Melvin Vopson could've made a mistake in his interpretation and conjecture deriving from Laundauer's principle. . . .
Move over Einstein. — Nils Loc

Of course. That's why they are trying to devise an experiment to confirm the conjecture. There is already experimental evidence that meta-physical*1 (immaterial) Information can be converted into physical Energy*2. And, since Einstein's equation postulated that Energy can be converted into Mass (matter), it makes sense to postulate that an Information >> Energy >> Matter experiment would work.

However, my philosophical interest in Information is its relationship to Intelligence & Consciousness, not to Matter & Energy. I mention those theories & experiments only because many posters here seem to be more interested in the material aspects of the physical world, than the immaterial features of the meta-physical world. Those posters tend to bristle at any mention of Mind-stuff on a philosophy forum. Which may be why the topic of this thread has attracted a flock of matter-minded boo-birds.

We are still in the early stages of the Information Age. So, at the moment, these equivalences are more hypothetical than empirical. But, for me, that's where theoretical philosophy comes into the picture. :smile:

PS___ Einstein objected to the spooky, un-real, statistical, non-classical, non-mechanical, immaterial, mental, implications of Quantum theory*3. But eventually, he had to "move over" and let the quantum dice fall where statistical randomness dictates*4.


*1. Meta-Physical :
Derived from the Greek meta ta physika ("after the things of nature"); referring to an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html
Note --- The stochastic state of Quantum Superposition is literally "outside of human sense perception" until it is triggered to "collapse" from Potential math (idea) to Actual matter (object).
Stochastic : randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.

*2. Experimental demonstration of information-to-energy conversion :
In 1929, Leó Szilárd invented a feedback protocol1 in which a hypothetical intelligence—dubbed Maxwell’s demon—pumps heat from an isothermal environment and transforms it into work. After a long-lasting and intense controversy it was finally clarified that the demon’s role does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics, implying that we can, in principle, convert information to free energy2,3,4,5,6. An experimental demonstration of this information-to-energy conversion, however, has been elusive. Here we demonstrate that a non-equilibrium feedback manipulation of a Brownian particle on the basis of information about its location achieves a Szilárd-type information-to-energy conversion.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys1821

*3. Did Einstein oppose quantum mechanics? :
Einstein famously rejected quantum mechanics, observing that God does not play dice. But, in fact, he thought more about the nature of atoms, molecules, and the emission and absorption of light—the core of what we now know as quantum theory—than he did about relativity.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys1821
Note --- Quantum scientists have grudgingly become accustomed to the idea that quantum Superposition is an unreal statistical mathematical state until an experimental observation transforms Potential/Virtual/Mathematical Fields into Actual/Real/Material Particles.

*4. Sorry, Einstein. Quantum Study Suggests ‘Spooky Action’ Is Real.
The new experiment, conducted by a group led by Ronald Hanson, a physicist at the Dutch university’s Kavli Institute of Nanoscience, and joined by scientists from Spain and England, is the strongest evidence yet to support the most fundamental claims of the theory of quantum mechanics about the existence of an odd world formed by a fabric of subatomic particles, where matter does not take form until it is observed and time runs backward as well as forward.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/science/quantum-theory-experiment-said-to-prove-spooky-interactions.html

I considered referring to the Dunning-Kruger effect for that post, but it's so cliché. — Banno

Oh please come off it. It's a). Absurd to assume that physical principles and relationships cannot be explained or at least attempted to be explained approximately in a non-mathematical/formulaic capacity. Relying on esoteric language as a stand in barrier to discussion is a great way of saying "you can't talk about X without using y and z wording. That's not only restrictive and narrow, it stagnates elucidating useful or novel perspectives on a subject matter which may (or may not be, granted) apt for discussion.

B). Anyone citing dunning-kruger effect as a go to could, in doing so, be propagating their own dunning-kruger effect. It, rather ironically, takes a certain level of arrogance to determine the dunning kruger nature of any oppositions interjection. It is as if to say because I clearly know the answer, everyone else's is a dunning kruger answer.

Therefore, instead of resorting to/relying on this, I welcome an actual argument that obliviates mine. Or picks a flaw in it. Citing dunning kruger but not offering any explanation of your own in place of what I said? Slightly curious, mostly boring, and especially convenient/lazy.

C) your assumptions of my academic background on the matter are in themselves a personal conjecture, and much less anything that can be regarded as fact.

And what you cite from Benj96 is an obvious false dilemma — Banno

So obvious and yet you fail to clarify exactly why. Laughable. All talk no action. Bring on your "actual" arguments.

