Is the universe created from an "informationally-based" substance?

[seeds]

_______

(Note: This thread is an off-shoot from the "Christianity" thread in the "General Philosophical Discussion" forum.)

...More interesting, to me at any rate, is what exactly you mean by "an "informationally-based" substance". You don't like the duck pond analogy, how about an old 45? The information on a record is in the groove; when you first drop the needle, there is no sound, because the groove is smooth; it carries no information. And then: Wop bop a loo bop a lop bom bom! The way I see things is that the substance comes first; be that a duck pond, a record or the stuff the universe is made of.

What I mean by suggesting that the phenomenal features of the universe are created from an "informationally-based substance," is partially derived from Heisenberg referring to the unmeasured (superpositioned) quantum realm as existing as some kind of raw "potentia" whose (ghost-like) constituent properties evolve according to Schrödinger's equation, which is loosely represented by this Wiki gif...



I'm talking about a substance that apparently consists of waveform patterns that adjust (or rearrange) themselves at some deeper...

(Bohm's "Implicate"/inaccessible/"non-local")

...level of reality in a way that causes the substance to conform to whatever it is our measuring devices are looking for. And thus, in a way, our devices kind of "create the reality" they are looking for by somehow inducing the necessary restructuring of the waveform patterns that comprise Heisenberg's raw potentia.

In other words, if a measuring device is designed to look for an electron's angular momentum, the raw potentia substance will adjust its waveforms in such a way as to present itself as an electron with angular momentum.

On the other hand, if a measuring device is designed to look for the position of that same electron, again, the raw potentia substance will adjust its waveforms accordingly and present itself as an electron with position, etc., etc..

And the point is that according to Bohr and Heisenberg's Copenhagen Interpretation, so-called "electrons" that exist in a state of superposition (in Heisenberg's "ghostly" state of potentia), have no specific properties (such as position or angular momentum, etc.) until a measurement is made. And therefore, it is our measuring devices (arbitrarily created by us) that seem to "assign" said properties to the raw potentia.

Like I suggested earlier, the underlying substance of reality in its "rawest" form...

(for example, during its superpositioned status as it transits in the interim space between the double-slitted wall and the phosphorescent screen in the double-slit experiment)

...again, loosely represented by this,...



...is "up for grabs," so to speak, and can be used in the construction of anything we "choose to see" up at the "local" (Bohm's "Explicate") level of reality (again, just like the raw substance from which our thoughts and dreams are created).

And just for the "record",...

...I understand what you are saying about the "old 45" (and the duck pond). However (and ironically), all you are doing is taking the infinitely malleable (clay-like) informational substance from which your mental holography is created, and shaping it into visualizable thought experiments that, by reason of what the whole process entails, seems to support my argument.

I gather you are a dualist.

Is that a problem?

Are you not a dualist?

In other words, do you not see any appreciable difference between the living, self-aware "agent" (the "I Am-ness") that sits at the throne of your consciousness, and that of the inanimate "stuff" that you (the living agent) call matter?

Or, more specifically, do you honestly see no difference between the "dreamer" and that of the substance that forms the dreamer's dreams?

(P.S., there's plenty of sound in the smooth grooves of a 45; it's called hiss)

(Oh, and P.P.S., you tooty-frooty little tart, it's "whomp bomp b-luma b-lomp bomp bomp" - and/or - "whomp bomp b-luma b-lomp bam boom" )
_______

[VVilliam]

Is the universe created from an "informationally-based" substance?

Isn't any substance 'informationally based'? I ask because information in and of itself is useless without something which can use it.

[Impenitent]

Leibniz is smiling

-Imp

[Scott Mayers]

...

I agree and like that .gif for representing it. My own theory is based on structure being 'manifest' this way. "Manifest" means how Nature expresses the informative raw data to us as something 'physical'.

I thought of another argument for this. Given I've argued with a past (passed on, that is) member here about 'models' in contrast to 'reality', I argue that...

Since the reality is the most 'perfect' model being a one-to-one correspondance, the model and the reality are one and the same. That we are biased by BEING a 'manifestation' of the raw-level reality based upon "laws", most will tend to only feel comfortable interpreting information as superficial representatives. However, like how "pointers" in computers represent an indirect reference to another address in memory yet is ALSO simply another memory unit being used to hold the address of another memory, the reality of the pointer has a one-to-one corresponding architecture as a memory space as the actual address being assigned the pointer.

For non-computer programmers, the related analogy can be that the points in space themselves may be anything 'real' that we may be seeking to make sense of. To us, the "points" when pictured as a graph are coordinates that seem somehow artificial to the real "points" in space. The real point is also itself a mere 'model' in that our neurological activity is what 'models' what we refer to as 'real'. Reality is itself an inference based on our conscious model. If it is 'real', so is the information it or any of its coordinates reference. What is the difference then to interpret that reality is just the manifest illusion of the raw data and its 'form' (the formula that ties the data together)? NONE.

So reality has to be based upon merely logic and 'artificial' data for inputs and outputs. The best ultimate explanation for the reality is the reality itself as mere model of itself.

