OK

OK.

it's not a picture of a physical wave — universeness

You cannot take a picture of a frequency wave! Only of a sea wave! :grin:

Water waves look continuous, but both water waves and a human Mexican wave are actually 'undulations' of discrete quanta. — universeness

Interesting. But do you have anything that shows that? Because until now, I have not seen any natural wave/frequency that is discrete. As I already mentioned, only artifitial/digital frequencies are discreete. Then you say "wave look continuous". How else can we show that they are continuous? Just talking about discrete quanta, quantum packets, etc. does not show anything and it is certainly not a proof that the physical universe is digital/discrete.

I have already presented images showing that sound, voltage etc, frequencies are continuous. I see that this is not enough, so I show below a quantum wave. Even this is continuous.


(https://iai.tv/articles/reality-is-just-a-quantum-wave-function-auid-2024)

a continuous voltage probably isn’t actually continuous since it is based on discreet charges of elementary particles, admittedly over non-discreet interactions. — noAxioms

You mean that this is not continuous?

Because if you think that this is not actually continuous and it is not a proof that voltage is continuous and that the principle of voltage continuity is wrong, and so on, then most probably nothing is continuous for you and, in fact, there's no proof about anything.

Certainly not Maxwell's demon! He's a fake.
(I was joking too, you know.)

Interesting looks like that the AI suffers with the opaque information — javi2541997

Can't say ... You caught me off guard!

How about 'singularity?' — universeness

I have been advised not to talk about it!

Brain matter in humans contain and demonstrably manifest, human intent and purpose

The brain is a stimulus-response mechanism, composed of neurons and glia. It has as much "purpose" as any other machine or mechanism. Computer programs, robots, etc. also manifest such a "purpose".
Matter does not have intention. Matter does not need or desire anything. Need and desire are atrributes of life.

What is the digital universe called?

Metaverse: A digital universe that can be accessed through virtual reality.
(https://edge.yewno.com/metaverse-a-digital-universe-that-can-be-accessed-through-virtual-reality/)

I agree with A-P here, but we actually have no proof of it one way or another. — noAxioms

Definition of "analogue": Relating to or using signals or information represented by a continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position, voltage, etc.
Sound and all other vibration frequencies, electricity and otherforms of energy, etc. show that. From what I know, only artificial --created by man-- frequencies can be discrete (digital). Moreover, what we can perceive in nature and which we can talk about is analogue. I think this is enough for a proof. What we have actually no proof of is that this is an illusion and that the structure of the physical universe is digital/discrete. There are only hypotheses --relating to quanta states, etc.-- which are not evident and, from what I know, have no application in life except maybe for quantum computing/computers. But not even this can stand I think as a proof that the physical universe is digital or both analogue and digital.

I cannot disagree with the things you say, well, except the main point I made! :smile:
The passage I quoted shows clearly that the problem is scientific. Besides, why is it called a "problem" and for whom does it constitute a problem? Who stumbles on that problem and in fact it presents for them an "impasse"?

As I usually say, consciousness is not science material. The subject of consiousness is out of Science jurisdiction. Philosophy on the other hand has no problem studying and talking about consiousness. Consciousness does not present a problem for it. It is one of the subjects it studies, like all the other: existence, reason, knowledge, values, ethics etc. Moreover, everyone is welcome to participate in and present their views about it.

I brought up this subject because a lot of people in here and elsewhere consider and talk about the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" as if it is a philosophical one. Quite strangely so.

Science is by its nature conventional, so its concepts are more accessible to the average person than are philosophical ideas. As a result, people are forced to use their knowledge of science to extrapolate abstract philosophical notions — Joshs

Good point! :up: This explains a lot.

