Physicist Says Universe Composed Of Information Bits

JGeropoulas

The Living Force
I never read the Economist, but for some reason I just picked up a copy the other night at the supermarket, and thumbed to this book review on a new physics book, Decoding Reality--The Universe As Quantum Information. I know little about physics, so I don't know where this book fits in the scheme of current theories, but I thought it intriguing enough to share here.

_http://www.economist.com/culture/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=15949137
A physicist argues that information is at the root of everything

Decoding Reality: The Universe as Quantum Information.
By Vlatko Vedral
Oxford University Press
256 pages; $29.95


ONE of the most elusive goals in modern physics has turned out to be the creation of a grand unified theory combining general relativity and quantum mechanics, the two pillars of 20th-century physics. General relativity deals with gravity and time and space; quantum mechanics with the microscopic workings of matter. Both are incredibly successful in their own domains, but they are inconsistent with one another.

For decades physicists have tried to put the two together. At the heart of the quest lies the question, of what is the universe made? Is it atoms of matter, as most people learned in school? Or some sort of energy? String theory, currently a popular idea, holds that the universe is made up of tiny vibrating strings. Other equally esoteric candidates abound. Indeed, cynics claim that there are as many grand unified theories as there are theoretical physicists attempting unification.

Now Vlatko Vedral, an Oxford physicist, examines the claim that bits of information are the universe’s basic units, and the universe as a whole is a giant quantum computer. He argues that all of reality can be explained if readers accept that information is at the root of everything.

So what is information? Mr Vedral’s notion of information is not the somewhat fuzzy concept most people have of it, but a precise mathematical definition that owes itself to Claude Shannon, an American mathematician considered to be the father of “information theory”. Shannon worked at Bell Labs, at the time the research arm of AT&T, a telephone giant, and in the 1940s became interested in how much information could be sent over a noisy telephone connection. This led him to calculate that the information content of any event was proportional to the logarithm of its inverse probability of occurrence. (Unlike many popular-science books that eschew equations, Mr Vedral includes a couple and tries his best to explain them to the reader.)

What does the equation mean? As Mr Vedral points out, it says that an unexpected, infrequent event contains much more information than a more regular happening.

Once he has defined information, Mr Vedral proceeds to show how information theory can be applied to biology, physics, economics, sociology and philosophy. These are the most interesting parts of the book. Of particular note is the chapter on placing bets. Mr Vedral gives a good description of how Shannon’s information theory can be applied to winning at blackjack or in buying shares (Shannon and his friends made fortunes in Las Vegas as well as on the stockmarket). And his exposition of climate change and how to outwit the CIA make entertaining reading. One quibble: Mr Vedral often digresses from the point at hand, so the overall effect tends to be a bit meandering.

Mr Vedral’s professional interests lie in quantum computing and quantum information science, which use the laws of quantum mechanics respectively to build powerful computers and render codes unbreakable. There is a lot of discussion of both, which is very welcome because there are not many popular science books that cover these relatively young fields. Quantum computers, as Mr Vedral points out, “are not a distant dream”. Though still rudimentary, “they can solve some important problems for us that conventional computers cannot.”

Unusual for a physicist, Mr Vedral spends a fair bit of time talking about religious views, such as how God created the universe. He asks whether something can come out of nothing.
Throughout the ages philosophers and theologians have debated this question with respect to Judeo-Christian faiths, in which dogma holds that the world was created from the void, creation ex nihilo. Others side with King Lear who tells Cordelia that “Nothing can come of nothing.” Mr Vedral makes a persuasive argument for a third option: information can be created out of nothing.
 
Re: Physicist Says Information--Not Atoms--Are the universe’s basic units

hmmmm got me thinking. I wonder why they don't associate "information" with consciousness? You would think it would, wouldn't they?
I mean, let's just say, consciousness is the surrounding sphere to-which "information" can be turn on or turn off. By turning it ON it creates and by turning it OFF it stops or stabilizes, I would think. I mean, I can see the turn off point in a rock because it is a rock. Even in human beings there seems to be a cut off point to-which "information" is either OFF or ON; OFF or ON reflecting the level to-which it can/has absorb/ed; We all can't be Einstein nor can we all be primitive.
I would think without the link to "Consciousness", "information" would be no more than studying evolution, osit.
Well, just expressing my 2 cents worth :-)
okiron
 
You could certainly have both consciousness and physicality built in at the single bit of information level. They both then might build up to noticible levels differently. Information can be described by Clifford Algebra and luckily there's a little formula that perhaps keeps physics from changing drasticly every time you add a bit:

Cl(big number)=Cl(8)xCl(8)xCl(8)xCl(8)...till all the 8s add to the big number (or the last one equals Cl(0<n<8) if the big number isn't divisible by 8).
 