[Scott Mayers]

Here is a potentially relevant Wikipedia link: Information Entropy and Claude Shannon

It is technical but I Googled "Shannon" and "information theory" given I recall a PSA [public service announcement] promoting Canadian contributors and his name popped up with his initial 'light bulb' moment....almost literally. I can't find the video yet if it is online at all. But it just had him pondering about what "information" was and realized that the very lightbulb itself IS 'information', equating reality to being itself just a kind of model of abstract data.

[seeds]

Is the universe created from an "informationally-based" substance?

Isn't any substance 'informationally based'? I ask because information in and of itself is useless without something which can use it.

I'm a little confused as to how your second sentence relates to your first sentence. Perhaps you can clarify it for me?

And in regard to the topic of this thread, there seems to be a question (between me and uwot) as to how far down into the fabric of reality you can go before the term "information" no longer applies.

I doubt that we'll ever sort it out, but hey, that's what philosophizing is all about.
_______

[seeds]

The way I see things is that the substance comes first; be that a duck pond, a record or the stuff the universe is made of.

Upon deeper reflection of your "duck pond" and "record groove" analogy, I think I'm starting to understand what you're getting at.

If we were somehow able to isolate, say, a Planck-length snippet from the curling line depicted in the gif...



...then rather than that snippet (in and of itself) being a part of the informational process represented by that evolving quantum wave, it would, instead, be a representation of the primal "stuff" you've been referring to (i.e., the un-disturbed duck pond, or the smooth record groove) of which the waves of quantum information themselves are made of.

Is that kind of what you mean?

If so, then perhaps we are venturing into Spinoza's "oneness" substance territory, or even that of the Plotinus concept of the "ONE".

But then there is the issue of what the primal "stuff" itself is made of.
_______

[VVilliam]

Is the universe created from an "informationally-based" substance?

Isn't any substance 'informationally based'? I ask because information in and of itself is useless without something which can use it.

I'm a little confused as to how your second sentence relates to your first sentence. Perhaps you can clarify it for me?

And in regard to the topic of this thread, there seems to be a question (between me and uwot) as to how far down into the fabric of reality you can go before the term "information" no longer applies.

I doubt that we'll ever sort it out, but hey, that's what philosophizing is all about.
_______

Yes - okay.

What I was eluding to was consciousness. Without consciousness, what is there which can do anything with information?

With consciousness,, any substance is information based....

[seeds]

...

I agree and like that .gif for representing it. My own theory is based on structure being 'manifest' this way. "Manifest" means how Nature expresses the informative raw data to us as something 'physical'.

Sounds good, Scott.

However, it brings us to that perennial issue regarding the question of what it is that transforms that "raw data" into the phenomenal (physical) features of the universe.

Reality is itself an inference based on our conscious model. If it is 'real', so is the information it or any of its coordinates reference. What is the difference then to interpret that reality is just the manifest illusion of the raw data and its 'form' (the formula that ties the data together)? NONE.

Agreed.
_______

[uwot]

I'll start with this:

Are you not a dualist?

To be a dualist is to assert that there are two separate substances, in this case mind and matter. Granted it is intuitively compelling, so when you ask:

In other words, do you not see any appreciable difference between the living, self-aware "agent" (the "I Am-ness") that sits at the throne of your consciousness, and that of the inanimate "stuff" that you (the living agent) call matter?

The answer is yes, of course I see a difference. The thing is, I have no idea how to explain life, let alone consciousness; but to believe that they are somehow divorced from matter and only imbue themselves in particular structures, in my view, is a leap of faith. I mean yeah, it's a possibility.

Or, more specifically, do you honestly see no difference between the "dreamer" and that of the substance that forms the dreamer's dreams?

I can see a difference. It doesn't follow there is one.
With that in mind, back to the top:

What I mean by suggesting that the phenomenal features of the universe are created from an "informationally-based substance," is partially derived from Heisenberg referring to the unmeasured (superpositioned) quantum realm as existing as some kind of raw "potentia" whose (ghost-like) constituent properties evolve according to Schrödinger's equation...

Right, well what I gather you to be saying is that the constituent properties are directed, by the power of thought. I get the hologram analogies, but just how close are they to what you believe is actually the case? How are the knobs fiddled?

...if a measuring device is designed to look for an electron's angular momentum, the raw potentia substance will adjust its waveforms in such a way as to present itself as an electron with angular momentum.

That's one way of looking at it, but to detect a particular property, you have to create conditions favourable to that property - to some degree the results are sucked up. However subtle and clever we may be, we don't fully understand the mechanisms of quantum mechanics, and while Bell's Theorem gets trotted out, it isn't theory that dictates how the universe behaves.

And the point is that according to Bohr and Heisenberg's Copenhagen Interpretation, so-called "electrons" that exist in a state of superposition (in Heisenberg's "ghostly" state of potentia), have no specific properties (such as position or angular momentum, etc.) until a measurement is made.

