In making the argument that information is the relationship between cause and effect I am asserting that information is inherent in nature. — Harry Hindu

In any kind of strong naturalism (which I would advocate) information, if it is a feature of any realm (and it is) must be a feature of nature. I agree.

↪Gnomon
I can meet you part-way at least. — Wayfarer

The concept of shape-shifting Information that I am proposing is complicated, not least, in that it applies to both Analog/Macro/Classical reality (known directly via senses), and Digital/Quantum/Post-postModern ideality (known indirectly via inference from measurements), plus to Hypothetical/Metaphysical/Speculations (into realms beyond our space-time world). So, do you think we can find a meeting-place somewhere in possibility-space?

I'm currently reading a book on Quantum Physics, Beyond Weird by Phillip Ball, In the first chapter, he says "it is a theory about information". To illustrate the difficulty of discussing such a slippery subject, he points to the presumably "orthodox" Copenhagen interpretation of what's going-on right under our noses, only to conclude that "there is no quantum orthodoxy". Likewise, there is no Information orthodoxy. Computer specialists & Physicists & Philosophers tend to work with different understandings of what it is that they are talking about.

That being the case, he says "if you want to argue [with the Copenhagen interpretation] you must argue with Bohr". But then, he admits that Bohr is "hard to fathom". Yet, he quotes Bohr : "our task is to learn to use these words correctly -- that is, unambiguously and consistently". However, Ball notes that "the problem is that in quantum mechanics it is almost impossible to be unambiguous and consistent . . ." And that's also the problem I have been dealing with in discussions of "Generic Information" : the same word may have a different meaning in each context.

Ball then notes that "the challenge in reading Bohr comes also from the fact that he took tremendous care to say what he meant". Likewise, I take care to define my meaning for each context, including references to a Glossary of Terminology. But the complexity & contradictions within both Quantum and Information contexts makes communication fraught with diverging perspectives from which to view the topic. Therefore, I must ask how your point-of-view on the nature & role of "Information" differs from mine. I suspect that we are often talking about the same thing, but using different words in different contexts. Maybe meeting halfway is all we can expect. :cool:

The same thing's happening here too - we're trying to get a handle on information (new) with the aid of substance (old). It's time we did something different in my humble opinion. How? I dunno! — Agent Smith

That's exactly what I'm trying to do in the Enformationism thesis. It's a blend of old (Spiritualism) and modern (Materialism) and novel (Informationism) concepts. The Quantum pioneers also went through a period of groping for ways to interpret the weirdness of quantum phenomena. Some began to use metaphors from Hindu & Buddhist traditions, and others developed novel mathematical language (wave-function) to describe what they imagined as tiny particles of stuff.

Likewise, social scientist, cognitive scientist & cyberneticist Gregory Bateson defined the traditional term "Information" (originally referring to mind-stuff -- ideas) as the "difference that makes a difference". Which I interpret to mean that, in all its various forms, Generic Information is characterized by an essential logical distinction (a : b :: c : d) that our minds interpret as meaning. In its abstract forms, it's a ratio (quantitative relationship, 1/2 or a : b). In computer code, its merely a statistical relationship (percent true/false) between All or Nothing (1 or 0). And in human linguistic intercourse, information conveys the relative significance of a thing to the observer (good vs bad).

Individually, those examples may not seem to have much to do with each other. But Information is a slippery shape-shifting concept. So it's hard to "get a handle on". Yet one pragmatic way to grasp it is to grab a different handle (word) appropriate for each context. :chin:


informationism :
Commitment to the idea that the world is fundamentally composed of, supervenes upon, or reduces to, information of some kind.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/informationism
Note -- in the Enformationism thesis, I note that the term, spelled with an "I", was already in use. So I changed the spelling to emphasize my equation of mental Info with physical Energy.

Dear brother Gnomon, as interesting your thesis truly is, we still have to take into account that the wavefunction contains no information but a means for particles to explore. Information is not contained in the patterns connecting particles, but in the stuff describing them.

