Of course. That's why they are trying to devise an experiment to confirm the conjecture. There is already experimental evidence that meta-physical*1 (immaterial) Information can be converted into physical Energy*2. And, since Einstein's equation postulated that Energy can be converted into Mass (matter), it makes sense to postulate that an Information >> Energy >> Matter experiment would work.Melvin Vopson could've made a mistake in his interpretation and conjecture deriving from Laundauer's principle. . . .
Move over Einstein. — Nils Loc
I considered referring to the Dunning-Kruger effect for that post, but it's so cliché. — Banno
A declaration without supporting explanation is hardly philosophical at all is it. — Benj96
Intereference can't occur between photons travelling at the same velocity. — Benj96
The question is prejudicial, implying that information is only "processed data".I asked the following question of chat GPT:
How can information be fundamental when it is processed data? — universeness
A declaration without supporting explanation is hardly philosophical at all is it. — Benj96
Because you cannot have any individual one component of the 4 (energy, time, matter or space) without the other 3. — Benj96
Potential energy doesn't require matter, space or time. It's just potential. The moment that potential is converted to something "actionable" it requires time, space and matter to "act." — Benj96
There is already experimental evidence that meta-physical*1 (immaterial) Information can be converted into physical Energy*2. — Gnomon
Saying set {t} and set {f} are not subsets of set {t,f} is my attempt to incorporate the wave function into logical expressions. — ucarr
The wave function is already a logical expression, subject to interpretation. This is all very mysterious. — jgill
I'm trying to say that "t" and "f" are not subsets of {t,f} because, being transcendent in the sense of the wave function, they inhabit a cloud of probability before measurement. — ucarr
The question is prejudicial, implying that information is only "processed data". — Gnomon
In essence, information is the result of processing data to extract meaning or insights. — universeness
As a layman, I don't know "what's going on in the experiment". All I know is the conclusion that the scientists inferred from their experiments : that invisible intangible information can be converted into effective Energy and tangible Matter. Empirical physicists seem to be expanding on Einstein's E=MC^2 formula, which explained mathematically how blazing stars can create rocky matter, such as iron, from a gaseous plasma of elementary particles, by means of geometric gravity. Some are even placing Information into the equation and are converting mathematical Data into causal Energy and malleable Matter.At this point this is the only claim that I'd like to know more about but I'm not sure I could ever understand what is going on in the experiment to believe you are conceptually correct. Information can never be non-physically represented. Where does the energy really come from? — Nils Loc
I didn't say that defining Information as "processed data" is prejudicial. In the context of Shannon's practical engineering solution to communication problems, it may be factual. But in the context of a Philosophical understanding of Information, it is prejudicial to imply that Information is only processed data*1.No, it was factual, not prejudicial. Chat GPT pointed out that the 'importance' of processed and interpreted data, allows us to generate meaning. It, like you, protested about the importance of information. It accepted that it was processed data. — universeness
Regarding your question "where does the energy really come from", I have my own personal theory, as postulated in a non-academic thesis. — Gnomon
Landauer's principle is closely related to the resolution of Maxwell's Demon paradox. Maxwell's Demon is a thought experiment proposed by physicist James Clerk Maxwell in the 19th century, which appeared to challenge the second law of thermodynamics.
In the Maxwell's Demon thought experiment, a hypothetical "demon" is described as a tiny, intelligent being capable of sorting fast-moving hot gas molecules from slow-moving cold gas molecules. By opening and closing a tiny door or gate in a partition between two chambers, the demon allows only fast molecules to pass from the hot side to the cold side and slow molecules to pass from the cold side to the hot side, effectively creating a temperature difference without doing any work. This seemed to violate the second law of thermodynamics, which states that heat naturally flows from hot to cold, and it appeared as if the demon was reducing the entropy of the system without expending energy.
Landauer's principle comes into play as a solution to the Maxwell's Demon paradox. Landauer's principle states that erasing information (in this case, the demon's knowledge of the molecule speeds) incurs a minimum energy cost. When the demon observes and records information about the gas molecules (fast or slow), it is essentially increasing its knowledge, which implies a reduction in entropy. When the demon erases this information (to forget which molecules are fast and slow), it must dissipate energy into the environment, thereby increasing the total entropy of the system.
In other words, Landauer's principle implies that the demon's act of erasing information about the gas molecules requires energy, and this energy expenditure ensures that the overall entropy of the system (including the demon and the gas) still obeys the second law of thermodynamics. The reduction in entropy from the sorting process is offset by the increase in entropy due to the energy dissipated during information erasure.
