If having physical properties is a prerequisite for exhistance, then how can one explain "Information or Data"?
Posted on: June 7, 2007 - 12:03am
Offline
If having physical properties is a prerequisite for exhistance, then how can one explain "Information or Data"?
If having physical properties is a prerequisite for exhistance, then how can one explain "Information or Data"?
For example, how can one physically define the number 1? A person would say,"its a number". Yes, that is true, but can you physically define it? Can one measure or weigh it? Feel, taste, smell, touch it? What is it made of? Atoms, electrons, neurons?
I could say that,"Its an idea resulting from a chemical reaction in the brain".
1.) that would try to explain where it came from, but not what it is.
2.) chemicals are physical agents and therefore it is safe to assume any reaction from it would also produce a physical result.
So in short, if we cannot physically define the number 1, does it mean that it doesn't exhist? (please take note that this would apply to all forms of information, such as your name, your tin number, psychology, ethics, beauty, and basically, anything or any idea that comes out of one's brain because it is still data)- Login to post comments
Didn't you read the Matter/Information conjecture? I spent the whole time proving that Information and data were the result of physical processes using advanced quantum physics. It's called quantum information theory or "It from bit", coined by John Wheeler, and I highly recommend you study it, as it is critical to our understanding onf the nature of the universe. Matter/energy creates information, not vice-versa.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/6279
your second point, is, if anything, worse. I was going to demolish it but todangst beat me to it.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_materialist_account_for_abstractions_or_how_theists_misplace_the_universe
The third point is a well-worded fallacy of composition
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Sorry, but you didn't really answer my question.
I asked what it is, not where it came from or how it came to be.
Or simply put, does Information have physical properties or not? Or, can you physically measure information?
A simple yes or no will do. Then after that please explain your answer.
Yes. It can be measured. Simply plot a line of thermal inequality against a line of energy distribution. Information packets are created by energy exchanges (a concept I covered before). I am not sure you understand the difference between data and information, but that was also covered in the M/I conjecture.
This is a binary/entropy plot, which dictates the relationship between information and entropy in a Bernouilli plot
The formulae given for this is
I(Wn)=log2(1/Pr(Wn))=-log2(Pr(Wn))
Where w is the entropy unit and log is the natural logarmitm ln
The relationship between information and entropy is distinct
For instance, if we imagine a box with 1000 coins lying heads up, and we shake it twice, it is vastly more probable that we will end up with a chaotic arrangement of coins than the arrangement that we had previously. Thus, the law can be restated closed systems tend to progress from states of low probability to high probability. This movement towards high probability in a system where the energy is E, is progressive. In order for the entropy (the progression towards high probability) to be corrected, there must be periodic bursts of energy input, which would break the closed nature of the system. In this case, it would require someone to open the box and rearrange the coins.
Therefore, for a living organism to maintain order and increase order, there must be a useful energy input. For that to happen, there will be a useless energy output. Thus increasing the order in the cell will increase the disorder of the entire universe. In this way, we can imagine life forms and other complexities as islands of order in a universe progressing towards disorder. For this to happen, there must be a colossal influx of free energy all the time. This is one the requisites for life. As luck would have it, we have such a system: The sun.
We need a quantitative unit to measure this, and to measure the degree of disorder or probability for a given state (recall the coins in a box analogy). This function is entropy (denoted S) The change in entropy that occurs when the reaction A to B converts one mole A to one mole B is
∆S= R log PB/PA
PA and PB are probabilities of states A and B. R is the gas constant (2 cal/deg-1/mole-1) ∆S is measured in entropy units (eu).
In an example with a box containing one thousand coins all facing heads, the initials state (all coins facing heads) probability is 1. The state probability after the box is shaken vigorously is about 10^298. Therefore, the entropy change when the box is shaken is R log 10^298 is about 1370eu per mole of each container (6.02x10^23 containers). ∆S is positive in this example. It is reactions with a large positive ∆S which are favorable and occur spontaneously. We say these reactions increase the entropy in the universe.
Information, as having an inverse proportion to entropy, has a direct proportion to free energy
-∆G= -∆H +T∆S or -∆G=h+T∆S Therefore -∆G/T=h/t+∆S
h/T still equals ∆Ssea but the ∆S in the above equation is for the box. Therefore.
-∆G= ∆Ssea +∆Sbox =∆Suniverse
Which means that heat influx on an energy gradient in an open system is directly proportional to the amount of information in an organized system (that is, one in which the components exchange energy packets).
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
1). Simple. Information is merely organized data.
2.) That is a nice explanation, but again you failed to answer my question.
What you measured was merely the medium of information, in this case, energy, or energy which was used to transmit or store information.
Information is independent of its medium. What i mean to say is that no matter what medium you use, the information contained remains the same.
For example, when i chisel the number "1" on a two ton rock and chisel the number "1" in a 2 kilogram piece of stone, the number "1" remains the same, in spite of the difference in weight of the medium on which it was chiseled. It remains the same whether i write it on a piece pf paper, cloth or plastic, and it is still the same whether i type it in my computer or type it using my typewriter.