Bluelamp said:
You could certainly have both consciousness and physicality built in at the single bit of information level. They both then might build up to noticible levels differently. Information can be described by Clifford Algebra and luckily there's a little formula that perhaps keeps physics from changing drasticly every time you add a bit:

Cl(big number)=Cl(8)xCl(8)xCl(8)xCl(8)...till all the 8s add to the big number (or the last one equals Cl(0<n<8) if the big number isn't divisible by 8).

So much to learn--so little time. . . unless there's "no" time. :cool:
 
Interesting to think about. Universe as quantum computer? Universe Composed Of Information Bits? I could buy that, considering that I already (strangely?) think that patterns of data and data flows are all around us. Maybe if we get those higher centers connected up we could 'tune in' to some of it? :)
 
Re: Physicist Says Information--Not Atoms--Are the universe’s basic units

okiron said:
hmmmm got me thinking. I wonder why they don't associate "information" with consciousness? You would think it would, wouldn't they?

Quoting from Notes to Chapter 5 of this book:

"T. Norretranders, The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size (Penguin Press Science, 1998). This book contains a detailed description of Maxwell’s demon paradox and its consequences for computation. It is otherwise one of the best attempts so far to understand consciousness in terms of information theory. According to Norretranders our brain makes representations of reality as images in our head. One aspect of this reality is ourselves and the evolving image of ourselves is, briefly speaking, our mind. The ‘user illusion’ in the title refers to the fact that the computer also creates an illusion of itself in order for us to find it user-friendly. So we think of computers as desktops with files, folders, programs, routines, etc. However, all a computer does is simply crunching of zeros and ones. Nowhere inside any computers do folders exist or programs or files – this is just an interface for us. Our consciousness likewise offers us an interface of ourselves. This is all there is to mind, is what the book claims."

Vedral writes also about free will:

"Interestingly, the quantum theory of information adds a novel twist to this millennia-old question of determinism versus randomness. This question is not just important for our understanding of reality, it is also important to us on a very personal level. The answer to this impacts on whether there is any room for genuinely free action in an ordered and structured Universe like ours. If the laws of reality govern everything, then even our actions would be subjugated and determined by them. This of course leaves us no room for the human element we call ‘free will’ – a property that we strongly feel distinguishes us from non-living matter (and other animals). It is also seen as the basis of our consciousness.
Most of us in the West feel that determinism cannot completely govern reality because we are certain that we have free will, though what exactly this amounts to is far from uncontroversial. For the sake of discussion, let us define free will as the capacity for persons to control their actions in a manner not imposed by previous events, i.e. as containing some element of randomness as well as some element of determinism. So, if we accept the notion that we do indeed have free will, then we are already, in some sense, entertaining the idea that there may be a random element to reality (obviously not all elements of reality can be random, because this too would exclude any role for free will).

But he did not come to any definite conclusion - just touches the surface.
 
But talking of 'free will', do we really have now?
We originated from aliens' experiment, arent we? The life is a play which has been already set down, even the awakening plot of some of us is also part of the play, isnt it? Or, we chose to participate the experiment under our free will?
 