I suppose that I should also mention that this so called "hard problem" was already well-known to John Locke — Manuel

From the aspect that you have Lock considering a problem close to the one about consciousness --because Lock doesn't speak about consciousness per se-- I believe a lot of philosophers can be included in the pool. However, the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" is a scientific, not a philosophical one. That is, it starts and ends in the world of science:

"An explanation of consciousness will have to go beyond the usual methods of science. Consciousness therefore presents a hard problem for science, or perhaps it marks the limits of what science can explain."
-- "The Hard Problem of Consciousness" (https://iep.utm.edu/hard-con/)

But the logic and philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science is not my area of interest. — Fooloso4

I can understand this well. What I cannot undestand is how can science --and more specifically, talking about purely scientific subjects-- be so à la mode in here!

I am somewhat saddened that the logic and philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science categories never receive much attention or forum posts — Shawn

I, on the other hand, am not surprised at all. I never attended to so many talks and in such frequency about science in any philosophical forum or community that I have participated in other than here. In fact, when I joined TPF, since 1.5 years ago, I was surprised to see that TPF allowed topics in which the subject was purely scientific, instead of removing them. Now, I got used to it of course!

WE gained such ability, as a consequence of what evolution via natural selection can do over 10.3 billion years — universeness

Certainly. This is what history, research and logic dictate.

BTW, I just found a term for the kind of information you are talking about: biformation. As we say, "bisexual". In this case both analogue and digital form(ation) and content of what is perceived and/or communicated.

Now, we can both be happy! :smile:

I am not a fan of referencing the ancients too much, but I prefer to follow the lineage from Democritus and the atomists towards folks like Carl Sagan and coming to rest near folks like Sean Carroll, Roger Penrose, Ed Witten, Alan Guth, Sabine Hossenfelder, et al. — universeness

Great lineage! :smile:
I'm not a fan of quoting the ancients --if fact, I'm not a fan of quoting in general, except for very few cases-- and I can't help not quoting Heraclitus' outstanding for that period ideas whenever they are pertinent to a subject under discussion. (And imagine, he was called by many "The Dark Philosopher"! Of course, who could really grasp such ideas --so much meaning in such a concise form! Most cannot really grasp them even today!)

Let's invite the chatbots in the debate!

Question: "Is the physical universe digital?"

Answer from ChatGPT (OpenAI):
"No, the physical universe is not digital. While some physical phenomena can be modeled and represented with digital data, the physical universe itself is not inherently digital. It operates according to physical laws and behaves in continuous and analog ways, rather than in the discrete and binary manner of digital systems."

Answer from ChatSonic (WriteSonic):
"Though the physical universe may appear to be analog, there is mounting evidence that suggests that it is, in fact, digital. It has been theorized that the universe is made up of discrete, quantized particles which behave according to the principles of quantum mechanics, which suggests that the universe is digital in nature. Additionally, recent advances in physics have revealed that the universe is composed of information and can be modeled as a quantum computer. Therefore, although the physical universe may appear analog to our eyes, it is actually digital in nature."

Impressive, eh?

I have no idea if humans or future transhumans will ever be able to observe the universe at it's biggest scale. — universeness

So, we can forget about such a kind of obsevation, right? :smile:
Besides I don't think that we need to go that far in order to consider and talk about our subject.

I am enjoying your contribution Alkis! — universeness

Thank you. I enjoy our exchange too!

A video has a frame rate, such as 24 fpi (24 frames per second). That means 24 pictures are taken or shown every second. — universeness

Right. The effect of the continuous movement is caused by the fast succession the frames, exactly as in flip book, with the fast turning of its pages. Only that this effect, i.e. what we are perceiving, is a representation of the environment, not the environment itself. If we take a video of a ball rolling, in its structure the video will consist of frames/images, but the actual rolling of the ball, which is what occurs in the physical universe, is continuous.

An ocean is made up of water molecules, which are made of hydrogen and oxygen atoms etc. The continuous is made up of the discrete. — universeness

Well, again, Physics is not my strong suit, but aren't atoms themselves in a continuous movement?
Nice! One more good point that supports the "analogue view" and the continuity in the universe. :smile:

I can't help not mentioning here someone who has best described the concept of time without even mentioning the word: Heraclitus. "Everything flows", “No man ever steps in the same river twice". This also depicts the attribute of continuity of the physical universe.

