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

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

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

Post by jayjacobus »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 10:12 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 8:30 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 2:25 pm
"Instructions?" Atoms make choices? What do they do with these instructions. Are atoms born with little books, "how to be a good atom?" What are you talking about?

I think you are reifying a whole lot of metaphors.

I know that sounds like a criticism, but its not meant that way. I think you are just making a mistake, and understandable one, but still a mistake.
Atoms contain information ...
If that means something to you, fine. It does not mean anything to me and Chemistry is one of my major interests in life. There is not a single attribute of any chemical element that can be identified as, "information," in any normal sense of that word. Atoms, like all entities, have specific natures that determine what they do. The description of those natures, as provided in the periodic table of the elements, for example, is information to us, but atoms sure don't know it. It's absurd.
I suppose that carbon atoms look like coal and diamonds to you. But they don't look like coal and diamonds to me.

How do atoms with one form turn into substances with different forms?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

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

Post by RCSaunders »

jayjacobus wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 12:47 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 10:12 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 8:30 pm

Atoms contain information ...
If that means something to you, fine. It does not mean anything to me and Chemistry is one of my major interests in life. There is not a single attribute of any chemical element that can be identified as, "information," in any normal sense of that word. Atoms, like all entities, have specific natures that determine what they do. The description of those natures, as provided in the periodic table of the elements, for example, is information to us, but atoms sure don't know it. It's absurd.
I suppose that carbon atoms look like coal and diamonds to you. But they don't look like coal and diamonds to me.

How do atoms with one form turn into substances with different forms?
The carbon atoms of coal and diamonds are identical; they do not change into anything. There are many molecular configurations of carbon atoms called allotropes, including, diamonds, graphite, amorphous Carbon, fullerenes, lonsdaleite, glassy carbon, carbon nanofoam, linear acetylenic carbon (carbyne), and graphene. The carbon atoms in all of these allotropes of carbon are identical. They are only arranged differently as crystaline or other structures. The atoms of carbon are only the building material out of which all these different single-element compounds are composed.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

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

Post by jayjacobus »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 2:21 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 12:47 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 10:12 pm
If that means something to you, fine. It does not mean anything to me and Chemistry is one of my major interests in life. There is not a single attribute of any chemical element that can be identified as, "information," in any normal sense of that word. Atoms, like all entities, have specific natures that determine what they do. The description of those natures, as provided in the periodic table of the elements, for example, is information to us, but atoms sure don't know it. It's absurd.
I suppose that carbon atoms look like coal and diamonds to you. But they don't look like coal and diamonds to me.

How do atoms with one form turn into substances with different forms?
The carbon atoms of coal and diamonds are identical; they do not change into anything. There are many molecular configurations of carbon atoms called allotropes, including, diamonds, graphite, amorphous Carbon, fullerenes, lonsdaleite, glassy carbon, carbon nanofoam, linear acetylenic carbon (carbyne), and graphene. The carbon atoms in all of these allotropes of carbon are identical. They are only arranged differently as crystaline or other structures. The atoms of carbon are only the building material out of which all these different single-element compounds are composed.
The atoms contain the recipes. No one knows what the building materials are nor how they are combined.
Atla
Posts: 6773
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Post by Atla »

It's always the same, people don't understand that information is not a thing by itself, it's just a reified abstraction. It's most often a dimensionless abstract thing like Shannon information. Some scientists are partly to blame of course, this particular hallucination is rampant even in the scientific community.

Can't wait for someone to stand up and shout "but hardware is made of matter and software is made of information!!"

And atoms "containing" information :)
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

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

Post by RCSaunders »

jayjacobus wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 2:27 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 2:21 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 12:47 pm

I suppose that carbon atoms look like coal and diamonds to you. But they don't look like coal and diamonds to me.

How do atoms with one form turn into substances with different forms?
The carbon atoms of coal and diamonds are identical; they do not change into anything. There are many molecular configurations of carbon atoms called allotropes, including, diamonds, graphite, amorphous Carbon, fullerenes, lonsdaleite, glassy carbon, carbon nanofoam, linear acetylenic carbon (carbyne), and graphene. The carbon atoms in all of these allotropes of carbon are identical. They are only arranged differently as crystaline or other structures. The atoms of carbon are only the building material out of which all these different single-element compounds are composed.
The atoms contain the recipes. No one knows what the building materials are nor how they are combined.
I have no idea where your ideas come from but they are just wrong, A course in basic chemistry would totally disabuse of those ideas. What atoms are and why and how they behave as they do is what chemistry explains. Do you even know the difference between a chemical element and a chemical compound?
seeds
Posts: 2167
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

