Energy/Math Discussion

[PGTips]

Energy is not a human perception, unlike information. No matter wether someone "comprehends" an objects energy, the object has that energy, since energy is "the ability to do work" and an object has that ability regardless of your view. A piece of paper with mathematics on it might mean something to me, to my friend who does philosophy it might be just squiggles, no information. Similarly a paragraph of french means nothing to me. I see patterns in that I know the letters, but they have no meaning to me, I do not gain information from it.

As VelocideX says, information cannot be energy because energy is universally conserved, while information is not.

Information in the modern sense is energy. You are looking at it right as you read the screen.

That isn't true. Heat energy is the increasing of atomic kinetic energy, but it is random energy, no information is passed in warming up a block of ice by dropping it into boiling water.

Energy is required to gain information because to order the neurons within our brain or to order ink onto a piece of paper means that you (locally) increase order in a system, and that requires energy. This energy is not the information, neither is the information energy, one is required to do the other. Saying they are the same is like saying high speed is a car. You will need a car to get to 70mph, but the car itself is not high speed, just a means to an end.

 

[Slaughterhousefive42]

You're telling me trees and beetles don't take in information? They don't comprehend it but they still take both in and react. Energy and information ride in tandem.
Even though the squigles don't MEAN anything, they are at least a priori information.

Information is telling you that energy is universally conserved. They are inseparable.

 

[PGTips]

Information is telling you that energy is universally conserved. They are inseparable.

I edited my post to include something else.

What is heat energy? Its random kinetic energy on an atomic scale. No information is passed to a system when it is warmed, yet energy is.

 

[Grim]

What about DNA? Is there any reason why it is more of an energy system then it is an information system?

You are right, it is an energy system as well as an information system. But the fact still remains that for something to be considered 'information' there has to be a conscious interpretation of it. In essense we are just playing semantics here.

For example if you look up at the sky on a dark night you see an immense amount of stars in the sky. Those stars are energy systems that are there whether we see them or not. By observing them however we assimilate our perception into ideas. Like constellations, the expansion of the universe, and any other Astronomy topic you can think of. However if we never look at them and never bother to extract infomation from them, then they are simply energy systems with no particular meaning. Like I said before, its just semantics and all we are arguing about here is the definition of what the term 'information' really means.

 

[Slaughterhousefive42]

^^What he said...plus the recognition that all sorts of life deals with information and energy, whether we humans comprehend it or not.

 

[Grim]

You're telling me trees and beetles don't take in information? They don't comprehend it but they still take both in and react. Energy and information ride in tandem.
Even though the squigles don't MEAN anything, they are at least a priori information.

Information is telling you that energy is universally conserved. They are inseparable.

This is of course my opinion and is cannot be scientifically proven, but just because flora is a different form of life than us it does not mean that it has no csoncsiousness. It might be a different level of concsiousness or something to that extent. I believe that all life has a connection to some form of consciousness. In my opinion consciousness is not an epiphenominon of the brain, I think there are other systems in the universe from which awareness or consciusness could arise, we know too little about the universe to say that consciousness could only come from the lifeforms that we attribute it to.

And as far as beetles go, what makes you think that they don't comprehend it? A different level of awareness is not nevessarily a complete lack of it.

My apologies if part of my response is somewhat off-topic, lets not turn this into an argument about higher consciousness, there are plenty of other threads on that subject, I was just using it to illustrate my point.

 

[yougene]

Going back to the original post. If looked from the perspective that consciousness arises from the interaction of an organism and it's environment, it seems scientifically sound to say that "Vibes", "Auras", etc... could flow from human to human through various waves known in Physics(and possibly through some unknown to physics). These vibes are in the air, for lack of a better way of putting it.

 

[skjalff]

hippies

 

[Grim]

hippies

Hippies just emit the body odor auras :D

 

[Slaughterhousefive42]

Dude, Ad hominem attacks do nothing but draw negative energy to your logic, man.

 

[David]

^^^ok, so C-H compounds can undergo exothermic oxidation... its like saying pure titanium in vacuum is energy in storage, bc when its exposed to air its gonna form TiO2.. aight fine - they call it potential energy, but what does information have to do with it? Nature doesnt know information - it knows energy and mass - impulses/causes whatever - when i kick a ball it moves along a parabolic trajectory, i did not transmit information to it - i transmitted energy - it responded in adherence to the fundamental laws of nature. Information itself, as i said before, is a creation of man - a mental construct, so tying it to the fundamental laws of nature will again have to be done through some artificially created construct - which you have kinda provided in your post.

peace,


skjalff

I like that, now it's my turn I guess.