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: The new look...
※→ Gnomon, Hillary, et al,

Yes, that term ('information") is rather difficult to define.

Dear brother Gnomon, as interesting your thesis truly is, we still have to take into account that the wavefunction contains no information but a means for particles to explore. Information is not contained in the patterns connecting particles, but in the stuff describing them.
(COMMENT)

Information is anything detected or not, no matter what form the carrier would take; no matter the value or the content. Even the total lack of information is, in itself, the transmission of information.

It is virtually impossible to cite anything in reality that does not convey information.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is virtually impossible to cite anything in reality that does not convey information — Rocco Rosano

#/=#ss!!@ trt4#@÷÷ fr $%%%$ 4÷=sa y6 yu777
Aa?

Dear brother Gnomon, as interesting your thesis truly is, we still have to take into account that the wavefunction contains no information but a means for particles to explore. Information is not contained in the patterns connecting particles, but in the stuff describing them. — Hillary

True. The wavefunction contains no knowable information. Instead, it statistically describes all possible paths a particle may "explore". But there is no actual (sensible) particle until a measurement (Latin mensura ; root mens- : "mind") by an Observer somehow causes the continuous non-local Wave to "collapse" (emerge) as a single localized Particle.

Likewise, Huygens described light as a field, propagating by analogy with an oceanic wave. So, Quantum physicists were surprised to discover that on the sub-atomic level, light is emitted only in discrete packets of energy. Consequently, the current ambiguous theory says that light is both wave and particle, which makes no sense in classical physics. On the macro scale, to our senses, the world appears to be analog & solid. But at its foundation, it was found to be digital & grainy (90% empty space).

That's why my thesis is based on the BothAnd principle. As Aristotle realized, our real world consists of both Actual stuff (matter) and Potential essence (EnFormAction : the power to enform). To our physical senses, Potential is meaningless & useless, until Realized. But to our rational minds, we know that Potential (e.g. stored energy in an inert battery) can become Actual electricity (by completing a circuit). Likewise, a Potential wavefunction is un-real, until an observer completes-the-circuit (bridges-the-gap) to allow an Actual particle to emerge from thin air. :nerd:


BothAnd Principle :
The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system.
BothAnd Glossary

As Aristotle realized, our real world consists of both Actual stuff (matter) and Potential essence (EnFormAction : the power to enform). — Gnomon

I do not think this is Aristotle. Physical stuff is matter and form.

I do not think this is Aristotle. Physical stuff is matter and form. — Jackson

It's my interpretation. Aristotle's "form" is what we now call "information" (a pattern that identifies a thing). Platonic "Form" is Potential, while Matter (hyle) is Actual stuff. (E = MC^2) Potential (energy) can be converted into Actual Matter (mass). :smile:

It's my interpretation. — Gnomon

Okay. But for Aristotle matter only exists with form.

I'm currently reading a book on Quantum Physics, Beyond Weird by Phillip Ball, — Gnomon

I’ve read some excerpts from that book, published as essays in various places. He’s scathing about the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics. As far as my limited understanding will allow, I feel that the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ - which is basically a compendium of Bohr-Heisenberg's musings on the meaning quantum physics - is philosophically sophisticated. As has been pointed out, those early figures in quantum mechanics were cultured individuals with a grounding in philosophy, which can't be said of many of the later generations. But I don't think the Copenhagen interpretation is a theory about the constituent elements of reality - in other words, it's not an ontological theory - so much as a reflection on the limitations of knowledge and of scientific method, generally.

You're placing a lot on the equivocation between the meaning of 'form' (morphe, which is part of the root of 'hylomorphism') and 'information' which has a separate etymology (see here.)

To re-iterate: Information has to specify or mean something. 'Generic' means, among other things, not having a specific definition. So if it means something, it can't be generic, and if it doesn't mean anything then it's not information. So I claim 'generic information' is a meaningless phrase.