So let me rephrase my question.
Barring any medium of transportation or storage, can one physically measure information?
1). Simple. Information is merely organized data.
Wrong. Information is data with context. Data is organized. Information requires senient brains.
What you measured was merely the medium of information, in this case, energy, or energy which was used to transmit or store information.
In that case, you view information as an abstraction, at which point I hand it over to todangst, who explains how a materialist accounts for abstractions in a material universe. Read the link.
I suspect that is unnecessary. You are making a sneaky fallacy of composition. Energy does not store data. Organization of energy gradients is data. But read todangst's link anyway. This is now his field (formal logic) as opposed to mine (quantum physics)
For example, when i chisel the number "1" on a two ton rock and chisel the number "1" in a 2 kilogram piece of stone, the number "1" remains the same, in spite of the difference in weight of the medium on which it was chiseled. It remains the same whether i write it on a piece pf paper, cloth or plastic, and it is still the same whether i type it in my computer or type it using my typewriter.
But the data is meaningless without sentient brains. Your confusion of data and information is to state that data is disorganized. Data is organized, it just has no context. Information is data with context. Simple.
And it sounds like you are asking for an ontology for numbers. This is todangst' field, so read his work. I have posted it. To ask for an ontology for information is to ask for his field. I have shown you that information is necessarily an abstract concept, but the result of a physical process, with direct relation to physical processes. So to state that information is abstract per se is to make a logical fallacy of false analogy, which todangst will show you if you read his paper on the matter.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Hmmmm....
I'm beginning to see why you can't answer my question to my satisfaction. That's because you didn't understand my question. I should not have used the word "Information", but "abstract concepts" or in the case of todangst's post, "Axioms".
I see though the problem here. I'm asking you to describe axioms barring the presence of a sentient brain when in effect, axioms are useless without a sentient brain to interpret it. It is what todangst called an interactive phenonema right?
That was a very interesting post of todangst and i actually enjoyed reading it. Thank you for showing it to me.
Nonetheless, i'll go and try reformulating my question and ask todangst and see if he would reply and give it as much attention as you have.
Btw Deludedgod. A word of advise. I noticed that you often use, when replying to posts or comments, the phrases "shred his point", or "demolish your point" (or something to that effect), and tend to describe other's posts as "fallacies", or "misleading". It gives the idea of you debating because you relish the idea of beating the crap out of a person's ego and also gives the impression that you automatically think the other person is out to lie or decieve others.
On the other hand, you don't use foul language, you take pains to explain and expound on your point and even provide links on certain occasions, which means it is important to you convey to the other person what you wish to explain.
In other words, you project a mixed signal. On one hand, it seems you want to beat to a miserable pulp a person's ego, and on the other it seems as if you want to really help him understand.
If you wish to give a person a favorable outlook to atheism an consider it as a principle in life, I don't think kicking his ego would be a very good idea. Oh sure, you could beat him in logic or reasoning but that would be like winning the battle but losing the war. For sure his ego will be bruised, and because of that, his resolve to defend his faith will only grow stronger. Remember that people tend to be more emotional than logical, especially when the ego is involved.
It doesn't mean that you should kiss arse though. All i'm trying to say is that you should be more..... diplomatic in choosing the words you use.
Take care.
So here's an account of how abstract concepts exist in a purely physical world:
It starts with the physical conditions necessary for our linguistic practice.
1) The physical attributes of the body/mind necessary for the ability for us to participate in, and follow the rules of the 'language game.'
2) The social and environmental conditions that make such a game favourable to our way of life.
From there, we look at our abstract concepts, what we use them for.
Then we find out what their 'language game' is and their place in it.
So our abstract concepts exist as linguistic objects, which exist as social practices, which exist as actions of physical peoples.
Does that make sense?
If there's a bit you disagree on then point it out and I'll address it in more detail.
Where's Todangst's paper on that? I would like to read it.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I posted it on this thread. It's the second of the two links I gave on my first post. The first one is mine, the second is his.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
So basically, you are explaining how physical agents such as the body/mind can produce abstract, non-physical agents through communication. Did i rephrase that right Strafio? Because i think (from what i understood) that is what Todangst also explained in the link deludedgod provided.
So since abstract concepts are created by physical reactions, does that mean that they are physical in nature?
Yes. The question "does information exist" is sort of invalid. Information is not an entity, it is a process which is the result of interactions between physical entities.
To say that "information does not exist" because it is not an entity, is sort of like saying that motion does not exist because it is not a physical entity.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
That sounds about right to me.
Explain what you mean by 'physical in nature'?
Ah. But wouldn't i be contradicting myself if i conclude that an abstract concept is a physical entity?
No, as long as the abstract concept logically follows from physical entities. That is what tod and I were trying to say was that an abstract concept always is the result of, as per reductionist science, physical structure and property.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Ahhh... I see your point. Thanks for the info! I guess that will do for now because there is another question relating to this moping around in the back of my mind, but i can't quite articulate it. Ever felt that way?
Anyways, i'll post it as soon as it comes out of my head so i could ask you guys can help me with it.
Thanks again and take care!