Some comments on information theory

[ark]

I also recommend a book that deals with these issues: Carlo Rovelli "The Order of Time". It is neither long nor complicated, it is reading for one day. I recommend it to anyone interested in the passage of time and the general theory of relativity.

And here I would like to quote just one passage from this book, from Chapter 6: THE WORLD IS MADE OF EVENTS, NOT THINGS

"We can think of the world as made up of things. Of substances. Of entities. Of something that is. Or we can think of it as made up of events. Of happenings. Of processes. Of something that occurs. Something that does not last, and that undergoes continual transformation, that is not permanent in time. The destruction of the notion of time in fundamental physics is the crumbling of the first of these two perspectives, not of the second. It is the realization of the ubiquity of impermanence, not of stasis
in a motionless time. Thinking of the world as a collection of events, of processes, is the way that allows us to better grasp, comprehend, and describe it. It is the only way that is compatible with relativity. The world is not a collection of things, it is a collection of events."

This is the point of view (or even a "philosophy") that I have stressed in my "Event Enhanced Quantum Theory" - EEQT. Rovelli quotes one of my papers on this subject (P Blanchard, A Jadczyk, "Time of Events in Quantum Theory", Helv Phys Acta 69 (1996) 613-635) in his article "Partial observables (2002)". But what are these "events"? This is still a great mystery. I think they are related to information transfers. If so, there is only one remaining question: what is "information"?

And that is why I appreciate so much the task taken upon by the initiator of this thread, and also by those participating in the discussion

 

[PabloAngello]

it needs to also have the ability to perceive information

Another undefined concept: "perceiving information". We have to deal with it carefully in this discussion, which tends to be mathematicly precise, build logic implications that have sense. And this is one of the hardest I suppose, what is the process behind perceiving information? All we talk about here, all this undefined concepts seem to be connected with the topic of the thread and random numbers theory.

Chapter 6: THE WORLD IS MADE OF EVENTS, NOT THINGS

Seems like "the world is made of information" because events are 'solid' information in opposition to fuzzy probabilities 'where da heck this is before we measure'. Information cared by waves before collapsing seems to be like 'information in production' while the moment of event occuring seems to be 'information revealed'.
And interesting thing here is that 'revealing information' by creating new event, creates new waves of informations as well, making things to contintue themselves. Unless information reaches the black hole (or not?).


Now questions come to mind:
1. Is the time concept only true for receivers with ability to perceive information? Or being a receiver only is enough (just collapsing the wave by receiver and react according to new generated energies)? Hard to answer without at least kind of definition of 'perceiving information'. For example from physics we 'know' that for photon there is no such thing as time (no receiving ability?)
2. If there was another receiver that 'revealed' information of that event before our blue guy, did he already 'established' what happened in the event? So our blue receiver will see exactly the same?

The destruction of the notion of time in fundamental physics is the crumbling of the first of these two perspectives, not of the second.

Our current physics describes the world from 'receiver' perspective. Second perspective might be the random world of caring information by timeless waves.

The world is not a collection of things, it is a collection of events.

So the world is information processing ongoing.

what is "information"?

Shannon definition: Information is defined as the measure of the decrease of uncertainty for a receiver.

 

[ark]

Shannon definition: Information is defined as the measure of the decrease of uncertainty for a receiver.

I am not buying this. Undefined notions: "uncertainty" and "receiver". Too vague to be of any help. There must exist (and be found) a different definition/concept of "information". The one by Shannon is perhaps suitable for technology, but not for studying fundamental questions that involve non-material reality beyond our material dimensions.

 

[Cleopatre VII]

Now questions come to mind:
1. Is the time concept only true for receivers with ability to perceive information? Or being a receiver only is enough (just collapsing the wave by receiver and react according to new generated energies)? Hard to answer without at least kind of definition of 'perceiving information'. For example from physics we 'know' that for photon there is no such thing as time (no receiving ability?)
2. If there was another receiver that 'revealed' information of that event before our blue guy, did he already 'established' what happened in the event? So our blue receiver will see exactly the same?

Ad 1.
I am inclined to the hypothesis that the concept of time is true only for receivers with ability to perceive information.

Let us note that we cannot speak of the passage of time in a world in which no phenomena take place, no change takes place. It's hard to talk about time itself. Time is the measure of change for us. If no phenomenon occurs (and the nerve impulses are also not conducted, they are the phenomena, too), one cannot speak of time.