But there is no actual (sensible) particle until a measurement — Gnomon

That remains to be seen. There are different interpretations of the wavefunction besides the Copenhagen view. We can see the wavefunction, as was done initially, before it was decided in Copenhagen what the standard would gonna be, as being a literal stuff accompanying the particle, which has a precise position and momentum all the time, in accordance with the classical view. The non-classicality enters when realizing the strange behavior of the particle. It changes instantaneously between all possible trajectories within the confines of the wavefunction. For example, in an s-orbital around a proton, the electron has zero momentum and hops around erratically within the orbital. Is there information present in the wavefunction? Let's look at a free particle.

A free particle has, in general, a Gaussian shaped wavepacket associated with it. There is an overall mean momentum, and the particle hops around to the front to the back, etc. All the time it has a position and momentum. When you measure it's position the wavefunction literary collapse to a small region within the bounds of uncertainty, and the measurement of momentum, which asks for two position and time measurement likewise.

Think about it. Where is the information?

Okay. But for Aristotle matter only exists with form. — Jackson

Yes. But what did Ari mean by "form"? Obviously, something in addition to Matter (hyle). We can assume that Ari never heard of "Information Theory". And, he was trying to distinguish his notion of Real (concrete, physical) "Form" (morph) from Plato's Ideal (abstract, essential) "Form" (eidos). But we now know that Information can be both (see equivalence principle below). So, Ari's combination of Matter & Morph would today be called complex "Information". Ideas in a mind are abstract (form only), while objective things in the world are concrete (matter + form). (Disclaimer : this is not an official academic interpretation.)

For the purposes of my thesis, I was merely interpreting his ambiguous (two part) definition of things & beings in terms of my thesis proposal that both Mind & Matter are forms of Generic Information. In other words, Information is the Essence of all things. In compound things "hyle" = matter (Actual, physical), and "form" = design (Potential, metaphysical). "Hyle" was the kind of stuff he discussed in The Physics, but "Morph" and "Ousia" were reserved for the volume on Metaphysics : not about material things, but philosophical ideas about things & concepts. Below, I have pasted an excerpt from a previous discussion on a similar topic. :smile:

Hylomorphism (also hylemorphism) is a philosophical theory developed by Aristotle, which conceives every being (ousia) as a compound of matter and form, ...

The Ancient Greek term ousia was translated in Latin as essentia or substantia, and hence in English as essence or substance.

Essence is a polysemic term, used in philosophy and theology as a designation for the property or set of properties that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity. ___Wikipedia

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019AIPA....9i5206V/abstract

Metaphysical versus Anti-Metaphysical (March 22, 2022)

This is another example of the philosophical problem with our materialistic (matter-based) language. Aristotle defined "substance" from two different perspectives (the "qualifications" I mentioned before). When he was trying to distinguish his pragmatic philosophy from Plato's idealistic ideology, he took matter as the primary. So. when he defined his notion of "hylomorphism", he had to distinguish the Actual material (hyle=stuff) from the Potential design (morph=pattern). Hence you have a which-came-first dilemma : the mental idea or the material actualization of the design?

Since I'm an Architect, I tend to think that the mental image (imaginary structure) is prior to the physical building (material structure), hence primary. And morph/form is what I mean by Aristotelian "substance" as the immaterial essence of a thing. I realize Ari's ambiguous reference is potentially confusing. My Enformationism worldview is plagued by many similar dual-meaning words : such as physical "Shape" vs mental "Form". Do you know of another philosopher who found a non-ambiguous term to distinguish between Substance and Essence?


hylomorphism, (from Greek hylē, “matter”; morphē, “form”), in philosophy, metaphysical view according to which every natural body consists of two intrinsic principles, one potential, namely, primary matter, and one actual, namely, substantial form. It was the central doctrine of Aristotle's philosophy of nature. ___Wiki

Two kinds of Structure :
1. mathematical structure is an imaginary (idealized) pattern of relationships (links) without the nodes.
2. physical structure is the actual nodes arranged into a pattern resembling the mental design.