A declaration without supporting explanation is hardly philosophical at all is it. — Benj96

It sounds like you are saying that providing remedial physics lessons is part of philosophy. Is that right?

Intereference can't occur between photons travelling at the same velocity. — Benj96

No more scientific assertions for you.

I asked the following question of chat GPT:
How can information be fundamental when it is processed data? — universeness

The question is prejudicial, implying that information is only "processed data".

But ChatGPT saw through the narrow Engineering definition and returned a more complete Philosophical answer :
"In summary, while information often involves the processing of data, its fundamental nature arises from its ability to convey meaning, reduce uncertainty, and serve as a cornerstone for communication, knowledge, and understanding across various fields of study. Information is not merely processed data; it represents the essence of how we make sense of the world and the universe."

This insight is relevant to the OP, in that it offers a way to interpret an apparently non-sensical technical question --- what does it feel like to be energy?--- as a meaningful philosophical exploration of interpersonal understanding. That's assuming the question was not meant to be taken literally, but metaphorically, in the as-if manner of creative philosophers throughout history. :smile:

PS___ Materialistic posters, who tend to be prosaic & literal-minded, may interpret such a clever question as a sign of Dunning-Kruger technical incompetence. But the mis-application of that technical term in a hypothetical context may be a sign of philosophical incompetence.

Philosophical Questions to Spark Deep Critical Thinking :
https://www.scienceofpeople.com/philosophical-questions/

A declaration without supporting explanation is hardly philosophical at all is it. — Benj96

Sorry for the rudeness, just a bit annoyed at your responses.

Because you cannot have any individual one component of the 4 (energy, time, matter or space) without the other 3. — Benj96

You admitted it was mistake to pose the initial question and you didn't directly answer my question whether you were thinking about substance dualism. If you can't have matter without energy as you say here, why did you ask whether consciousness could be a form of matter or energy? You set up the dichotomy as if it is significant/correct then drop it suddenly.

Photons in a vacuum are massless particles/waves. So that would be an example of a form of energy(?) without matter, but I'm sure you are talking about the bigger picture of dependent origination. If photons never act with matter we'd never be able to tell whether they exist, though all light is emitted from matter.

Potential energy doesn't require matter, space or time. It's just potential. The moment that potential is converted to something "actionable" it requires time, space and matter to "act." — Benj96

This is a non-sequitur weird response to what you quoted. Sounds like you have the big bang in mind.

There is already experimental evidence that meta-physical*1 (immaterial) Information can be converted into physical Energy*2. — Gnomon

At this point this is the only claim that I'd like to know more about but I'm not sure I could ever understand what is going on in the experiment to believe you are conceptually correct. Information can never be non-physically represented. Where does the energy really come from?

"Any logical operation with fewer output states than input states must produce heat to keep overall entropy from decreasing." But what exactly is producing the heat of the Laundauer limit in a non-reversible logic gate?

Why Pure Information Gives of Heat (Youtube)

Saying set {t} and set {f} are not subsets of set {t,f} is my attempt to incorporate the wave function into logical expressions. — ucarr

The wave function is already a logical expression, subject to interpretation. This is all very mysterious. — jgill

I'm trying to say that "t" and "f" are not subsets of {t,f} because, being transcendent in the sense of the wave function, they inhabit a cloud of probability before measurement.

Intereference (sic.) can't occur between photons travelling at the same velocity. — Benj96

What to do with this?

Cheers, benj. Photons all travel at the speed of light, mitigated only by the refractive index of the medium. And they do interfere with each other.

I'll leave you to it.

I'm trying to say that "t" and "f" are not subsets of {t,f} because, being transcendent in the sense of the wave function, they inhabit a cloud of probability before measurement. — ucarr

My suggestion is you study the elementary theory of sets in order to use the notation accurately. Then compose your ideas accordingly.

My suggestion is you study the elementary theory of sets in order to use the notation accurately. Then compose your ideas accordingly. — jgill

I acknowledge your suggestion specifies the correct way for me to proceed and I will act accordingly.

The question is prejudicial, implying that information is only "processed data". — Gnomon

No, it was factual, not prejudicial. Chat GPT pointed out that the 'importance' of processed and interpreted data, allows us to generate meaning. It, like you, protested about the importance of information. It accepted that it was processed data.