***

We fully disagree on the subject of continuity vs discretness of the physical universe, but this was a fruitful and interesting philosophical exchange. How far would it have been gone if we were fully agreeing from start? :smile:

Human senses are all analogue, so we experience the world through them. — universeness

Good point.

We have all already accepted that human experience does not necessarily fully describe universal REALITY (no woo woo invocations please.) — universeness

What is "universal REALITY" for you? Do you just mean the "physical universe"?
If not, then you must refer to an absolute, objective reality, which is one of the most debatable subjects in philosophy, from what I know and have personally witnessed. (Which of course is out of the scope of this thread.)

I can take a hammer and smash a rock and observe evidence that a rock is reducible to smaller and smaller discrete parts. So, we have the 'continuity' of the analogue form and the 'discrete' quanta of the digital form — universeness

Good point. It reminds me of Zeno's paradoxes. In the "dichotomy paradox", an object cannot go from A to B, because it has to first reach the middle of their distance, and then the middle of the remaining distcance, etc. ad infinitum. This paradox is easily refuted of course because it is based on a false assumption, that space is discrete and thus dvisible. Similarly with the "Achilles paradox", which refers to time instead of space. But both space and time are continuous. As are all analogue forms, versus difgital forms, which are discrete, as you correctly mentioned.
Glad you brought this up. It is another excellent support of the view that the physical universe is analogue and not digital.

Field excitations are discrete, but they can combine and propagate as continuous wave forms. — universeness

Right. You can also get an analogue waveform by passing through all the peaks of a digital waveform in a continuous movement. And vice-versa of course, which is how digital audio is produced (as far as I know, based on my limited knowledge on the subject.)

When digital music is played back, it's REAL music your ear receives — universeness

Of course it is real. :smile: Any sound that we hear is real. Coming from a digital or analogue source. Digital sounds propagate into the air as analogue ones. And thus we can hear them because our hearing is analogue. This is another point that supports the view ... Well, you know what. :smile:

Analogue states are continuous but anything continuous, is a combinatorial of discrete states. A movie is a series of photographs. A rock is a combinatorial of discrete fundamentals, as is every object in the universe. — universeness

Oh, something is not OK with this. A film is a series of pictures but a movie is the result of its projection onto a screen. The film is what consists of descrete, saparate photos. But the movie is continuous. It is what we perceive through our senses and then process with our mind.
Better see it this way: when you take a video, there are no separate parts (photos). You can, if you want take a screenshot, in the same way you take a selfie, which will be an independent image, but this would be just like taking a handful of water from a continuous flow of water. The water flow does not consist of handfuls of water. The video does not consist of screenshots.

Anyway, we are all just sharing views in this place, aren't we? :smile:

Please check your INBOX.

Please check your INBOX.

Please check your INBOX.

Here. I just asked OAI as question about the subhect that I am discussing in parallel to this, about information and the physical universe (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/775695):

Me: "Is the physical universe digital?"

OAI: "No, the physical universe is not digital. While some physical phenomena can be modeled and represented with digital data, the physical universe itself is not inherently digital. It operates according to physical laws and behaves in continuous and analog ways, rather than in the discrete and binary manner of digital systems."

And the answer was instantaneous this time!
Well, I'm glad to "hear" that, because most people try desperately --for an unknown to me reason-- to make the physical universe digital in nature!

Of course, I can't present this answer to the discussion, because I will "hear" things like "And what a robot can really know about this?" :grin: Well, go figure now how to explain to them that this robot gets information from people's opinions and standard references in the Web! :smile:

To be honest, I tried to avoid trivial questions with the AI like: Do you like sunny days?! — javi2541997

Well, I can think of dozens of interesting and useful questions that are not trivial. One can find a lot of them just by browsing the contents of this forum!

Nonetheless, it seems that it is not capable to express emotions. — javi2541997

Of course not! This is a subject that is discussed a lot in forums, movies, novels, etc. But see, AI is product of programming and thus mechanical in nature. Emotions refer to the soul. And an AI bot does not and will never have one. At least the AI as we know it today.