To re-iterate: Information has to specify or mean something. 'Generic' means, among other things, not having a specific definition. So if it means something, it can't be generic, and if it doesn't mean anything then it's not information. Ergo, I claim 'generic information' is a meaningless phrase. — Wayfarer

I agree. But, you are using "information" in a specific sense, as is usual in most scientific & technical discussions. In that case, you are correct. But the point of my thesis is that Information is general & universal, hence a philosophical concept, similar to Plato's "Form". I try to make that distinction in the thesis by using a different spelling (EnFormAction ; the potential to enform).

In that abstract form, it's more like causal Energy than meaningful computer data. But then, it's BothAnd. Like Energy, EnFormAction is meaningless & inert until actualized into specific sensible forms. For example, physical Phase Transitions are a result of En-form-action : the same substance (liquid water) takes on a new form (solid ice) with novel properties. This is what we call : "Emergence" and "Holism". :smile:

PS__Some mathematical physicists have postulated that our real world is a mathematical construct, hence pure Information. For me, that's just an illustrative metaphor, similar to The Matrix, so I don't worry about the tricky technicalities. I haven't read Tegmark's book, but I get the impression that he is like some of the Quantum pioneers. using as-if metaphors to explain some of the baffling observations of modern physics.

PPS__Plato also used the term "Logos" (word, reason, plan, principle, intention, design) in reference to the creation of an orderly (and self-organizing) world from primordial Chaos. In my thesis I also call it The Enformer, or Programmer. To Enform is to give meaningful form (pattern) to the formless (patternless).

But what did Ari mean by "form"? — Gnomon

Physical objects have matter and form. Our thought has the form. An apple on the table has matter and form, our thought of the apple has form only.

"Hyle" was the kind of stuff he discussed in The Physics, — Gnomon

In the Physics he names four causes. Material, Formal, Efficient, Final. Anything physical has a material and formal cause.

Potential design (morph=pattern) — Gnomon

I am not sure about your use of potential to refer to form. Aristote never talks that way.

In that case, you are correct. But the point of my thesis is that Information is general & universal, hence a philosophical concept, similar to Plato's "Form". — Gnomon

Valiant attempt, but I don't think it fits. To be sure, the nature of the Forms or Ideas in Plato is a very difficult subject, but suffice to say that Platonism generally and the "neoplatonism" which developed from it, was closer to what we would understand as 'theism' albeit that the precise nature of the supposed 'first mover' or 'demiurge' was never clearly explained (or perhaps wasn't clearly understood). But the form or idea of something was as much its principle as its shape - for example, there is discussion of the form of health, or of largeness; what it is that makes a particular this kind. In Proclus and Plotinus, there is the idea that the idea resides or originates in the divine Intellect (something clearly later appropriated by Christian theology). But again, the relationship with information is tenuous, afraid to say.

//ps//actually it occurs to me that the role you're assigning to 'information' is analogous to that played by 'prime matter' in Aristotle (ref.)

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information. — Gnomon

The weight of information is very small though. Mass is a consequence of particles interacting, but massive particles interacting and forming a pattern, a shape, a form, adds not much to their mass. Enerģy is needed to maintain the shape, but compared to the mass energy this is very little.

What information is contained in the wavefunction?

the argument that information is the relationship between cause and effect — Harry Hindu

Is one that fails to take the right sorts of things into consideration.

Point one:Cause and effect is a kind of relationship. Point two:It makes no sense to say that information is the relationship between a relationship. Point three:Saying that information is the relationship between cause and effect fails to take into consideration the first point made above.

Information is often thought about in terms of organized data. That is a definition that's put to use. Sometimes for good. Sometimes not.

Isn't information just some material stuff we can use to inform each other? Something with no inherent material existence in nature? The surface of a black hole contains information of the stuff inside, the maximum quantity even, but what does that mean? — Hillary

Information is arrangement. We assume that it’s arrangement of material stuff. Information describes the qualitative relational structure, or internally ordered (formal) variability, of any system.