In essence, information is the result of processing data to extract meaning or insights. — universeness

Information is produced via process, so, imo is human consciousness. It is a product of brain process alone. Even the panpsychists don't claim that a rock is conscious or that energy can 'feel,' or demonstrate intent.
Electrons have mass, photons don't. Neuroscientists have no current idea about the difference mass and massless have, on how human thought is produced and interpreted in a brain. Do you know of a peer-reviewed, published paper that contradicts this?

In computing, photons and electrons can be used to represent data, but at the low level of data transfer, they have no individual meaning. A light pulse/packet/photon/field excitation or an electron voltage that falls in a preset analogue range, is either present at the receiving computer, during a single clock pulse, and is 'registered' as a 1, or such is not present, during a single clock pulse and is registered as a received 0. Before that moment, no information has been created, it's just mass or massless energy, flowing down cables, or through the air.

At this point this is the only claim that I'd like to know more about but I'm not sure I could ever understand what is going on in the experiment to believe you are conceptually correct. Information can never be non-physically represented. Where does the energy really come from? — Nils Loc

As a layman, I don't know "what's going on in the experiment". All I know is the conclusion that the scientists inferred from their experiments : that invisible intangible information can be converted into effective Energy and tangible Matter. Empirical physicists seem to be expanding on Einstein's E=MC^2 formula, which explained mathematically how blazing stars can create rocky matter, such as iron, from a gaseous plasma of elementary particles, by means of geometric gravity. Some are even placing Information into the equation and are converting mathematical Data into causal Energy and malleable Matter.

That equation of Cause (energy) & Effect (matter) does not compute in Classical Newtonian Mechanics, but becomes reasonable in Modern Quantum Mathematics. In his Nobel lectures, Heisenberg indirectly referred to Einstein's equation as "the transmutation of energy into matter". If he had been following Shannon's equation of mental/mathematical Information to physical Entropy, Werner might have included "Information transmutation" in his speech.

Mental Information (ideas) can be "non-physically represented" in mathematical symbols, and now it can be physically transmuted (change of form). That counter-intuitive concept may underlie Tegmark's Mathematical Universe theory. It assumes that mathematical ratios are not only rational (mental), but also physical (energy as ratio between hot & cold), and material (elementary particles as mathematical points in a universal Field). None of which makes sense, from a classical physics or common-sense perspective.

Regarding your question "where does the energy really come from", I have my own personal theory, as postulated in a non-academic thesis. But I won't get into it here, because metaphysical Materialists will react emotionally to a notion that seems to contradict their own matter-based belief system. And that would drive this thread even further away from the philosophical Koan in the OP. :smile:

No, it was factual, not prejudicial. Chat GPT pointed out that the 'importance' of processed and interpreted data, allows us to generate meaning. It, like you, protested about the importance of information. It accepted that it was processed data. — universeness

I didn't say that defining Information as "processed data" is prejudicial. In the context of Shannon's practical engineering solution to communication problems, it may be factual. But in the context of a Philosophical understanding of Information, it is prejudicial to imply that Information is only processed data*1.

Do you see how that little exclusive word could be biased toward a materialistic interpretation, and away from the other non-physical definitions used in Information Theory*2*3? As I noted : the ChatGPT did not accept the "only" definition, but concluded that "Information is not merely processed data"*4. Is that a factual statement, or an intelligent opinion? :smile:

*1. Quote from this thread:
The question is prejudicial, implying that information is only "processed data". — Gnomon

*2. Information theory definition :
Information theory is based on probability theory and statistics, where quantified information is usually described in terms of bits. Information theory often concerns itself with measures of information of the distributions associated with random variables. One of the most important measures is called entropy, which forms the building block of many other measures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
Note --- Statistics is a mathematical (mental) tool for dealing with the randomness & uncertainty of the physical world. Entropy is the inverse of Energy, and negative causation as contrasted with positive causation. Entropy is a state, not a material thing, hence a mental/mathematical concept.

*3. It from Bit (matter from mind) :
It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom . . . . an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions. ___John A. Wheeler, quantum physicist
https://philpapers.org/archive/WHEIPQ.pdf

*4. Quote from this thread :
But ChatGPT saw through the narrow Engineering definition and returned a more complete Philosophical answer :
"In summary, while information often involves the processing of data, its fundamental nature arises from its ability to convey meaning, reduce uncertainty, and serve as a cornerstone for communication, knowledge, and understanding across various fields of study. Information is not merely processed data; it represents the essence of how we make sense of the world and the universe."