Such complex dilemmas are better understood and debated by humans — javi2541997

Well, they are not dilemmas for me! :smile:

ok, next time I would ask about katanas! — javi2541997

Please hold on while I look it up ... OK, don't do that either! :grin:

There may be a way to reconcile the two concepts of analogue and digital in nature at a fundamental level. — punos

See, one has to use "could be", "maybe" etc., descibing a possibility that the "digitality" of the physical universe. This means that there is no evidence about it, only hypotheses. And I really wonder why people in here talk so much about it. As if they wish the PU to be digital for one reason or another! Why?

If one talks about a digital PU, in essence he refers to bits. Yet, a bit is a term belonging to computer science and it is defined as:
- "the most basic unit of information in computing and digital communications" (Wikipedia)
- "a unit of information in a computer that must be either 0 or 1" (Cambridge dictionary)
- and so on ...
So, if we accept this, we have to think of the PU as a huge computer of a very very ancient technology, which is a million times better and more powerful than ours and what we could even imagine. Then we have to accept that we live in a virtual reality, something like Matrix. But then, if we did, and we were part of it, could we ever understand or even be aware of it?

See the implications of thinking of PU as digital in its structure ?

For me as i currently think about it; a true analogue form would be informationless, it would simply have one bit, 1 datum. — punos

(See above about "bit".)

The answers are so elaborated and well written rather than being ambiguous or just a copy and paste from Wikipedia — javi2541997

No, answers are not "copy-pasted". My niece, who introduced me to OAI, was very impressed by the answer she received when she asked OAI to make a summary on some subject (I don't remember what), because it was so creative. I also did the same, asking a summary on a film and got a lengthy answer. I looked first in IMDb, since I thought it could have copied it from there. Nope! Then I copy-pasted some parts of the answer in Google (within quotes, so that I get exact matches). Again, nope!
Well, that would be too easy wouldn't it? It is really a creative and advanced ChatBot.

It is so interesting that OpenAI can manage different answers to their interlocutors. — javi2541997

Do you think it can differentiate between them? :grin:
Well, we shouldn't lauph so easily. I guess that after a dozen or more exhanges with you, it can form some idea about your preferences and interests, knowlegeability, intelligence, etc. and then customize its answers accordingly. Not so difficult!

That message arose when I was keeping in talking about seppuku — javi2541997

Well, it's not so pleasant a subject, is it? Most probably the subject of suicide is classified as very negative and even dangerous ...
Try to ask it more pleasant things! :grin:

I didn't want to get banned the first day :lol: — javi2541997

No, that would be a shame! :grin:

one of my main objectives was to persuade the AI to agree with me in the interpretation of seppuku or ritual suicide. Nonetheless, it turned out to be impossible. — javi2541997

This shows much intelligence for a ChatBot, doesn't it?

OpenAI: As an AI language model, I don't have personal thoughts or feelings, but my understanding of the topic remains the same: ... — javi2541997

Great stuff! Really.
But please, stop talking about suicide! :grin:

Your offer is welcome. :smile:

Physical nature is analogue, despite "Planck's quanta" — Gnomon

Good to know.

Quanta are mental analogies to gaps in our knowledge of holistic physical systems. — Gnomon

Interesting view.

Causation is continuous, but our perception is inherently discrete. — Gnomon

I agree. Good point.

However, the universe, as a whole, including physical (material) & metaphysical (mental), seems to be both digital and analog. — Gnomon

Of course, since the digital "world" is part of the physical world. Mainly because we humans have created it, but also because of some natural "digitization" or inherent "digitality" (can't think of a better terms), which of course is not evident to me.

Is Quantum Reality Analog after All? — Gnomon

I can't say! Believe me! :grin:

— Gnomon

— Gnomon

Very good points. I enjoyed your comments. Thanks.

And I will have a look at the references you have provided.

A digital system can appear from a distance as analog, but analog never appears digital at any scale. — punos

Good point.