When scientists quantified a unit of Shannon’s information (bit) as a measure of variable capacity in a physical system, they took the first step towards constructing a ‘virtual’ reality - a fully contained system of potential change. But this ‘change’ refers to a particular system’s variability: namely the structure of electrons in solid metal. What doesn’t change in this system - and deliberately so - is quality.

So, we have a modern understanding of ‘information’ as the variability in arrangement across a system of consolidated (logical) qualitative structure. Shannon’s contribution, in trying to maximise the quality of telephone communication, was to deliberately exclude the qualitative variability of any system from how we understand ‘information’.

Information systems will always rely on the qualitative variability of humans for the accuracy of its relation to actual reality. The problem is, humans have a fearful tendency in preferring certainty to accuracy...

To re-iterate: Information has to specify or mean something. 'Generic' means, among other things, not having a specific definition. So if it means something, it can't be generic, and if it doesn't mean anything then it's not information. So I claim 'generic information' is a meaningless phrase. — Wayfarer

Yes. Generic Information is meaningless, because it is general & abstract & timeless & potential, like Plato's "Form". It contains the statistical possibility to mean anything, but lacking specificity, it actually means nothing. It is completely random & chaotic (no pattern, pure noise). So, like the pixels on your computer screen, GI, when uniformly white or black, lacks pattern, hence is devoid of meaning (e.g. white noise). But if you begin to change from a uniform (111111) or random (01010101) pattern, to a variable (100101101010001) pattern, a meaningful image will begin to appear from the void. That uniform array of pixels has the potential, when intelligently activated, to draw a picture of anything.

In terms of the current technical use of the word "information" your "claim" is correct. But I am proposing an expanded philosophical definition of Shannon's narrow engineering application. His "information" has been stripped of specific meaning in order to serve as a general carrier of whatever meaning you want to put into it. His 1s & 0s, define the whole range of values from Nothing to Everything. In isolation, a Zero means absolutely "nothing" (black), and a One means vaguely "something" (white). Only when those basic values are combined into variable strings, do they form a pattern that has a particular meaning to the observer. Information is the "difference that makes a meaningful difference" to a rational mind.

However, the "Generic Information" I'm referring to exists metaphorically in the Mind of G*D (Programmer), the originator of all things & meanings in the world. In it's most general & non-specific form, I call it EnFormAction, which is what scientists know as "Energy", and philosophers know as "Causation" : the power to cause change in physical things. In the abstract, Energy is invisible & intangible, so we only know it by what it does, not what it is. For example, a Photon is potential energy. But until it impacts some physical thing, it is essentially nothing, and has no mass. Yet, it can gain mass by slowing down from almost infinite lightspeed to some lower frequency & velocity. Only then does it have meaningful effects that we can observe (transition from Potential to Actual Energy). Ironically, as soon as Potential energy becomes Actual, it converts into Matter.

Therefore, Generic Information is the formless Potential to cause changes in form, which we experience as Meaning or Knowledge or Information (literally, the act of enforming). No change, no meaning. No difference, no meaning. The causal act of enforming is the source of meaning. :nerd:

PS___For another illustration of Generic Information, a human ovum looks like any other mammalian egg, until it becomes differentiated (enformed) into specifically human patterns. So, the egg is generic, capable of generating a wide range of adult animals, with various adult features, tall/short, dark/light, human/pig, etc. (Human DNA is 98% identical with a pig). Small differences in DNA make big difference in final form, hence in meaning.


Enform : (obsolete, transitive) To form; to fashion.