Regarding your question "where does the energy really come from", I have my own personal theory, as postulated in a non-academic thesis. — Gnomon

The energy comes from the erasure of information but is this reducible to the physics of running inputs through non-reversible logic gates? The input of energy of erasure is proportional to the energy lost as heat. This energy loss doesn't apply to reversible computation since information isn't lost.

How is Laundauer's principle related to the solution of the paradox of Maxwell's Demon?

Landauer's principle is closely related to the resolution of Maxwell's Demon paradox. Maxwell's Demon is a thought experiment proposed by physicist James Clerk Maxwell in the 19th century, which appeared to challenge the second law of thermodynamics.

In the Maxwell's Demon thought experiment, a hypothetical "demon" is described as a tiny, intelligent being capable of sorting fast-moving hot gas molecules from slow-moving cold gas molecules. By opening and closing a tiny door or gate in a partition between two chambers, the demon allows only fast molecules to pass from the hot side to the cold side and slow molecules to pass from the cold side to the hot side, effectively creating a temperature difference without doing any work. This seemed to violate the second law of thermodynamics, which states that heat naturally flows from hot to cold, and it appeared as if the demon was reducing the entropy of the system without expending energy.

Landauer's principle comes into play as a solution to the Maxwell's Demon paradox. Landauer's principle states that erasing information (in this case, the demon's knowledge of the molecule speeds) incurs a minimum energy cost. When the demon observes and records information about the gas molecules (fast or slow), it is essentially increasing its knowledge, which implies a reduction in entropy. When the demon erases this information (to forget which molecules are fast and slow), it must dissipate energy into the environment, thereby increasing the total entropy of the system.

In other words, Landauer's principle implies that the demon's act of erasing information about the gas molecules requires energy, and this energy expenditure ensures that the overall entropy of the system (including the demon and the gas) still obeys the second law of thermodynamics. The reduction in entropy from the sorting process is offset by the increase in entropy due to the energy dissipated during information erasure.

Therefore, Landauer's principle provides a resolution to Maxwell's Demon paradox by showing that the apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics is reconciled when considering the energy cost of information erasure. This insight connects the realm of information theory with thermodynamics and helps maintain the consistency of the laws of thermodynamics. — ChatGPT

Hopefully ChatGPT isn't hallucinating a wrong answer.

How is Information Related to Energy in Physics?

The energy comes from the erasure of information but is this reducible to the physics of running inputs through non-reversible logic gates? The input of energy of erasure is proportional to the energy lost as heat. This energy loss doesn't apply to reversible computation since information isn't lost. — Nils Loc

:up:

Information is not merely processed data. — Gnomon

@universeness

Would either of you to care to explain the significance of this distinction that information is or isn't processed data. I suppose the technical definition you guys are using belongs to a specialized domain of computer science or information theory. Maybe it doesn't hold for ordinary macroscopic examples.

If I have a book of encrypted information that tells me how to do something but I've suddenly misplaced my encryption key, does the book lose information because I can't process or potentially process its data?

Even when the book has been decrypted, does it still lack information until I process/read it? A book is not a book without a reader.

On a fundamental level the book never loses significant information in the absence of any particular observer in a short time scale. This information, like energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, just transformed. Whatever constitutes its fined-grained physical reality of the book as material has undergone some irreversible change in accordance the arrow of time (matter and energy always changing in flux). Some information changed but it is not relevant to the reader who is concerned with a particular macroscopic arrangement (the letter, words, sentences, the book) which come to represent relative information to a particular mind.

So maybe we can say that:

Relative information can be destroyed or lost.
Absolute information (energy and matter) can neither be created or destroyed and is fundamentally conserved, just converted. Absolute information ultimately has no meaning without a mind (is it information?); it must always exist in relation to a mind.

In order to lose relative information there must be a corresponding physical change of absolute information (energy and matter), no matter how trite that change may be, like losing your bitcoin key in a fire. But any change in absolute information need not always cause a meaningful loss in relative information, like losing the ink of single letter in a book.

Is it conceivable to lose or gain relative information with no corresponding change in the physical world?