Therefore, Landauer's principle provides a resolution to Maxwell's Demon paradox by showing that the apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics is reconciled when considering the energy cost of information erasure. This insight connects the realm of information theory with thermodynamics and helps maintain the consistency of the laws of thermodynamics. — ChatGPT
The energy comes from the erasure of information but is this reducible to the physics of running inputs through non-reversible logic gates? The input of energy of erasure is proportional to the energy lost as heat. This energy loss doesn't apply to reversible computation since information isn't lost. — Nils Loc
Information is not merely processed data. — Gnomon
I'm trying to imagine energy (the ability to do work) in the complete absence of matter, which I'm not sure makes much sense. This would imply a completely non-material world where whatever constitutes a form of energy is sufficient in-itself for a kind of existence. Though if matter is really just a form of energy, it's all energy dude (and this is not profound). Our ability to understand energy requires everything that informs the understanding (energy as properties of organized matter). — Nils Loc
Yes. Shannon, as an engineer, defined his communication theory of Information (knowledge transmission from mind to mind) in technical terms of physical Entropy (uncertainty ; ignorance). And the inverse (erasure) of Entropy is Energy*1. But that implicit equation of mental meaning with causal power was counter-intuitive to most scientists at the time. Hence, rejected by the non-philosophy-inclined, who were advised to "shut-up" about the metaphysical implications*2, and just "calculate".The energy comes from the erasure of information but is this reducible to the physics of running inputs through non-reversible logic gates? The input of energy of erasure is proportional to the energy lost as heat. This energy loss doesn't apply to reversible computation since information isn't lost. — Nils Loc
The 'absolute' best answer currently available to humans regarding the exact mechanisms and source of human consciousness is 'we don't know.' For me, the best evidence we currently have, suggests that it is a process of the human brain alone. — universeness
Nils, how can we discuss Energy without getting into Physics? Apparently, my posts get too close to the nuts & bolts of sub-atomic physics for your comfort. But my personal philosophical thesis is based on the meta-physics of Physics. As an amateur philosopher, I'm not an expert in the science, so I include links to technical papers by professionals who do understand them. If you are not an expert in these "complex topics" how would you know when I am "glossing-over" something? What you take to be "evasive" may be just complex ideas whizzing over your head. You are free to ignore the stuff that's beyond your grasp. But don't blame it on my use of technical language, that is defined in the footnotes.You seem gloss over interpretations of complex physics topics which I don't think you really understand in trying support your metaphysics. Your language and evasiveness is a red flag for me, suggestive of a kind of sophistry. But it wouldn't matter if everything you said was perfectly coherent, and you knew quantum physics inside and out, it'd be far too complicated for me to follow. — Nils Loc
I'm not an expert in the science, so I include links to technical papers by professionals who do understand them. If you are not an expert in these "complex topics" how would you know when I am "glossing-over" something? — Gnomon
But it's a fertile source of metaphors for philosophical reasoning about the roots of reality. Are you averse to metaphors & analogies drawn from physical fundamentals? :smile: — Gnomon
Was that ironic sarcasm intended as a philosophical critique of some "grand" idea?*1 Or just a knee-jerk response to a personally repugnant idea? Is the hypothesis being scorned pretentious, or just over your head?So much grandiosity. — wonderer1
Yes. but then I would just be parroting the ideas of others, rather than thinking for myself. :smile:"Information is power." You could write a lot of good stuff on this without having to go anywhere near quantum physics or thermodynamics. You don't even need to coin a name for your 'theory' either. — Nils Loc
It seems that you are talking about something like Nagel's "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?"What does it feel like to be energy? — Benj96
But it does not have anything to say about the legitimate scientific/philosophical query we are discussing on this thread : "Could consciousness be a form of energy like the rest?"
The classical science answer would be, not just "no", but "hell no!". Yet the fundamental sub-atomic science answer might be "maybe". — Gnomon
A not so trite answer to "consciousness without particles" would be : the same way we have Energy "without particles that have mass". For example, a photon is usually described, not as energy-per-se, but as a "carrier of energy"*1. It's also described as a "massless particle"*2. But without mass, how can it be a particle of matter? The answer is "it's not". It's merely the not-yet-real Potential for Energy. And that Potential may be what's called "pure energy"*3. But "pure energy" is a mathematical/mental concept, not a material object*4.The question, could consciousness be a form of energy, implies a dichotomy that doesn't make the answer to the question trite/obvious.How do we have consciousness without particles that have mass and why speculate on whether we could if everything around us makes the speculation ridiculous? — Nils Loc
A not so trite answer to "consciousness without particles" would be : the same way we have Energy "without particles that have mass". — Gnomon
So, all I can say at this point is that there are people a lot smarter than me who do not find the Mind : Energy notion ridiculous. — Gnomon
It's not Science that makes "speculation" on the relationship between Mind & Energy "ridiculous", but the ancient metaphysical belief system known as Materialism. That common-sense "objective" worldview did not take the mind of the observer into account. — Gnomon
Closer to the Truth: Does Information Create the Universe? (Youtube) I like Allen Guth's take on the question of whether or not information is fundamental. — Nils Loc
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.