Ad 2.
I could compare this situation to a hypothetical solar storm. The inhabitants of Venus (hypothetical) will see it sooner than the inhabitants of Earth. They will register the solar storm, and we will get information about the solar storm later. And even if the inhabitants of Venus wanted to give it to us, then when they receive it, this piece of information will not reach us faster than after just over 8 minutes from the storm (just over 8 light minutes is the average distance between the Earth and the Sun).

However, it is also possible to consider a situation in which information will not reach us at all. I mean the event horizon.

 

[Cleopatre VII]

There must exist (and be found) a different definition/concept of "information".

I think that if, in fact, we are considering fundamental issues, the definition of information will be associated primarily with understanding the essence of consciousness.

Consciousness, on the other hand, is associated with another vague concept which is time. Here there is a problem and a kind of loop. How are we to know consciousness without using anything more fundamental? And we do not seem to have anything more fundamental, except in the case of irrational cognition. It is extremely easy to move from strict mathematical considerations to mystical and irrational philosophy.

Everything starts to loop. We discover that there are actually more primitive notions than we might imagine.

 

[PabloAngello]

@ark I'm also not buying it. Tried to stop with my own ontologies for a moment, quoting someone's fuzzy definition. And I agree with undefined notions. However floating around such topic like here we will have to use undefined notions somewhere, using our sense of what they really are, trying to define them by further discussion (at least some of them).

Let's make a few assumptions about information:
1. it's timeless
2. may have two different states, certain probabilities of certain values or just certain value itself.
3. determines how objects react, creating events - because for example one particle reacts differently for different energies taken by other particle, if information would not exist, then particle 'would not care' about certain amount of energy, because it's value would not exist.
4. In pure state has no value - it's container for value - hence true random generator.

These are my thoughts on the fly, we may rebuild it. It's just a start.
Now we can try to disprove the above.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

One concept I came across is the question of whether math is discovered or invented. What happens when you use logical deduction and formulate it mathematically? Are you receiving information? Creating it? Accessing something that was already there? It seems like you can learn a lot by just thinking logically, perhaps you invent calculus in your mind, so then where is this information coming from? Sure you can ask the same about some unstructured imagination/fantasy, but logic and math seems to have a substance that is different from conjuring a field of unicorns or whatever. It seems you’re adding something to your being, there’s an accumulation of understanding, even if only theoretical, but it originated from seemingly inside of yourself (because you’re clever, let’s say). Can this be called information, or does it require external verification?

So I guess the question is - does math precede the universe? Could math exist if nothing else existed, or put another way, does the very possibility of math/logic somehow bring the universe into being all by itself? And an addendum to that, can there be math/logic without consciousness to “think of it”? Or are those things - consciousness, existence, and math/logic somehow inseparable and interdependent?

The question that drives some people nuts is why does anything exist. Why is there something other than nothing? I mean that kinda assumes there was ever a “choice” in the matter, which wouldn’t make sense because that in and of itself is also something. So in a way, you could say the universe has no choice but to exist. And that’s why I wonder if the reason it has to exist, is because math/logic has to exist, if only in potential. And the universe is simply executing math like a computer - all of math, and the structures of it are guided by math. And things like consciousness and free will, if they truly are fundamental as the C’s would suggest, would probably be mathematically necessary - without which the math wouldn’t work, couldn’t execute, and they’re probably described by that same math. Which means, we can solve all of our questions mathematically if we are clever enough? Granted I’m not even clever enough to know of those ideas were in any way factual, so I’m out of my depth in many ways here lol!

 

[ark]

@ark I'm also not buying it. Tried to stop with my own ontologies for a moment, quoting someone's fuzzy definition. And I agree with undefined notions. However floating around such topic like here we will have to use undefined notions somewhere, using our sense of what they really are, trying to define them by further discussion (at least some of them).

Let's make a few assumptions about information:
1. it's timeless
2. may have two different states, certain probabilities of certain values or just certain value itself.
3. determines how objects react, creating events - because for example one particle reacts differently for different energies taken by other particle, if information would not exist, then particle 'would not care' about certain amount of energy, because it's value would not exist.
4. In pure state has no value - it's container for value - hence true random generator.