I'm trying to imagine energy (the ability to do work) in the complete absence of matter, which I'm not sure makes much sense. This would imply a completely non-material world where whatever constitutes a form of energy is sufficient in-itself for a kind of existence. Though if matter is really just a form of energy, it's all energy dude (and this is not profound). Our ability to understand energy requires everything that informs the understanding (energy as properties of organized matter). — Nils Loc

I think this is correct. Science has no complete definition of exactly what energy is, but I think the concept of data, fits better as a 'poor' description or alternate placeholder for the word 'energy' or as a description of what energy is, at a fundamental level, compared to using the word information. In Computing science, information is data with an associated meaning. Many choose to use this as a way of 'sneaking in' a god of the gaps argument or a dualism argument about human consciousness. I think all such attempts are invalid, no matter if they come from philosophical musings, musings about metaphysics or bizarre projections of real physics.
The 'absolute' best answer currently available to humans regarding the exact mechanisms and source of human consciousness is 'we don't know.' For me, the best evidence we currently have, suggests that it is a process of the human brain alone. The word energy is merely a placeholder for 'that which is required to do work.' To bring in god/a first cause mind with intent/dualism/a deterministic substance, etc etc is just pure speculation, nothing more. Fun and entertaining but not science and certainly not a good reason for accepting any religious, theistic or theosophist proposals, including @Gnomon's enformationism.

The energy comes from the erasure of information but is this reducible to the physics of running inputs through non-reversible logic gates? The input of energy of erasure is proportional to the energy lost as heat. This energy loss doesn't apply to reversible computation since information isn't lost. — Nils Loc

Yes. Shannon, as an engineer, defined his communication theory of Information (knowledge transmission from mind to mind) in technical terms of physical Entropy (uncertainty ; ignorance). And the inverse (erasure) of Entropy is Energy*1. But that implicit equation of mental meaning with causal power was counter-intuitive to most scientists at the time. Hence, rejected by the non-philosophy-inclined, who were advised to "shut-up" about the metaphysical implications*2, and just "calculate".

A century later, Energy as a form of Information is still a concept on the periphery of science*3. However, the similarity of Information to Energy is evident in the First Law of Thermodynamics : Information, like Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can change form. One form of Information is orderly knowledge (energy analogy) and another is disorderly ignorance (entropy analogy). The most basic form of Information (knowledge) may be Mathematics : the logic of the physical world.

When I responded to your question --- "where does the energy really come from?" --- I was not referring the energy-of-information-erasure experiment, but to the ultimate source of causation in the world : the First Cause. But that's off-topic, and controversial, as indicated in 's dismissive & erroneous assertion that "@Gnomon's enformationism" implies "accepting any religious, theistic or theosophist proposals". Although others have used Quantum metaphysics to justify their religious beliefs, my thesis has nothing to do with any religion or god or Theosophy. So his insinuations are merely fallacious ad hominem attempts to belittle by association. The thesis does however require mixing physics with metaphysics (i.e. philosophy).

The Enformationism thesis is based upon the non-classical, hence counter-intuitive, metaphysics of Quantum and Information theories. It does not deny the practical applicability of Materialistic metaphysics in empirical science. And it does not support any Supernatural metaphysics in traditional religions. But, it does incorporate the Holistic metaphysics of modern transdisciplinary Systems Science*4. Which is unacceptable to those who believe Science is necessarily Deterministic and Reductive. Quantum science was forced to relinquish those 17th century classical beliefs in order to make sense of sub-atomic observations, such as the two-slit experiment. Interpretation of the perplexing results required the use of both Epistemology (knowledge ; information) & Ontology (being ; reality) concepts in an empirical context. :smile:


*1. Physicists investigate erasing information at zero energy cost :
In the context of information, information erasure corresponds to entropy erasure (or a decrease in entropy) and therefore requires a minimum amount of energy, which is determined by Landauer's erasure principle.
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-physicists-erasing-energy.html

*2. A Guide to the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics : (often dismissed as Quantum Mysticism)
The revolution in physics that brought us to a quantum picture of the world was so radical that it does not merely force a rethinking of physics, but metaphysics as well. Quantum physics may imply that the world is fundamentally indeterminate, that causes are not always local to their effects, that there are many more than three spatial dimensions, that wholes are not simply sums of their parts, . . .
https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/quantum-ontology-a-guide-to-the-metaphysics-of-quantum-mechanics/

*3. Information and the Nature of Reality :
From Physics to Metaphysics.
Anthology edited by physicist Paul Davies, Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science
Note --- Davies uses the term "God" in his science writing in a sense closer to the abstract Prime Mover or First Cause of the Greek philosophers, than to the Creator of Christian apologists.