The Planck volume is ... — punos

Please, enough about this guy! :grin:

So you dispute Planck's quanta? How pre-1900 of you, AP. — 180 Proof

How can I dispute Planck's quanta if I am not knowledgable on the subject, @180 Proof?
If you want to comment on my messages, you must read them all or read them better: I mentioned to @universeness two or three times that I have very little knowledge of the subject and in fact, about Physics, in general.

And please, be more polite and avoid criticizing people so easily, esp. without having been given the right or a reason to.

One more great topic and a great idea to bring it in here, Javi! :up:

I have "known" OpenAI quite recently and I don't have much experience in it. Unfortunately, I can never use it in my PC; it's always overloaded. But it seems it prefers my Android phone! So, I wanted to "compare notes" with you and I asked OAI the same question: "Why has Yukio Mishima committed suicide?" I received the following answer. (It's more elaborate than yours. I wonder if the communication medium (device) plays some role and that's ...)

"Yukio Mishima committed suicide as a protest against what he saw as the decadence and lack of spiritual discipline in modern Japanese society. He believed that Japan had lost touch with its cultural heritage and traditional values and sought to shock the nation into a reexamination of its cultural identity through his dramatic and public suicide."
Isn't that just great? I'm using Web scraping myself from time to time, but this is something else ... very advanced!

Now, I repeated the same exactly question and I received an even much more elaborat answer:

"Yukio Mishima committed suicide on November 25, 1970, due to a combination of personal, political, and cultural reasons. Mishima was a highly celebrated writer in Japan and was known for his traditional views on the country’s culture and heritage. He was also frustrated with the modernizing of Japan, feeling that the country was losing its spiritual and cultural identity.

Mishima had a desire for physical and spiritual purity, and he viewed suicide as the ultimate form of self-expression. He was also dissatisfied with the state of Japan’s political system and believed that the emperor should play a more prominent role in the country’s affairs.

Mishima committed seppuku (ritual suicide) after delivering a speech to a group of military cadets. He was hoping that his act would inspire others to rise up against the government and reclaim the country’s cultural heritage. However, his suicide was not well-received and was seen as a shocking and violent act.

In conclusion, Mishima's suicide was a result of his deeply held beliefs and frustrations with the state of Japan at the time."

I-n-c-r-e-d-i-b-l-e ! It surpasses my imagination of how can such an effectiveness be achieved. Despite being an experienced programmer, knowing a lot about AI and using Web scraping myself. At least, I believe it is about Web scraping, because there's no way that OAI maintains such a huuuge DB.

Well, I stopped asking OAI more questions. I just followed your chat.

if someone has read until here, we can conclude that the algorithm used in this AI contains persuasive arguments to avoid suicide. It was so interesting. — javi2541997

Indeed. I would say very impressive, and I can tell you that am not easily impressed by AI or programming stuff in general.
OAI must certainly use more than one algorithms, although this is of a secondary importance here.
As for its persuasiveness, I believe that it results from reading references that are most popular in the Web and which are negative about, against suicide. This "negativity" might come either 1) from a DB (dictionary), in which it can easily detect the pros and cons of a subect, or the subject classified as such or 2) in its research on the Web it can see if the majority of the references are "negative" or "positive" on the subect. There's a AI text-analysis technique that I know, which detects the prevalent mood of a text passage. I have used it myself a couple of times and I read about it often. A combination of the two methods might well be used. And, of course, any other method I can't thhin off offhand right now ...

The best candidate right now, is the 'bit'. — universeness

But the physical universe is analogue, not digital. 0/1 bits belong to virtual, computer reality. E.g. the natureal sound is analogue. Digital sound is virtual, i.e. not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so. That's how different they are:

If you accept that its possible to fully reproduce a field excitation, such as an 'up quark,' via a data representation, such as a two state binary system... — universeness

We can never fully reproduce something physical using a digital method. Even if today's audio digital equipment surpass in resolution even the best analogue equipment. But this is as far as quality and playback are concerned. No matter how good a quality can digital technology produce, it will always be an imitation of the physical world. And we don;t have to talk about supercomputers: a simple pocket calculator is a million times better in arithmetic than the human mind or any analogue methods used in the past. The memory even of the first, primitive computers was way more effective and efficient than using human memory, in terms of capacity and usage. Yet, Computer memory is artificial. As is artificial intelligence. They cannot and will never fully represent the physical world or the human mind. They are imitations, no matter how good they can be.

