The Nature of Energy: A Philosophical Perspective

[Hurkyl]

I am not talking about individual events, but "sets" of events. The "set" {A,A,A,A,A} has less "variety" (thus information) than the "set" {A,B,C,A,D}. The first set has variety of one element, the second set has variety of four elements.

So you are equating "variety" with "information".

That doesn't make sense to me -- if I flip a nickel and a penny. Surely you would agree that describing the outcomes would be two bits of information?

So, I don't see why one would think {H, H} conveys less information than {H, T} -- in fact, I would say exactly the opposite! {H, H} completely describes the outcome of our experiment, but if the describe the outcome as {H, T} we still have no idea which coin was heads, and which coin was tails.


Oh, hrm. Maybe you're thinking complexity theory-like ideas: {A, A, A, A, A} is certainly less complex than {A, B, C, A, D}. But this answers a different question! There are two ways to talk about them:

(1) How much information does each set convey?
(2) How much information is required to describe each set?

And I think they are entirely different questions. (You're talking about (2))

 

[quantumcarl]

OK, but if you read the premise of my example, you see that A - E have identical energy--this was a given. Think of billiard balls, each can be assumed to have identical energy. So, if I put together into one set five billiard balls such that they number {1,1,1,1,1}, this set has less variety (thus information) than the set {1, 4, 6, 1, 9}. In this way, the two sets have identical energy content yet they convey different amounts of information. Thus the reason for my comment that energy may not always = information, for "sets" of things.

So the pool balls have different numbers on them and carry higher or lower theoretical values, but the mass etc... of each pool ball is practially identical to the next and so is the energy of each ball.

The pool balls in the "NNNNNNN" set qualify as being part of the set by each ball containing the same amount of energy.

In otherwords each ball can be measured in terms of mass, weight, volume, density and many other measurments and that will help the observer to arrive at similar dimensions for each ball that will describe indentical energy in each pool ball... and thus allow the determination that this group of balls is a set.

Here one would imagine that upon observing a set of "NNNNNNN" we are receiving the same information as one would observe in a single "N". But this cannot be the case because of a number of determiners.

There is still the information of each individual pool ball and then there is the information inherent in the various combinations of individuals... such as "NN" "NNN" "N N"... and so on. So that there are "subsets" within any given "set"

You can see when the scads of information from one ball is in contact with the information of a member of its set... there begins an exponential growth in the amount of information being expressed.

This multiplication is caused by the merging of data that is unique and similar to each individual pool ball. They produce hybrid information and thus there is more and more activity.

This would be where we refer to the "greater than the sum of the parts" debate and see if it is caused by the merging and hybridization of unique data.

Its a bit like the reproduction cycle of information... in the case of information the great great great great great great great grandparents are still kickin' around.

 

[disturbed1]

quote: This would be where we refer to the "greater than the sum of the parts" debate and see if it is caused by the merging and hybridization of unique data.

if we want to debate merging and hybridization of information, We must first separate information into its forms. real and unreal... whereas any interpretation of information can be misread, but it had its original form that will prevail. In other words, reality holds true information. If we truly want to understand information and its parts we must focus on real information. unreal information is held in the interpretation of the receiver. this misread interpretation is lost in time. although it does have other values seen in everyday life, it will not last. real information is constant.

view this site for an example of merging information
www.allagashmaine.net[/URL]

reply here please

 

[Outlandish_Existence]

Existence = energy; Energy = existence

Yes... information = energy. Regardless if the information is false or real. Fallacy and honesty are only a deduction of human reasoning... the information that was being discussed here was in reference to the general meaning of information and I believe it was being asked in scientific terms.. Everything is energy. Even if I lie to you... the energy that is in being (or existing) is still here. ALL THINGS are of and require energy. Information only comes in one universal form; "real" existing energy. All the information that we desire already exists, it's just a matter of humans finally understanding how to decipher it and realizing exactly what it is that we should be concentrating on. Science is a studious marvel. It's not the characteristics of man that we should be aiming at, it's the natural, unblemished, lacking conceptualizations of consistencies, knowing that all things are and must be, and the devoid of judgment personality within the surrounding universe that is without the human desire to adjudicate right from wrong.

 

[Mixolydian]

Energy can hold information, as light is a form of energy, and with fiber optics we get information to travel with light at its speed to us quickly.

 

[disturbed1]

has anyone taken a look at the example on this site? www.allagashmaine.net[/URL]

It is a version of the cropcircle. it appears to me that the energy pattern is relevant to the movement of the field. this would lead me to believe that probability could be taken out of quantum mechanics. of course some way to monitor subatomic particles, in their natural state, would need to be established. not just simply smashing them together, where this is a rather random act in the first place.

 

[Gost_D]

The information is very specific mathematical set, when matter, energy, consciousness, religious phenomena, etc. – are some realizations of the Information. Details – see http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043

 

[baywax]

Energy can hold information, as light is a form of energy, and with fiber optics we get information to travel with light at its speed to us quickly.

Yes, but the light itself is information about the source from which it came, it is also a package of information about light and the speed of light and it carries several billions of other bits of info about waves, photons, wave/particle duality etc...