It seems to me that according to the different levels of dimension/density scale; 1D,2D,3D,4D,5D,6D,7D, the lower you are, the degree (?) or (probability?) of "free will' decreases as you go down the scale or so I think. But at the same time, or so it appears to me, the level above you must in turn someway direct/influence/impress(?) the Level below it. Kinda like for example the fourth way teaching, where the student's "free will" is either very weak or very close to none at all, while the teacher's level of "free will" is much stronger, and thus the students in what little "free will" they have, use it to follow the teacher with the stronger Will. But however, where or how the Teacher obtains this strength to empower his "free will", it must somehow obtain it through the level above it (4D?). But it also occurs to me, the collective units of consciousness also must reflect somehow in the fluctuation in the increasing and decreasing degrees of "Will Free", in other words, the larger the unit/s of consciousness the more likely the expression of truth in "Free Will" reveals itself, I would think.
Please don't take this as if I know it cause I don't, I'm only expressing my thoughts of lately at the moment. I'm still trying to figure it all out myself and how this might effect me as a 3D sts/sto candidate.
okiron
 
Thanks okiron! Thats some quite inspiring thoughts, actually my friend talked abt some similar idea during our discussion. And I found the key word 'free will' coming up for millions of times in Cassiopaean Transcripts for discussion! such as in this 'Jan 27 1996' session:
Q: (PZ) Can you feel what I am thinking?
A: Yes.
Q: (PZ) So, why do I need to ask?
A: Because we never interfere with free will.
Q: (PZ) If I continue to pray, things will continue to get better?
A: Things will stay on their intended course.
Q: (PZ) Are you telling me that my life has been predestined?
A: No. If you continue to pray, there is no chance of your lessons
being interrupted or deferred. Clarify.
Q: (PZ) Well, that sounds like it is going to continue, it is not going
to
stop.
A: No, clarify means to solidify your understanding of the answer.
Q: (PZ) Well, I don't understand. (L) I think it is pretty clear that the
things you are experiencing are part of the lessons.
A: Whatever that is... i.e.: que sera sera.
Q: (PZ) But then, we are back to pre-destiny?
A: No, lessons.
Q: (PZ) Well, how many damn lessons do you have to get?
A: As many "damn" lessons as you need!
Q: (S) What about the prayers that are directed to Jesus?
A: Jesus is one of us in "special service" sector.
Q: (L) Like a "green beret?"
A: No, more like a "beige beret."
Q: (L) What is a 'beige beret?'
A: Just our term.
Q: (PZ) Well, I have just always wondered if this praying business is
a bunch of malarkey. (L) Oh, no. (PZ) If I pray a rosary, I am praying
to the Virgin Mary.
Who is she? Where is she?
A: "She" is here too.
Q: (PZ) Does that prayer go directly to her and does she then send
you out to do whatever?
A: She is not really a she. And when you write to "Ann Landers,"
does she really see it? And Good night.

so on and on...

Ignorance does lead to danger,guess I need to do more homework before I started any random question just for a quick answer then...
 
Hello Buzz,
Thanks for posting that up. It reminded me of a dream that I had recently...I meant to post it in the "dream" forum but I soon forgotten it until your post. It sort of relates to the topic at hand in a round about way. It's quite a short flash but none the less pronounced. If I may, I would like to post it here, if the moderator wouldn't mind at is.
It begins with myself observing several beings dress up in diver suits of same, sitting, like they were sitting on a invisible bench and than, I got this impression that they were deep in thought so to say. I couldn't make out their faces tho, just that it was very light complexion against their darker diver suits. I also got another impression that there were masculine and feminine sense to them but I couldn't see the differentiate factor that shows this. Well something occurred cause one of them stood up and started to talk but i don't remember all that was said, only a lingering impression printed in my mind. It was like they were trying to tell me something about collective thought form as a unit and in this unit a thought/expression/communication could be express through one individual representing the whole of this unit/thought form. That's it, that's all I can remember about the dream.
But because of this dream, it lead my thoughts back into Gurdjieff's forth way. The area concerning "personality" and how that is not the real "I" were racing thougout my mind. Than it dawn on me, the magnitude of the difficulty in unlearning the sense in that I/we believe I/we are INDIVIDUAL/s. It's like I/we fight tooth and nail to stand out as an individual person expressing my/their individuality/personality (self importance) and to believe otherwise,... scares to me to death! It brings to mind an image of a major city where there's hundreds of people bustling through the streets, to the point where everyone starts to look the same. This image to me points out nothing other than, "I am dispensable", while my personality crys out "I am indispensable".
Just the mere fact that my/our physical body/ies reinforces the illusion of separateness.... but our thoughts just.. might ..be collective by nature or so it appears to me at the moment.
okiron
 
Back
Top Bottom