If I explain the above binary representation of an up quark as representing ... — universeness

I can't really follow you in all this, sorry. My knowledge in this field are quite limited ...
I hope though that your ideas produce fruit some day! Indeed, you seem quite a resourceful and creative person.

I think you are moving too far away from where we actually are, when you type words like, 'so we actually have nothing in our hands.' — universeness

You are maybe right. I don't follow scientifc progress as you do ... But I have followed science in subjects that I am particularily interested in like the mind, memory, consciousness, etc. And I have been fed up with scientific views about, e.g. how they "finally discovered" where momory resides in the brain --each now and then they find a new place-- and that consciousness is the product of the brain and so on, w/o any evidence but only hypotheses and speculations. This the point of view from which is I said what I said about science. Yet, I consider myself to be quite "scientific" --in the sense of systematic or accurate in the manner of an exact science-- in my life, esp. the professions I have had. E.g. I consider and treat programming both as an art and a science.

science cannot currently prove that they understand the workings and structure of 'reality,' in the universe, there is no other method that can even begin to compete with it. — universeness

Exactly. But they behave as they do understand and are most competent on almost all subjects, of a physical and non-physical nature.

Brain matter in humans contain and demonstrably manifest, human intent and purpose. — universeness

Well, as I said, we have radically different views in this area.
But this does not prevent me at all from enjoying our exchange! :smile:

For me, it means that current posited fundamentals are not fundamentals. A quark, an electron, a photon, a gluon, a higgs boson or even the proposed erebon or superstring are not fundamentals. — universeness

OK. But what are these "universal fundamentals?" :smile:

The laws of physics are human interpretations of what humans scientifically observe, but that does not mean that they necessarily, fully describe, the REALITY of the universe. — universeness

I agree.

Yes, as our current science cant take us much further than 'could be,' not yet. — universeness

Right. So we actually have nothing in our hands. Yet, regarding abtract ideas in general --such as information-- scientists in their majority claim that they have found this and that, that they know how things work, etc. Yet, often w/o any solid evidence or even with no evidence at all. (Of course, they have to defend their trade in the same way religions do, only that they deal with more concrete and tangible stuff.)

You can even add more fringe posits such as @Gnomon's enformationism, for consideration. — universeness

Thans for the suggestion. But my library is already full of -isms! :smile:

Well, atoms combine into molecules via chemical bonds and a qualified chemist could explain the details much better than I — universeness

Well, it was just an offhand example using a simple and very common subject. Not meant to be streched. Besides, as I said, it could lead at best to some interpretation, a different kind of information, its use and its purpose. Matter has no purpose, i.e. intention or desire. This is an attribute of life, even if its purpose is reduced down an urge to survive. And it needs and uses information for that purpose, Matter does not strive to survive. It does not strive for anything. It has no urge whatsoever. So, it doesn't need or can use any information.

My attempt to 'portray the above scenario,' is nothing more, than a measure of my own limited ability to I think there are many on TPF who could do a better job of it than I. — universeness

I understand and respect this.

Thanks for coming back on this. I consider the subject of information a very important one,
to a point that I'm thinking of starting a discussion on it ...

I think that based on his delivery in the video, Jim Al Khalili thinks that information IS a universal fundamental. — universeness

What does "universal fundamental" mean for you exactly? The essence, the basic element of the Universe, or what? And in what way? An example?

I found his evidence in support of such a hypothesis currently makes the hypothesis more that a hypothesis but still falls a little short of the 'theory' label. — universeness

I agree. In fact, I didn't see any kind of support for this hyposthesis, much less a proof. (Except of course if I messed it.)