*4. Systems theory : (Holistic Science)
The fundamental concept of systems theory is that the whole system is more than than the totality of its parts.
https://research.com/education/what-is-systems-theory

The 'absolute' best answer currently available to humans regarding the exact mechanisms and source of human consciousness is 'we don't know.' For me, the best evidence we currently have, suggests that it is a process of the human brain alone. — universeness

:up:

@Gnomon

You gloss over interpretations of complex physics topics which I don't think you really understand in trying support your metaphysics. Your language and evasiveness is a red flag for me, suggestive of a kind of sophistry. But it wouldn't matter if everything you said was perfectly coherent, and you knew quantum physics inside and out, it'd be far too complicated for me to follow.

Makes me think of that Quantum physics professor that Dawkins interviewed -- too rich with metaphysical implications.

The Quantum misticism is too misty and the forrest of terms is too obscure and thick, and I'm cognitively limited, so I cannot pass.

Cheers to your passion.

You seem gloss over interpretations of complex physics topics which I don't think you really understand in trying support your metaphysics. Your language and evasiveness is a red flag for me, suggestive of a kind of sophistry. But it wouldn't matter if everything you said was perfectly coherent, and you knew quantum physics inside and out, it'd be far too complicated for me to follow. — Nils Loc

Nils, how can we discuss Energy without getting into Physics? Apparently, my posts get too close to the nuts & bolts of sub-atomic physics for your comfort. But my personal philosophical thesis is based on the meta-physics of Physics. As an amateur philosopher, I'm not an expert in the science, so I include links to technical papers by professionals who do understand them. If you are not an expert in these "complex topics" how would you know when I am "glossing-over" something? What you take to be "evasive" may be just complex ideas whizzing over your head. You are free to ignore the stuff that's beyond your grasp. But don't blame it on my use of technical language, that is defined in the footnotes.

Nobel Physicist and Philosophy basher, Richard Feyman felt the same frustration with the non-classical & counter-intuitive & non-classical Quantum aspects of the foundation of reality. That's why he advised his students to just "shut-up and calculate"*1. The "metaphysical implications" are too philosophical for mechanical physicists, and apparently for some TPF posters. But it's a fertile source of metaphors for philosophical reasoning about the roots of reality. Are you averse to metaphors & analogies drawn from physical fundamentals? :smile:

*1. Calculate but don't shut-up :
'Shut up and calculate' does a disservice to quantum physics
https://aeon.co/essays/shut-up-and-calculate-does-a-disservice-to-quantum-mechanics

So much grandiosity.

I'm not an expert in the science, so I include links to technical papers by professionals who do understand them. If you are not an expert in these "complex topics" how would you know when I am "glossing-over" something? — Gnomon

You are not an expert, as you say. I would want to know the physics inside and out before attempting to cite conjectures/experiments for support, though I can understand the (de)merit of trying to explain reality in one's own (un)fashionable terms. The test I guess is if people are interested.

But it's a fertile source of metaphors for philosophical reasoning about the roots of reality. Are you averse to metaphors & analogies drawn from physical fundamentals? :smile: — Gnomon

"Information is power." You could write a lot of good stuff on this without having to go anywhere near quantum physics or thermodynamics. You don't even need to coin a name for your 'theory' either.

So much grandiosity. — wonderer1

Was that ironic sarcasm intended as a philosophical critique of some "grand" idea?*1 Or just a knee-jerk response to a personally repugnant idea? Is the hypothesis being scorned pretentious, or just over your head?

It's all too common for believers in A> a natural world of Matter & Mechanics to react negatively to the notion B> of a cultural world of Minds & Memes & Mathematics. The A>, "commonsense", worldview is that of Newton in the 17th century, and the latter B> "erudite" non-sense view was derived from the 20th century science of fundamental sub-atomic physics. Which is more impressive?

Note that I didn't use the taboo word "quantum", since it is too often associated with "bullsh*t" on this forum. There's a new book out now : Quantum Bullshit, by Chris Ferrie. It discusses "profound sounding quantum nonsense" such as Quantum consciousness & Quantum love & Quantum quackery & Quantum veganism. But it does not have anything to say about the legitimate scientific/philosophical query we are discussing on this thread : "Could consciousness be a form of energy like the rest?"

The classical science answer would be, not just "no", but "hell no!". Yet the fundamental sub-atomic science answer might be "maybe". For example, Einstein equated insubstantial Energy with massive Matter, implying a kind of transubstantiation*2. Then, quantum pioneer Heisenberg turned the microscope around to point at the mind of the observer*3. And John A. Wheeler noted the relationship between mental Information and material Mass*4.

