Are you below the right question? — Prishon

Just pretend we’re talking about information.

Weeeellll, aybe like this:

Information is the equalisation of different forms by assigning a number to them.

Information is the equalisation of different forms by assigning a number to them. — Prishon

Would you equalize them necessarily?

What do you think of the mass - energy - information equivalence principle?

Im not sure I follow you. You mean the information in the information paradox concerning black holes? Or how much information is contaied in a mass?

the mass - energy - information equivalence principle?

?

Energy is math. related to entropy. Do you mean this?

mass = energy = information.

I think you mean when converting rest mass to energy. How much energy this gives and thus information?

Damned! Cant download! No rights...

There is a quite a lot of interest in the idea that information is equal to energy and matter. We covered this somewhat earlier in the thread. Seems to work in theory, but has not actually been achieved as yet.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844021004382

2

A mass, say that of an electron-positron pair, can be changed in two massless photons. What can you do with that? You can give more motion, and thus more possible states, to other matter particles. You can ionize an atom, you can warm up a gas.

I am strictly amateur when it comes to physics. I need to go now, but If you get a chance to acquaint yourself with the link above I would love to hear your thoughts sometime. :up:

It's a fact though that all particles in our universe are matter ones and not antimatter (though the rishon model, of which Im a big fan, tells the contrary). If all mass in the universe were converted in energy (photons) were would the mass be to let the photons work on? Would the photons be pure information (energy)?

Have a nice day!

Or night...

I have a short theory of consciousness (https://www.iamdamir.com/what-is-consciousness). — Pop

Are you Damir Ivancevic? :smile:
Anyway, I will read it, because consciousness is always a hot subject! And I'll come back to you ...

Speaking of Romanticism, let’s get back to Peirce. — Joshs

The original issue here was phenomenology’s roots in Cartesian dualism and representationalism.

Romanticism is then the more general dualistic response to Enlightenment materialism - an effort to appeal to the reality of the ideal and sublime.

Peirce’s is an anti-Cartesian view. He called it vicious individualism, among other things. He opposed both monism and dualism with his triadic systems epistemology and ontology - his pragmatism and his semiotics.

Peirce might follow in Kant and Hegel’s footsteps in developing their antimonies and dialectics into a full blooded story of hierarchical development. But he went way beyond in pin-pointing the mediating role of a sign relation that forges a self along with its world. As I say, he showed epistemology and ontology to be two versions on the one rational structure of relations.

The present argument is that he does not move as far from an Enlightenment rationalism as his more committed followers claim.’
(Andrew Stables)

Sounds awfully Romantic to me. — Joshs

So the conclusion is that Peirce is essentially still a rationalist - ie; argued a structuralist case. And you want to say that sounds like idealism-tinged metaphysics to you?

Cool.

In other words - who does the thinking? - the thing that integrates the information - my best guess is the anthropic principle. What is your best guess? The anthropic principle integrates the information, but acts on different information ( unique consciousness ) ?? :smile: — Pop

I'm currently reading The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, by Astronomer Barrow & Physicist Tipler. I was superficially aware that AP was a religious and philosophical position on the human-friendly universe. But I didn't know that it was also a serious scientific hypothesis. This book is 700 pages of dense philosophical reasoning, and scientific analysis, but no overtly religious assertions at all. The early chapters give an exhaustive history of the concept from Ancient Greece to Quantum Cosmology. And the middle sections are full of complex mathematical expressions (equations), and technical analysis. So, I have been impressed with the serious thought that has been put into a notion that has been marginalized by post-Enlightenment Science.

This 1986 book (2009 reprint) has a lot to say about Information, and Information Processing. But, so far, nothing about actively Integrating Information. Anyway, a "principle" in science or religion is essentially an article of faith, or at least an axiom, that is taken to be a "brute fact", as opposed to a Ruler's regulation, with a Reason behind the Rule. Like the universe, it just is, and we don't know for sure why it is what it is. So, the Anthropic Principle is accepted by some as almost a Law of Physics. But it is not accepted by those who deny a human-favoring agency, such as a God, who might mandate such a specific reason for being. Consequently AP, the numerous technical coincidences that point to a world designed to produce living and thinking beings, is controversial primarily due to the implication of an intentional cosmic Agency, as contrasted with Random Chance hitting a jackpot, that is only incidentally favorable to egotistical beings.

So, the question remains : is this Principle like the Law of Gravity, which tends to aggregate and integrate stars & planet, but without any planning, or is it more like a Program that is intentionally designed to work toward a pre-defined Objective? I happen to prefer the notion of a Cosmic Program, with built-in directions, but no pre-determined Final Answer. Which is why I have been forced to assume, as an axiom, that there must be a Programmer or Enformer or Rule-maker to decide which direction this experiment in self-organization will go. In other words, to give the program the Means toward a specified End. Your answer to "who does the thinking?" is a human-oriented Principle. But how does an abstract Principle think and act, unless it is also a free agency with goals and intentions? Does Reason overrule Chance? :smile:


Principle :
1. a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.
2. a general scientific theorem or law that has numerous special applications across a wide field.
___Oxford

Brute Fact :
In contemporary philosophy, a brute fact is a fact that has no explanation.

Laws are general rules and ideas that adhere to the nature of the universe while principles describe specific phenomena that require clarity and explanation.
https://sciencing.com/difference-between-law-and-principle-in-physics-12760897.html

Objective :
A fundamental objective is an end that you are trying to achieve · A means objective is a way of achieving an end or fundamental objective ·
https://www.structureddecisionmaking.org/steps/objectives/objectives2b/

It's quippy, but it's wrong as Pop pointed out. The wavefunction is the total information about a system, that's what I had in mind.