Here, I'll be nice to you first:

C-H compounds can undergo exothermic oxidation... its like saying pure titanium in vacuum is energy in storage, bc when its exposed to air its gonna form TiO2..

That my friend is detected, how? You can tell me what elements are there reacting, because? Oh, that's right information, and data coincides with everything we have already established with those reactions, and materials.

Nature doesnt know information - it knows energy and mass - impulses/causes whatever - when i kick a ball it moves along a parabolic trajectory, i did not transmit information to it - i transmitted energy

"Nature doesn't know information", yet you describe a situation where the inertial effect, and momentum of energy is transfered and translated into a causal motion relative to the initial impact, and that energy transfer. That is information right there.

Information itself, as i said before, is a creation of man - a mental construct, so tying it to the fundamental laws of nature will again have to be done through some artificially created construct - which you have kinda provided in your post.

Information was around well before man. You think Quantum effects didn't occur before man discovered them? LMAO! Ok. In my post I simplified it, so as to not keep others in the dark on the topic. I prefer to have everyone involved, not be a dick, and speak over their heads. Sorry, you are wrong, and QT proves it.

As for stating information is not energy, is simply stating it does not exist without human intervention. That's a bit defeatist, considering what you are declaring to be false, and the amount of correlating data sitting in every single cell of you body. If matter is no more than energy, then information must be the same. As DNA is nothing more than a set of data functions, and information in the form of matter.

 

[skjalff]

your reasoning seems ridiculous to me. i'm not going to waste any more time on this, think however u like

 

[David]

^^ Not going to waste time, or can't accept the truth? I wonder....

I gave completely valid, and logical reasons. Information has been around longer than humans, and to say it's a human invention is ridiculous. Genetic data is information, fossils are historical information. It's all waiting to be discovered, and the denial of that is defeatist. It's the human that makes the discovery, and the study of this information that makes it "special", in the way you are speaking.

Here's an abridged dictionary definition of information:

Main Entry: in·for·ma·tion
Pronunciation: "in-f&r-'mA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
2 a (1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction (2) : INTELLIGENCE, NEWS (3) : FACTS, DATA b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects c (1) : a signal or character (as in a communication system or computer) representing data (2) : something (as a message, experimental data, or a picture) which justifies change in a construct (as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct d : a quantitative measure of the content of information; specifically : a numerical quantity that measures the uncertainty in the outcome of an experiment to be performed
3 : the act of informing against a person
4 : a formal accusation of a crime made by a prosecuting officer as distinguished from an indictment presented by a grand jury
- in·for·ma·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective
- in·for·ma·tion·al·ly adverb

Even the abridged dictionary disagrees with you.

I could go on, and on, and on........

 

[Grim]

Information was around well before man. You think Quantum effects didn't occur before man discovered them? LMAO! Ok. In my post I simplified it, so as to not keep others in the dark on the topic. I prefer to have everyone involved, not be a dick, and speak over their heads. Sorry, you are wrong, and QT proves it.

As for stating information is not energy, is simply stating it does not exist without human intervention. That's a bit defeatist, considering what you are declaring to be false, and the amount of correlating data sitting in every single cell of you body. If matter is no more than energy, then information must be the same. As DNA is nothing more than a set of data functions, and information in the form of matter.

in·for·ma·tion Pronunciation Key (nfr-mshn)
n.

1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.
2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. See Synonyms at knowledge.
3. A collection of facts or data: statistical information.
4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers.
5. Computer Science. Processed, stored, or transmitted data.
6. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.
7. Law. A formal accusation of a crime made by a public officer rather than by grand jury indictment.

This is the definition of the word that we are discussing.
The fundamental laws that govern our universe do not contain any data in themselves. They are derived from causality which in turn is governed by the Quantum Theory as well as other aspects of Physics that we do not understand. The consistency of these laws does not indicate that there is any type of data stored in the fabric of the universe that dictates them. It simply demonstrates the interactions between the four fundamental forces (eg., strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravity) and possibly some other unknown aspects.

