and making a claim that is most certainly testable but does not fall in line with mainstream theory based on current evidence. The latter belongs in Speculations.

[conway]

Information does not exist without a medium. It then posses empirical qualities through extension of the empirical medium. The symbol of any given number has a physical space, likewise it contains an inherent amount of information that represents that space to an observer.

[imatfaal]

 

snipped...

 

Please clarify so I don't offend again.

Thank you.

 

 

 

One member asked a question about how something should be classified. To some extent, all classifications are arbitrary, some are just better justified than others. I don't think there is much justification for defining either "information" or "physical entity" in such a way that the former can be categorized as the latter, but it's a perfectly legitimate philosophical question.

 

What you did, by contrast, was make a testable claim about how things work that doesn't fit with the empirical evidence we currently have available to us.

 

There is most certainly a difference between asking a question that doesn't have an objectively correct answer, and making a claim that is most certainly testable but does not fall in line with mainstream theory based on current evidence. The latter belongs in Speculations.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

^^^ What he said.

[1x0]

Information is data about the level of organization, structure, presence of any physical entity in a given spacetime moment.

 

Information can travel in space as everything we perceive reaches us with a time delay. Basically we make sense of the moments of pasts with our collected and evolved understanding in our present moment. We are able to mirror, extract and present information from any observed physical entity.

 

The biological code our DNA is a result of billion years of physical and biophysical evolution where most of the atoms/electrons have changed but the original informations are present and evolved. So basically information is a physical entity presented through the physical reality.

 

Therefor I ask does Information is a physical entity. Can information be matterialized? Computation?

 

How you express this information on the language of mathematics? Which reference points should you use for physically correct mathematical expressions?

Edited June 13, 2015 by 1x0

[conway]

It is my opinion that zero is the ONLY reference point. But it then requires that zero exist in varying amounts. I offer a speculation for this. It is then that zero is (undefined value + defined space). If then we further define the "defined space" of zero, then we literally have varying amounts of zero. Of which one can say after X-infinitesimal has been reached on the approach to zero, then the observer will institute a new zero. That is 0_-1 as opposed to 0_1, which is the first 0 on the other side of X-infinite. It is then that numbers are restarted with 1. Varying amounts of zero. For further information see Relative Mathematics in speculation.

 

This only works supposing that the space of "information" is infinitesimally small. Which I think a safe supposing. As well as noting that it is only from our perspective or 0₀ that the "space" of information is "small".

[StringJunky]

Information is data about the level of organization, structure, presence of any physical entity in a given spacetime moment.

 

Information can travel in space as everything we perceive reaches us with a time delay. Basically we make sense of the moments of pasts with our collected and evolved understanding in our present moment. We are able to mirror, extract and present information from any observed physical entity.

 

The biological code our DNA is a result of billion years of physical and biophysical evolution where most of the atoms/electrons have changed but the original informations are present and evolved. So basically information is a physical entity presented through the physical reality.

 

Therefor I ask does Information is a physical entity. Can information be matterialized? Computation?

 

How you express this information on the language of mathematics? Which reference points should you use for physically correct mathematical expressions?

Information cannot exist without some .physical structure representing it. Is that what you are trying to say?

[1x0]

Information cannot exist without some .physical structure representing it. Is that what you are trying to say?

A physical structure can not exist without information on which that physical structure is built on. Can a physical structure exist without the properties provided by the Laws of Nature? The question is what was first the physical reality or did information evolved to the observable physical reality?

 

If a complex physical entity (like a subatomic particle or a singularity) exist at the beginning of time it means that this physical entity would be present with space, time, energy, matter(mass?) and information. For something like this to exist at the beginning of time we would need an almighty entity determining and creating all the properties of the observed physical entity which in my point of view sounds quite unlikely. Specially that the almighty entity would have to originate from somewhere too.....

 

But then where this enormous observable reality originates from?

 

The question is: What is the smalles possible physical entity after nothing? A thought? A will of existence? A glimps of constiousness which started the evolution of space and time? Can this consciousness be the origin of our and everything else´s consiousness? Can expanding space be responsilbe for the appearance of energy? Can we say that intelligence(conscious information) develops with the system?

 

Aren´t we materialized conscious information?

 

Can we follow back our current physical appearance to the beginning of times?

 

In which form the first information could be present that it can fit to Einsteins thoughts? Conscious empty space with a rate of evolution: c2? Can expanding space determine, regulate and direct the further evolution of our universe and transmit the evolving information in it? Can be that the Laws of Nature have evolved? In other words: Can It be that the Laws of Nature haven´t been present at the beginning as we observe it today but a more a simple version of it?

 

 

Does the comlex physical and mathematical axiomatisation had had to be present at the first moment of existence or is it enought that the first consciousness appear with space and determine the rate of expansion of space? Then comes the evolution of energy in proportion to expanding empty space (call it dark...matter?)

 

Isn´t it an Evolution with a beginning and a current common moment of now where the size of the system with all of its components provide an exact value?

 

Could this value be expressed with the mathematical tool?

Edited June 14, 2015 by 1x0