Unfortunately, some religious people were quick to interpret those mind-related concepts in sublime terms, to support their supernatural-soul beliefs. But, anti-religious people were just as quick to damn scientifically practical foundational physics by association with such unrealistic "weirdos". Isn't there a middle-ground between those extremes? :smile:


*1. Scientific Grandiosity :
The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest number of hypotheses or axioms.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/albert_einstein_112012
Note --- Information theory, combined with Quantum theory, is beginning to condense all of Physics down to a single concept : Mathematics (logic ; ratios ; relationships ; fields). In other words : Energy. Which is the causal Power to Enform, not just Material from Potential, but also Life from Matter, and Mind from living organism. It's all a single procession of en-formation. Isn't that grand!?

*2. Exactly what does E = mc2 mean? :
The equation is known as the mass-energy equivalence relationship. Before Einstein's radical thoughts, mass and energy were thought to be very different things.
https://www.uu.edu › dept › physics › scienceguys

*3. Uncertainty Principle :
The Heisenberg principle is an epistemological lack of information.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/heisenberg/
Note --- In this case, Information consists of meaningful & useful ideas in a mind.

*4 Matter from Information :
One clear consequence of “it from bit” is the importance of the observer: reality requires one. “I think [Wheeler] was very radical,” says Zeilinger. “He talks about the participatory universe, where the observer is not only passive, but the observer in certain situations makes reality happen.”
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/it-from-bit-what-did-john-archibald-wheeler-get-right-and-wrong/
Note --- Pardon the hyperbole. As he explained later, TAW did not mean that a single human mind could create a physical cosmos by an act of thought. He was noting the much more modest creative act of producing an idea about reality in the mind : in the sense of "to realize".

PS___Ooops. Was that too radical or profound for you?

Banno's law : the easiest way to critique some view is to begin by misunderstanding it.

"Information is power." You could write a lot of good stuff on this without having to go anywhere near quantum physics or thermodynamics. You don't even need to coin a name for your 'theory' either. — Nils Loc

Yes. but then I would just be parroting the ideas of others, rather than thinking for myself. :smile:


The Socratic Method: How To Think For Yourself "
The Socratic approach involves participants in a process of critical thinking and self-examination as opposed to providing knowledge in a simple or didactic manner.
https://www.orionphilosophy.com › stoic-blog › the-s...

Didactic : In the manner of a teacher, particularly so as to treat someone in a patronizing way.

What does it feel like to be energy? — Benj96

It seems that you are talking about something like Nagel's "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?"
But Nagel refered to life and consciousness. He didn't refer to physical things like matter and energy. He is not a Panpsychisist. And for all non Panpsychisists (animists, hylozoists, etc.), consciousness is an attribute of life, of living entities.

Really, isn't a problem for you to think, imagine that light can feel and what kind such feeling would be? :smile:

But it does not have anything to say about the legitimate scientific/philosophical query we are discussing on this thread : "Could consciousness be a form of energy like the rest?"

The classical science answer would be, not just "no", but "hell no!". Yet the fundamental sub-atomic science answer might be "maybe". — Gnomon

Most people think a brain is required for consciousness. We can manipulate brains to make people fall unconscious, as I'm sure you've probably experienced general anesthesia yourself. Brains are made of matter and the work that they are able to do is function of the physics of organized matter in motion. It is a parsimonious proposition, based on evidence, to believe that consciousness requires a brain and a brain requires matter.

The question, could consciousness be a form of energy, implies a dichotomy that doesn't make the answer to the question trite/obvious. How do we have consciousness without particles that have mass and why speculate on whether we could if everything around us makes the speculation ridiculous?

It is possibly a mistake to say everything is energy with regard to the principle of mass and energy equivalence (though my understanding is limited here). Electrons produce photons all the time, but they don't become photons. Fission/fusion produce both mass and massless kinds of radiation, but for a star to lose mass, it is losing tons of particles with mass from its stellar wind.

A star never directly loses mass from photons, as the photons don't carry mass. A star loses mass indirectly from photons in their contribution as force carriers to help break nuclear bonds.

The question, could consciousness be a form of energy, implies a dichotomy that doesn't make the answer to the question trite/obvious.How do we have consciousness without particles that have mass and why speculate on whether we could if everything around us makes the speculation ridiculous? — Nils Loc

A not so trite answer to "consciousness without particles" would be : the same way we have Energy "without particles that have mass". For example, a photon is usually described, not as energy-per-se, but as a "carrier of energy"*1. It's also described as a "massless particle"*2. But without mass, how can it be a particle of matter? The answer is "it's not". It's merely the not-yet-real Potential for Energy. And that Potential may be what's called "pure energy"*3. But "pure energy" is a mathematical/mental concept, not a material object*4.