These are my thoughts on the fly, we may rebuild it. It's just a start.
Now we can try to disprove the above.

"Timeless"? I do not know what it means.
"certain probabilities"? I do not know what probability is. Objective? Subjective? Who/what decides about their values?
"determines how objects react, creating events" I do not know what "determines " is. What if we live in the world where there is no strict causality? Where everything is somehow connected to everything.

I know, I have questions but not answers. But what I ma looking for are better mathematical modles of the universe than those that we have now. Of course I understand the need for informal discussion. But there will be no real progress without a progress in mathematical description of non-material dimensions/densities. Information, I think, is hidden there.

 

[PabloAngello]

@ark Looks like my ontology is more fuzzy than I thought ;)

 

[PabloAngello]

mathematical description of non-material dimensions/densities. Information, I think, is hidden there.

I have similar thoughts.

 

[PabloAngello]

So I guess the question is - does math precede the universe? Could math exist if nothing else existed, or put another way, does the very possibility of math/logic somehow bring the universe into being all by itself?

A computer program like Conway's Game of Life has very simple set of rules but its leading to very complex patterns and behaviors.

Play John Conway’s Game of Life

Play the Game of Life online, a single player game invented in 1970 by Cambridge mathematician John Conway.

playgameoflife.com

For example this initial figure from this website, rules of this world were not directly programmed to cause this certain figure to move into down-right direction - it was an efect of placing certain squares into certain places. So there is new math created from initial math that started the world.

Look at this example, you create few different length lines, made by: 2 squares, 3 squares, 4 squares, 5 squares, 6 squares and 7 squares.

Click play and see how they behave.
It appears that 3 squares and 5 squares lines generate forever lasting process. It wasn't coded into initial rules of the game, it is an effect of game to be played. So we have new math/physics, that says 3 and 5 squares lines lead to infinite lasting processes.




ps. Im sorry for 3 posts one under another, it was because of the need of quoting. Maybe one admin can make those posts into one.

 

[ark]

A computer program like Conway's Game of Life has very simple set of rules but its leading to very complex patterns and behaviors.

Play John Conway’s Game of Life

Play the Game of Life online, a single player game invented in 1970 by Cambridge mathematician John Conway.

playgameoflife.com

For example this initial figure from this website, rules of this world were not directly programmed to cause this certain figure to move into down-right direction - it was an efect of placing certain squares into certain places. So there is new math created from initial math that started the world.

Look at this example, you create few different length lines, made by: 2 squares, 3 squares, 4 squares, 5 squares, 6 squares and 7 squares.
View attachment 50562
Click play and see how they behave.
It appears that 3 squares and 5 squares lines generate forever lasting process. It wasn't coded into initial rules of the game, it is an effect of game to be played. So we have new math/physics, that says 3 and 5 squares lines lead to infinite lasting processes.

View attachment 50563


ps. Im sorry for 3 posts one under another, it was because of the need of quoting. Maybe one admin can make those posts into one.

So I guess the question is - does math precede the universe?

Perhaps. Something like Prime Numbers.
But notice that prime numbers form an infinite set. That would put an end to the idea that our universe is a finite automaton like the Game of Live.

 

[PabloAngello]

But notice that prime numbers form an infinite set. That would put an end to the idea that our universe is a finite automaton like the Game of Live.

Are you referring to the fact that Game of Life's rules are described by finite sets of numbers/rules?

 

[Cleopatre VII]

So I guess the question is - does math precede the universe?

Perhaps. Something like Prime Numbers.

It's probably a matter of how we understand certain concepts. In this approach, mathematics seems to be a formula, and the Universe is its manifestation. However, if we were to consider the concept of the Universe as all that exists, then the Universe understood in this way also includes mathematics. Then it cannot be said that mathematics precedes the Universe. However, it is all a matter of definition.

This is one of the points where I see a remarkable relationship between mathematics and theology. There are many interesting structures in theology. Some of them can be extended with a mathematical description. However, the same may be true of some mathematical structures. A theological methodology could be salutary at times.

 

[ark]

Are you referring to the fact that Game of Life's rules are described by finite sets of numbers/rules?

Exactly. Notice also that the Game of Life is deterministic. The real world, on the other hand, seems to allow for "free will", or "creativity". And this may have to do with the mathematical concept of "infinity" - still full puzzles.