For me, we would have to be able to produce something like a REAL photon or quark, via a list of instructions alone. A mechanism would then produce a material photon or a quark or an electron by 'processing' the list of instructions. — universeness

"A team of physicists is now claiming the first direct observation of the long-sought Breit-Wheeler process, in which two particles of light, or photons, crash into one another and produce an electron and its antimatter counterpart, a positron. But like a discussion from an introductory philosophy course, the detection’s significance hinges on the definition of the word “real.” Some physicists argue the photons don’t qualify as real, raising questions about the observation’s implications."
(https://www.sciencenews.org/article/colliding-photons-matter-particle-physics)

Information could be thee universal fundamental and the basis of a theory of everything without invoking any panpsychist or universal mind posits which are independent of us. — universeness

Thank you for taking up my question about if the physical universe has a mind that can intrerpret and handle information.
OK, I already asked about the concept of "universal fundamental". Now, based on your using of "could be", I see that we can only make hypotheses on the subject, either by considering particular philosophical views like e.g. panpsychism, universal consciousness, etc. or none, i.e. starting from an independent point of view.
For example, I could consider that atoms "use" some kind of "information" to combine with other atoms and form molecules. Yet, even if something like this can be considered as a workable theory, description or explanation, it would always be a speculatiom and an interpretation of what we all know as "information".

Indeed, it's hard to answer this question. It is indeed a "far bigger question" as you say. And in fact, it leads to even a much broader question: "Does the Universe has a purpose?".

Quite interesting info and points. :up:

I think it's enough for the purposes of our exchange to agree that information is labelled data or data which has been assigned an associated human meaning. — universeness

I agree. But the main issue in what I have talked about, or my main point if you like, is not about how "data" and "information" are related. As I said, they are ofter interchangeable. I don't really mind if we use them as one and the same thing.
Yet, the most important question I brought up regarding the video, namely, if data have any meaning and purpose for the physical universe, is kind of lost and it is half-answered.
(Re

Information with no meaning is data. ... 'Jimmy' is data. 'Dog name: Jimmy' is information. ... 1 or 0 are bit data. They represent two data states. — universeness

I still wait to hear, i.e. if the physical universe has a mind that can intrerpret and handle data and if yes, how? And not because we can and we are part of the the physical universe as you say, but independetly of us.

I think that applies to science. — Vera Mont

[Re: "Philosophy emerges from logic and the need for knowledge"]
I agree. It also applies to science. Don't forget that in ancient Greek philosophy, science and philosophy where one. In fact, the first Greek philosopher is (considered to be) Thales of Miletus, was also a mathematician and astronomer.

Philosophy emerges from the need to organize the world into a discernible pattern. (And religion, to control its forces) — Vera Mont

This maybe applies to the philosophy as we know it today, i.e. the systematic study of general and fundamental questions. That is, to a "philosophy" as an already established field of knowlege, not to the origin of philosophy, as a human need and mental activity, which is the question I talked about. "Systematization", as an attribute of philosopy, came much later.

Don't forget that the word "philosophy" comes from the Greek "philos" (= friend, lover) and "sophia" (= wisdom, knowledge). It's the need and quest for knowledge that drives philosophy, or more correctly, philosophical thinking. And this is achieved mainly by reasoning. Other mental factors like observation, perception, imagination, memory, etc. are also involved.

Characteristic example: Socratic questioning as a critical thinking strategy and pursuit of wisdom (knowledge).

Did philosophy begin somewhere? — Bret Bernhoft

Has religion begun from somewhere? Or science?
They are all "products" of the natural development of the human mind. And as such they have their roots in all parts of the planet and they are developed in different ways and levels, based on conditions that anthropologists know better.

Take for instance Western and Eastern philosophies: their differnece is huge even after thousands of years since the time we have some evidences of their origin. In fact, there are differences --sometimes huge-- even between cultures in the same geographical area.

IMO, it would be more interesting if we just take the word "all" out: "What is the root of philosophy?". Or "How does philosophy emerges?"
And to that, my quick answer would be: from logic and the need for knowledge.