Obvious Leo wrote:
uwot wrote:What is energy/information made of, or what carries it?
This question makes no sense. I define information as the fundamental unit of physical reality and if it were made of something then it wouldn't be fundamental, would it?
I presume you are familiar with Lego. The blocks come in different shapes and sizes and when pushed together in the appropriate way, will stick together, so they exert a force of sorts. With them, you can build very complicated structures. Granted it's not a perfect analogy, but my question equates to 'What are the fundamental Lego blocks made of?'
Obvious Leo wrote:This is where physics is so hopelessly confused. It defines the sub-atomic particles as fundamental entities and yet they all have different physical properties, such as mass, charge and spin. No explanation is offered as to the origin of these properties because the spacetime model simply doesn't allow for it.
I don't think physics is confused. Physics, in this instance, is about studying the blocks. I might be wrong, but it seems to me that you are claiming the blocks are fundamentally 'made of' their dimensions, shapes and the fact that they grip. I say they are made of plastic; I don't know what sort of plastic, and for all I know they could as easily be made of wood or some alloy without affecting what you could do with them. It's the oldest question in philosophy (western, that is), being the issue that most exercised the Pre-Socratic. Physicists are no different to anyone else in their curiosity, but unless the nature of the plastic makes an observable difference, it isn't something physics needs care about and many physicists don't.
Obvious Leo wrote:Yet from E=mc(2) we know perfectly well that mass is simply an emergent form of energy. In an informational reality I simply say that the matter particles are being encoded for, which defines the universe as a non-linear computer.
So you have a program; what are you running it on?
As I have explained, I read your synopsis and found it too wordy for me. It's the Marmite thing: you either love it or hate it and through no fault of yours, I didn't like it, which is a pity as there are interesting ideas there.
Obvious Leo wrote:
uwot wrote:But are the phenomena not 'real'? And isn't that the basis of physics?
No the bloody phenomena are NOT real. The phenomena are observer constructs and nothing more.
Well, that's simple Descartes 101: our subjective experiences are the only thing we cannot doubt are real.
Look at what you say about quarks:
Obvious Leo wrote:A quark is only a quark because that's how we've all agreed to model an observation.
Yes, an individuals immediate perception of a sensation is subjective, but the fact that enough people can experience a sufficiently similar phenomenon to agree to call it the same name suggests that there is something external that stimulates that phenomenon.
Obvious Leo wrote:...Leibniz was the world's first information theorist and his monads were the first informational "bit" so I acknowledge him by using the same terminology in my philosophy. However Wheeler was the genius who predicted that the universe of sublime austerity which a true unification model would reveal would be an "it from bit" paradigm.
And it is a great irony of physics that what we normally regard as 'physical' the stuff the universe is made of, the plastic of the bricks, the donkey carrying the information, is irrelevant.
Obvious Leo wrote:
uwot wrote:What evidence do you have that you and I, by existing, have caused a decrease in entropy? It seems plausible to me that the colossal energy of the universe can create extraordinarily intricate structures and still be winding down.
The only problem with this hypothesis is that all the evidence is pointing the other way. The second law of thermodynamics requires that all sub-structures within the cosmos must devolve from the complex to the simple.
No. It only requires that the overall entropy increases
Obvious Leo wrote:However they still need to evolve from the simple to the complex in the first place and that the universe as a whole is evolving from the simple to the complex is a proposition beyond dispute.
Actually, the red shift of distant galaxies suggests that the universe is expanding and 'flattening out' exactly in line with thermodynamics, or at least it did until 'dark energy' popped up.
Obvious Leo wrote:"All things originate from one another, and vanish into one another according to necessity and in conformity with the order of time"...Anaximander
I used a version of this in an article I wrote, it's on my blog: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2015 ... nches.html
Anaximander was the first physicist in the modern sense in that, while everyone else was trying to work out which substance: earth, water, air or fire was primordial, he said there was some stuff, the apeiron, and it was the measurable qualities, hot and cold, wet and dry that defined an 'element'. The point I make is that while physics can tell you what fundamental particles do, what 'information' defines them, physics cannot tell you what particles are made of. You're right, it could all be ideas in the mind of god, but I really think you need something to peg your information to.