It's quippy, but it's wrong as Pop pointed out. — Kenosha Kid

I'm not sure what your reference is to. So wavefunction is total information about a system. Is information then a mathematical construct or a physical reality?

Would you equalize them necessarily? — Pop

Yes. Every book contains the same AMOUNT of information. Considering equal books with an equal amount of symbols. The Shannon entropy as well as the thermodynamic entropy are equal. But the books are very different, if they are a book on non-perturbative quantum gravity and a book on the philosophy of science by Paul Feyerabend.

I would give the choice of construct or physical matter like this:

1) BRAIN(mental content) or BRAIN(information as a mathematical construct) or
BRAIN(wavefunction as a mathematical construct)
2) Information is physical matter.
3) something else.

Cool, where those states are assumed equiprobable, and in which case the analogy according to the linked Wikipedia page is that information is the _number_of messages available to... send? ... store? ... explore? ... whatever, but the cardinality of the message space. The number of alternatives. — bongo fury

Entropy is a function of the number of possible messages. Information is still afaik the content of those messages, i.e. the values of the degrees of freedom (011000100111100) rather than the number of degrees of freedom (15).

sounds like any old woo. Please explain. — bongo fury

E.g. the state space vector, wavefunction, binary readout, whatever. The thing that physically encodes the information.

Is it like, the actual message sent along a channel would have its own surprise value, its Shannon 'self-information', not specified by the source's entropy, i.e. the Shannon information of the whole message space? — bongo fury

The message space isn't the message afaik (assuming a parallel with state space -- I'm not sure I've ever used the phrase "message space" in a sentence before). The message space is a map of all the degrees of freedom of any such message. The particular message is a coordinate in that space.

Shannon information is the particular things we'd need to know about something to e.g. build a copy or predict its future behaviour. Shannon entropy is essentially the number of things we'd need to know (or rather a function of that number).

Can I choose "BRAIN: Wavefunction as a physical construct"?

The original issue here was phenomenology’s roots in Cartesian dualism and representationalism. — apokrisis

As Thompson’s recent reappraisal of Husserl indicates, it was never phenomenology that trafficked in Cartesianism and representationalism, it was the early Anglo-American interpreters of Husserl who imposed their own bias on phenomenology. That is why phenomenology is only now having its day in the sun for those in anglo-american philosophy and psychology who are looking for support for their anti-foundationalist, anti-rationalist models.

Romanticism is then the more general dualistic response to Enlightenment materialism - an effort to appeal to the reality of the ideal and sublime. — apokrisis

But Hegel , a romantic , was not a dualist.

Peirce might follow in Kant and Hegel’s footsteps in developing their antimonies and dialectics into a full blooded story of hierarchical development. But he went way beyond in pin-pointing the mediating role of a sign relation that forges a self along with its world. As I say, he showed epistemology and ontology to be two versions on the one rational structure of relations. — apokrisis

Right, he repackaged Hegel’s synthesis of mind and matter, and swapped out the former’s dialectical rationalist logic with his triadic rationalist logic.

So the conclusion is that Peirce is essentially still a rationalist - ie; argued a structuralist case. And you want to say that sounds like idealism-tinged metaphysics to you? — apokrisis

Hegel’s Rationalism is a form of German idealism.

Entropy is a function of the number of possible messages. — Kenosha Kid

No. Entropy is a function of the possible permutations (S=ln(N)). Not every permutation contains a message.

Information is still afaik the content of those messages — Kenosha Kid

Again no. The information contained is not the content. Its just a number.

Shannon information is the particular things we'd need to know about something to e.g. build a copy or predict its future behaviour. Shannon entropy is essentially the number of things we'd need to know (or rather a function of that number). — Kenosha Kid

No and yes. You use 2 different definitions of Shannon entropy here.

I happen to prefer the notion of a Cosmic Program, with built-in directions, but no pre-determined Final Answer — Gnomon

But how does an abstract Principle think and act, unless it is also a free agency with goals and intentions? Does Reason overrule Chance? — Gnomon

Evolution is a brilliant mind, imo. It takes everything into account, and then has all the time in the universe to see what survives and what doesn't. In the end the best possible solution, under the circumstances, is presented every time. I normally think perfection is impossible, but evolution has got to be pretty close! Similarly AP, ensures that in Gnomon's pockets of the universe, a phase state of order occurs, due to the underlying self organization in such states. That ordering occurs is determined, but with a slight element of randomness such that we cannot foresee exactly what the ordering result will be, but obviously, the right elements found themselves in the right circumstances at the right time, is how I see it. So I tend to think life is determined, but exactly where and what time, is random. But we have spoken at length about this before. :smile:

The book sounds fascinating, but there is always so much to learn on my list. If you find anything of import, please let me know.

What do you think about the definition? https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/583523

"The wavefunction is the total information about a system,"

Almost correct. The wavefunction contains only information about the chances where to find a particle. Or the chances of finding a momentum in a certain range. The total information about a system is dependent on the configuration of the particles wrt to each other. But if there is no interaction with the systems surroundings, this wavefunction wavers out in phasespace (well, the position part wavers out while the momentum part collapses). After a while all useful information will be lost. The chances are conserved though (unitarity). Information about these chances, or better, the particles with their chances are conserved whenn falling into a black hole.