This conversion of energetic light into matter is a direct consequence of Einstein's famous E=mc2 equation, which states that energy and matter (or mass) are interchangeable.
https://www.bnl.gov/newsroom/news.php?a=119023

Platonic Form :
Plato thought that the things we perceive on Earth are really composed of ideas or forms. A form is an eternal and perfect concept, something that is strived for but never actualised on Earth.
http://www.thestargarden.co.uk/Socrates-Plato-and-Aristotle.html

Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic FORM.
BothAnd Blog post 33

MEANINGFUL PATTERN EMERGES FROM RANDOMNESS

What information is contained in the wavefunction? — Hillary

Statistical Information. We call it "Probability". Which is equivalent to "Potential". :smile:

What information is contained in the wavefunction?
— Hillary
Statistical Information. We call — Gnomon

I don't think think structures and forms contain information. Entropy yes. A wavefunctions is just a collection of hidden variables with a specific form which is continuously changing shape. Collapsing, taking shape in potentials, It's shape influences the particle directly. There is no information contained in the sense that it refers to something else than the particle, like the information in a computer refers to things we define, giving it meaning.

I don't think think structures and forms contain information. Entropy yes. A wavefunctions is just a collection of hidden variables with a specific form which is continuously changing shape. Collapsing, taking shape in potentials, It's shape influences the particle directly. There is no information contained in the sense that it refers to something else than the particle, like the information in a computer refers to things we define, giving it meaning. — Hillary

That is compelling. I once heard "news" defined as "something worth knowing that you didn't already know."

The question then revolves around what is "something."

Sartre, following on his studies with or on Heidegger, would maybe interject that a "thing" is anything that is not nothing. Nothing being the blank page essentially or undifferentiated existence.

I do wonder if this essentially philosophical framework muddies our perspective in a very real sense in relation to physics. If we are inherently incapable of discerning the similarity between nothing and something and this results in the Bohmian tendency to attribute hidden variables to the quantum behavior of particles.

It is an interesting conjecture that the fundamental flaw in mathematics is that it must be intelligible to human beings, but it is not practical, is it? The idea that the ultimate answers to physical questions must either be infinity or nothing doesn't convey a satisfactory understanding to our minds, does it?

Information is anything that stands out from a background of infinity or nothing, but the ultimate paradox is that infinity is nothing.

Information is anything that stands out from a background of infinity or nothing, but the ultimate paradox is that infinity is nothing. — ASmallTalentForWar

I can't agree more. The entropy contained in a solid at 0 kelvin is zero and the entropy of that same solid in an ultrahot gas sate goes to infinity. Both states are the same though, in the sense that they are easy to describe. If you know a small part you know all parts (of course the degrees of freedom are each other's inverses, but this only goes to show that total freedom is related to total order). The most interesting state of the material lies between the two extreme temperatures.

The idea that the ultimate answers to physical questions must either be infinity or nothing doesn't convey a satisfactory understanding to our minds, does it? — ASmallTalentForWar

Who has that idea then? Isn't the idea that, for example, the big bang arises from a state of infinite density a sign that something's wrong?

I don't think think structures and forms contain information. Entropy yes. A wavefunctions is just a collection of hidden variables with a specific form which is continuously changing shape. Collapsing, taking shape in potentials, It's shape influences the particle directly. There is no information contained in the sense that it refers to something else than the particle, like the information in a computer refers to things we define, giving it meaning. — Hillary

A ‘bit’ of information in a computer system, as I described earlier, refers to the capacity or potential for an event in a specific system. The difference that makes a difference. This system, I should note, is not just the static components of a computer, but must be inclusive of the electricity that runs through it - the movement of electrons. The information in a computer system, therefore, refers to an event, as does a wavefunction. Don’t be fooled by the rendered appearance of either.

A ‘bit’ of information in a computer system, as I described earlier, refers to the capacity or potential for an event in a specific system — Possibility

Don't think so. A zero or one (or combinations thereof) in a computer is a physical structure (a potential, an electron in one of two states, etc.) which we assign a meaning. This information is not inherent.

The difference that makes a difference. — Possibility

What difference? Between what? What you consider an event?

The information in a computer system, therefore, refers to an event — Possibility

Not neccessarily. It depends on what we asdign to the patterns of potentials and currents.

as does a wavefunction — Possibility

The wavefunction contains no information. It just directs the particle around, The particle hops around within the bounds of the wavefunction.

Don’t be fooled by the rendered appearance of either. — Possibility

Indeed, beware!