 

[Lord Ping]

Interesting topic. In reply to thread itself, I would have thought it's fairly clear that not all energy is information, given that for something to be information it has to be processed by a mind, but we have no trouble with the idea that energy can exist outside human experience (e.g. if everyone closed their eyes, there would still be light.).

But perhaps I am not construing 'information' in the technical sense you require.

 

[baywax]

Interesting topic. In reply to thread itself, I would have thought it's fairly clear that not all energy is information, given that for something to be information it has to be processed by a mind, but we have no trouble with the idea that energy can exist outside human experience (e.g. if everyone closed their eyes, there would still be light.).

But perhaps I am not construing 'information' in the technical sense you require.

I thought the same way about this. But I then wanted to see information as configuration and process. There is no need for it to be interpreted by a "mind". It would be anthropocentric of us to think that information is only information when it is processed cognitively.

Let's look at gravity. It is a type of information that effects the path of light. Here, the information generated by gravity... or that IS gravity... acts to change the path of light. The light, being another form of information, acts according to the influence generated by the gravity.

Lets look at some other examples. I have one more. Friction is a form of information that will act, when processed by interaction with a match, to create fire. When the two packettes of information - friction - sulfur and other components of a match head - are brought together you see flame or fire, heat, and light. So, here, the interaction of two types of (potential) energy or established packages of information spawn heat and light which are two more examples of energy or information.

 

[baywax]

Defining information:

• a message received and understood
• data: a collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn; "statistical data"
• knowledge acquired through study or experience or instruction
• (communication theory) a numerical measure of the uncertainty of an outcome;
"the signal contained thousands of bits of information"
• formal accusation of a crime

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

When the information contained in a sound disassembles the information that is a wine glass can we say that the wine glass has "received the message" of the sound and has understood it so well that it has completely gone to pieces in an attempt to re-configure itself to the configuration of the sound. Is this far fetched? Is it so anti-anthropocentric that is has become anthropomorphic?

 

[Gost_D]

"Defining information:

Quote:
• a message received and understood
• data: a collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn; "statistical data"
• knowledge acquired through study or experience or instruction
• (communication theory) a numerical measure of the uncertainty of an outcome;
"the signal contained thousands of bits of information"
• formal accusation of a crime
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn"


Once again. The information is not only "a message received and understood" – and all others points in the "definition" given above can be drown, in fact, to that - since all points implicitly require somebody "sapiens" and mean "a message…".

ANY INFORMATION – as a data – IS OBJECTIVE. E.g. the dinosaurs didn’t know that the atoms exist, but the atom and full information about atoms existed in the dinosaurs’ times. And so was earlier – even when our World atoms, as well as our World on the whole, didn’t exist at all.

SO, if we want to define the information it becomes clear, that the information concept SHOULD BE SUPPLEMENTED WITH THE NOTION RELATING TO THE INFORMATION EXISTENCE – the information is the specific infinite mathematical set that always exists.
Details – (was already in the post Gost_D of 02.25.08, 02:15) - see http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043

 

[baywax]

"Defining information:

Quote:
• a message received and understood
• data: a collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn; "statistical data"
• knowledge acquired through study or experience or instruction
• (communication theory) a numerical measure of the uncertainty of an outcome;
"the signal contained thousands of bits of information"
• formal accusation of a crime
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn"


Once again. The information is not only "a message received and understood" – and all others points in the "definition" given above can be drown, in fact, to that - since all points implicitly require somebody "sapiens" and mean "a message…".

ANY INFORMATION – as a data – IS OBJECTIVE. E.g. the dinosaurs didn’t know that the atoms exist, but the atom and full information about atoms existed in the dinosaurs’ times. And so was earlier – even when our World atoms, as well as our World on the whole, didn’t exist at all.

SO, if we want to define the information it becomes clear, that the information concept SHOULD BE SUPPLEMENTED WITH THE NOTION RELATING TO THE INFORMATION EXISTENCE – the information is the specific infinite mathematical set that always exists.
Details – (was already in the post Gost_D of 02.25.08, 02:15) - see http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043

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?

 

[Pythagorean]

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.

 

[Lord Ping]

I thought the same way about this. But I then wanted to see information as configuration and process. There is no need for it to be interpreted by a "mind". It would be anthropocentric of us to think that information is only information when it is processed cognitively.

Let's look at gravity. It is a type of information that effects the path of light. Here, the information generated by gravity... or that IS gravity... acts to change the path of light. The light, being another form of information, acts according to the influence generated by the gravity.

Lets look at some other examples. I have one more. Friction is a form of information that will act, when processed by interaction with a match, to create fire. When the two packettes of information - friction - sulfur and other components of a match head - are brought together you see flame or fire, heat, and light. So, here, the interaction of two types of (potential) energy or established packages of information spawn heat and light which are two more examples of energy or information.

It sounds like your view is that, when an event has been causally affected by another event, it has been "informed" about how to occur - even if this information is inaccessible to human beings.

When you say things like "friction is a form of information" I think you use "information" in the way most people would use "cause". I think "cause" is the clearer term to use, as it doesn't risk implying that there is any knowledge being communicated here between inanimate objects.

I don't know where you picked up this usage of "information" - perhaps it's a kind of euphemism, used by certain physicists who know that causation is a tricky area philosophically.

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

 

[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.