Since you decided to bring up the Quantum Theory, lets discuss it in terms of the collapse of the wave function. I assume you are familiar with the Schrodinger's cat paradox which demonstrates it. Through this analogy we can see that information stored in quantum states only becomes true data after an observation has been made and the wave function has been collapsed. Before that that, it follows Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

If you are going to bring up Quantum Physics then you should realize that this field in particular is greatly dependent on the observer. The Quantum description of reality has a built in level of uncertainty in itself. Reality is what you measure it to be nothing more.

Concepts such as cause an effect sustain themselves only as a consequence of the collective behavior of large quantum systems. There is quite a difference between the macroscopic and a microscopic world.

 

[David]

AHH, How great it must be to base a theory on generalities, and have it be correct 100% of the time.

I'll be nice and won't attack that issue here, but I will say, that stating you can not know the information contained in the particles before you smash them with another particle is ridiculous. It's like saying the world is so big, but I could be wrong. It's all a matter of perspective, and how you are measuring it, and what your ruler is based on.

Please do continue though. I want to hear your take on this, and why you believe information is not energy. Based on what you know of QT.

Please do remember I am a followr of Bohm, so my take will be exotic to say the least, so bare in mind, that the concepts I will display here may be obtuse in the insensitive sense.

 

[skjalff]

DNA is information to you or me, but it didn't come into being as "information", it wasnt created or conceived by anyone. It emerged as a result of millions of years of evolution - non-directional change, so for you its info, for nature - its a physical/biological mechanism whose function is to replicate/alter cell's features. Cause and effect. The reason i've lost interest in this discussion is because i can now see the fundamental difference in reasoning; once such barrier is met - any further arguements just cause aggravation.

 

[Grim]

To be quite honest, I sympahize with many of Bohm's interpretations of the Quantum Theory and I find the idea of everything in reality being a manifestation of a single fundamental level especially appealing. So I am left somewhat perplexed because while instinctively I agree with some of his ideas, my rationale points me more toward the classical view which seems more natural.

Therefore my belief on this subject is not set in stone, but is rather a more feasible and rational approach in my opinion. However I see where you are coming from and a part of me thinks in a similar way but I cannot give in to those ideas completely because of the conflict I feel. I suppose I just gravitate more toward a more traditional approach because those concepts are easier to defend.

I am too tired now, but I will follow up with more tomorrow.

 

[PGTips]

that stating you can not know the information contained in the particles before you smash them with another particle is ridiculous.

How would you gain information about a particle then if you couldn't see how it interacts with other particles?

It's all a matter of perspective, and how you are measuring it.

Its those pesky dimensions again

 

[David]

DNA is information to you or me, but it didn't come into being as "information", it wasnt created or conceived by anyone. It emerged as a result of millions of years of evolution - non-directional change, so for you its info, for nature - its a physical/biological mechanism whose function is to replicate/alter cell's features. Cause and effect. The reason i've lost interest in this discussion is because i can now see the fundamental difference in reasoning; once such barrier is met - any further arguements just cause aggravation.

Ok, we can leave it at that. I understand it took me a while to get to the point of accepting what I do now. It wasn't through faith either, it was sheer evidence in my own eyes that pointed to large systems being full of information in order to function properly, hence my definition of them as ordered data.

To be quite honest, I sympahize with many of Bohm's interpretations of the Quantum Theory and I find the idea of everything in reality being a manifestation of a single fundamental level especially appealing. So I am left somewhat perplexed because while instinctively I agree with some of his ideas, my rationale points me more toward the classical view which seems more natural.

I can't say the same, especially with considering the level of intricacy the universe shows, and it's all built upon the quantum particles, and lower.

Therefore my belief on this subject is not set in stone, but is rather a more feasible and rational approach in my opinion. However I see where you are coming from and a part of me thinks in a similar way but I cannot give in to those ideas completely because of the conflict I feel. I suppose I just gravitate more toward a more traditional approach because those concepts are easier to defend.

I am too tired now, but I will follow up with more tomorrow.

Ok, I await your thoughts on this.

How would you gain information about a particle then if you couldn't see how it interacts with other particles?

How is it that we measure an electron's mass again?

Its those pesky dimensions again

We don't need no stinking dimensions, let the mother fucker flow, flow motherfucker, flow.....

I know that was bad, I couldn't help myself.

 

[PGTips]

How is it that we measure an electron's mass again?

The only way to get any information from particles is how they behave and interact with other particles, be it from bosons they give off or from how they alter the paths of particles around them. Particles must interact or you wouldn't know they are there (hence why it took so long to find the neutrino).