Yer know, the best analogy I can think of is if you scuff a rug. The rug being the universe and the kicking thereof a bit of energy, or information if you prefer. Enough of a kick will cause the rug to wrinkle, analogous to a particle. That wrinkle will probably occur close to where the rug is kicked, but it could occur anywhere. I know you like pictures so you can see what I mean here: https://popgunsbubblesandmotorbikes.blo ... -guns.html

(Oh, and P.P.S., you tooty-frooty little tart...

Steady on old boy, it's tutti frutti - originally a reference to anal sex. Tart in English English is prostitute and I'm 6 foot 4 and 16 stone, so not little either, but I take it in the spirit intended.

...it's "whomp bomp b-luma b-lomp bomp bomp" - and/or - "whomp bomp b-luma b-lomp bam boom" )

Listen again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj059o9OwqY

[uwot]

If we were somehow able to isolate, say, a Planck-length snippet from the curling line depicted in the gif...



...then rather than that snippet (in and of itself) being a part of the informational process represented by that evolving quantum wave, it would, instead, be a representation of the primal "stuff" you've been referring to (i.e., the un-disturbed duck pond, or the smooth record groove) of which the waves of quantum information themselves are made of.

Is that kind of what you mean?

Well look, the common perception since Einstein's 1905 papers has been that special relativity proves that the universe is not made of any sort of stuff. We all know that special relativity was in part inspired by the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. What that proved is that what appears to be empty space is not a static medium that the Earth and other bodies drift through. However, Einstein's own general relativity a decade later, is premised on the idea that space is made of some sort of stuff that has mechanical properties. Quantum field theory concurs; in essence particles are excited states of fundamental fields - information, in the sense that particles are irregularities in otherwise smooth duck ponds, records, scuffed up rugs, quantum fields, pick your analogy. So what I mean is that the blue wave is not separable from the white background. I like the way Derek Leinweber of the University of Adelaide depicts empty space:

If so, then perhaps we are venturing into Spinoza's "oneness" substance territory, or even that of the Plotinus concept of the "ONE".

Well, until we fully understand the properties of the stuff the universe is physically made of, it seems presumptive to introduce another sort of stuff.

But then there is the issue of what the primal "stuff" itself is made of.

Yes, that is the issue. Frankly, I haven't ruled out Bishop Berkeley's hypothesis.

[Scott Mayers]

I'll start with this:

Are you not a dualist?

To be a dualist is to assert that there are two separate substances, in this case mind and matter. Granted it is intuitively compelling, so when you ask:

In other words, do you not see any appreciable difference between the living, self-aware "agent" (the "I Am-ness") that sits at the throne of your consciousness, and that of the inanimate "stuff" that you (the living agent) call matter?

The answer is yes, of course I see a difference. The thing is, I have no idea how to explain life, let alone consciousness; but to believe that they are somehow divorced from matter and only imbue themselves in particular structures, in my view, is a leap of faith. I mean yeah, it's a possibility.

I haven't participated in the prior part of you and seed's discussion elsewhere on this but I think the confusion about the 'duality' issue is merely about a distinction between static and dynamic phenomena relative to one another.

The 'structure' of some organ like the brain that creates the conscious phenomena are 'cellular' logical machines that collectively permit consciousness as being based upon a particular set of energy exchanges of these atomic units (the cells) during some functional event. As such, the 'energy' when the neurons are active AND in sync, create the conscious phenomena but masks or ignores the physical structure it is dependent upon. The conscious state is a dynamic logic that rides over its relatively non-dynamic structure but does not require 'feeling' the structure it is dependent upon.

So although consciousness is dependent upon its physical sub-structure, our sense of being conscious does not have to have the identical structure it relies on because it is the logic that makes the sensation of consciousness.

For example, we can create a calculator that can be structurally made of component 'cells' based upon silicon transistors. But the same calculation can be made from a calculator based upon 'cells' based upon electrical relays or vaccuum tubes. The information of some particular calculation acts as a particular 'conscious' experience that does not require depending upon its cellular components and thus represents a type of dualistic interpretation rationally.

[I assume it also possible or even probable that the structure may be necessarily of a specific KIND of unit in which the calculation dynamically being made in a calculator using transistors versus vaccum tubes versus relays MAY make the 'sense' of the energy exchange be distinct like how a two distinct musical instruments have distinct 'qualities' of sound but share the logic of "pitch". A violin can map middle-C on the piano and clearly be identified distinctly. But the point is that consciousness can be thought of as the literal music UNDEFINED by any particular instrument. We can still recognize Twinkle-twinkle-Little-Star on various instruments. The structure CAN thus be theoretically separated in this way to its dynamic function.]

[VVilliam]

Assuming consciousness is emergent of brain function and did not exist prior to brains, is something aligned with belief rather than logic.

[Scott Mayers]

Assuming consciousness is emergent of brain function and did not exist prior to brains, is something aligned with belief rather than logic.

How?

[VVilliam]

Assuming consciousness is emergent of brain function and did not exist prior to brains, is something aligned with belief rather than logic.

How?

FOr starters, ack of supporting evidence. What evidence there is, can also be disputed...