Energy itself is not a material object, but merely the idea of Causation, inferred from observations of changes in matter. The ancient Greeks used the analogy of an ideal invisible worker to give us the idea of what Energy is. A modern, but still enigmatic, metaphor for "Energy" is stated in terms of "information regimes"*5. I'll leave you to ponder that one.

There's too many logical leaps -- for a forum post -- between pre-Big-Bang Potential Energy*6, and the eventual emergence of living creatures with rational minds. However, my Information-based thesis attempted to delineate those steps. But I still haven't yet covered all of the material objections to equating Mind with Energy. So, all I can say at this point is that there are people a lot smarter than me who do not find the Mind : Energy notion ridiculous. I'm not trying to harass materialists, though. These forum posts are the means by which I continue to use contrary opinions to help me develop my personal understanding of the relationship between Energy, Matter and Mind.

It's not Science that makes "speculation" on the relationship between Mind & Energy "ridiculous", but the ancient metaphysical belief system known as Materialism. That common-sense "objective" worldview did not take the mind of the observer into account. But modern sub-atomic physics was forced to do just that, in order to make sense of its paradoxical observations. And, a century later, we are still grappling with the counter-intuitive implications of philosophical Physics. :smile:

PS___Thanks for the thought-provoking questions.


*1. Photons as Carriers of Energy :
In conventional physics, the photon absorbed or released is nothing more than a quantum of pure energy.
https://www.universeofparticles.com/photons-as-carriers-of-energy/

*2. Does light have mass? :
Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass. The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle. According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits.
https://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

*3. What is pure energy? :
There is no physical “essence” of energy, and no such thing as “pure energy”.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/physics/what-is-energy/
Note --- That's because "purity" is an ideal concept, not a real thing. Yet the concept does "exist" as a mental model : perfection uncontaminated by matter.

*4. Is mathematics a mental construct? :
Snapper (1979), in making sense of the intuitionist approach, defines mathematics as “the mental activity which consists in carrying out constructs one after the other” (p. 210). In effect, mathematics has to be constructed to exist and cannot exist independently of the mind that constructs it.
https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/teaching-mathematics-overcoming-miscommunication/0/steps/327692

*5. How is information related to energy in physics?
Energy is the relationship between information regimes.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/22084/how-is-information-related-to-energy-in-physics

*6. Singularity : sometimes conceived as a not-yet-executed computer program
The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before the Big Bang and thought to have contained all the energy and spacetime of the Universe.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/605384/where-was-matter-before-the-big-bang

A not so trite answer to "consciousness without particles" would be : the same way we have Energy "without particles that have mass". — Gnomon

You overlooked the part where people equate consciousness with working physical brains. If we started performing brain surgery on you, we might be able to knock out everything associated with your philosophical theory.

Though light is typically considered non-material, a form of energy, it is physical. Purely photonic brains would still be physical brains, if possible.

So, all I can say at this point is that there are people a lot smarter than me who do not find the Mind : Energy notion ridiculous. — Gnomon

I'm still lost as to why you don't think it's a false dichotomy. It is parsimonious/orthodox to conclude minds need physical materials to emerge in the universe and to do work. Where any work could possibly occur, you can apply the concept of energy.

It's not Science that makes "speculation" on the relationship between Mind & Energy "ridiculous", but the ancient metaphysical belief system known as Materialism. That common-sense "objective" worldview did not take the mind of the observer into account. — Gnomon

Materialism has evolved into physicalism to accord with the perspectives granted to us by physics.

Physicists/philosophers alike will continue to wrestle with whatever the role of the observer has to play in the interpretations of quantum mechanics but the subject is, and will always be, leagues over my head. Whereof one cannot speak, one must remain silent. :monkey:

Closer to the Truth: Does Information Create the Universe? (Youtube) I like Allen Guth's take on the question of whether or not information is fundamental.

Closer to the Truth: Does Information Create the Universe? (Youtube) I like Allen Guth's take on the question of whether or not information is fundamental. — Nils Loc

This is a really good episode of 'closer to truth'. I had already watched it before. I also liked Sean Carrol's contribution and Mr Koch's points near the end. I would have preferred that the scientists involved would have used the word data as well, to make the difference with information clearer.
At the fundamental level, there is no demonstration of 'meaning' or 'intent' or 'determinism' imo.
I can conceive of no meaning, intent, feeling or determinism inherent in processes such as particle spin or quantum fluctuations.