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

Post by seeds »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 1:23 am
seeds wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 6:13 pm ... it is not unreasonable or illogical to think of all of the phenomenal features of what we call "reality" ... as being founded upon an "informationally-based substance" ...
_______
...The only substances that exist are at the macro level of existence. Iron, sulfur, copper, oxygen, iodine and all other elements, water, salt, ammonia, and copper sulfate and all other compounds, milk, plastic, gun powder, martinis and all other mixtures are all the kinds of substances there are. Atoms and all the sub-atomic particles are only ways of picturing the nature of actual substances but are not substances themselves, except as metaphors....
An electron (a "subatomic particle") is a piece of material reality.

Indeed, when you press your fingers against the keys on your keyboard as you type your posts, it is, in fact, an instance where the electrons that compose your fingers are pressing against the electrons that compose the keys.

(Btw, all electrons are the same, and they do not care if they are being used to create the eyebrow hair of a gorilla or the steering wheel of your car.)

With that in mind, when physicists fire a single electron (again, a piece of reality) through the double slits in the double slit experiment, it allegedly spreads-out into a superpositioned wave of "something" that appears to be capable of interfering with itself, as is metaphorically depicted in this image...

Image

However, even though it represents the very fabric of the electron itself, whatever that "something" is that spreads-out into a wave and interferes with itself in the interim space between the double slitted wall and that of the measuring screen is, nonetheless - (according to you) - just a "metaphor" that is not made of any kind of actual "substance."

In which case, congratulations, because apparently, regardless of the perennial (and divisive) debate among physicists over what is called the "measurement problem,"...

(look it up, or watch this short YouTube video - https://youtu.be/qB7d5V71vUE)

...you have single-handedly resolved the issue by implying that there can be no "measurement problem" because the proponents of the "Copenhagen Interpretation," and the proponents of the "Many Worlds Interpretation," are just fussing over a "metaphor" that has no actual (collapsible) substance to it.
_______
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

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

Post by jayjacobus »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 4:06 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 2:27 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 2:21 pm
The carbon atoms of coal and diamonds are identical; they do not change into anything. There are many molecular configurations of carbon atoms called allotropes, including, diamonds, graphite, amorphous Carbon, fullerenes, lonsdaleite, glassy carbon, carbon nanofoam, linear acetylenic carbon (carbyne), and graphene. The carbon atoms in all of these allotropes of carbon are identical. They are only arranged differently as crystaline or other structures. The atoms of carbon are only the building material out of which all these different single-element compounds are composed.
The atoms contain the recipes. No one knows what the building materials are nor how they are combined.
I have no idea where your ideas come from but they are just wrong, A course in basic chemistry would totally disabuse of those ideas. What atoms are and why and how they behave as they do is what chemistry explains. Do you even know the difference between a chemical element and a chemical compound?
Yes. An atom is comprised of particles in motion. Chemical element and compounds are comprised of substances. Do you know the difference between particles in motion and immobile substances?

Can you explain how atoms are transformed or do you contend that they just are without an explanation.

Edit: Atoms have kinetic energy. Where does the kinetic energy go?

It becomes potential energy when it hits matter. So there must be matter for kinetic energy to hit.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

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

Post by RCSaunders »

seeds wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 4:20 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 1:23 am
seeds wrote: Sat Apr 09, 2022 6:13 pm ... it is not unreasonable or illogical to think of all of the phenomenal features of what we call "reality" ... as being founded upon an "informationally-based substance" ...
_______
...The only substances that exist are at the macro level of existence. Iron, sulfur, copper, oxygen, iodine and all other elements, water, salt, ammonia, and copper sulfate and all other compounds, milk, plastic, gun powder, martinis and all other mixtures are all the kinds of substances there are. Atoms and all the sub-atomic particles are only ways of picturing the nature of actual substances but are not substances themselves, except as metaphors....
An electron (a "subatomic particle") is a piece of material reality.
I don't blame you for taking that kind of view literally. It's what's taught in every high school science class and popular science magazine and by every crackpot philosopher who's learned a little science, but it's not really scientific at all.
Are Atoms Real?

One modern denial of the reality of directly perceived existence is the assertion by some scientists, (and many philosophers who understand nothing about science), that perceived things, like apples, are not real, or not, "as real," as that existence described by the sciences of chemisty and physics. The argument is that everything is made of chemical atoms and sub-atomic particles which are the, "really real elements," of existence while perceived existents (like apples) are only configurations of chemical elements (atoms), of which all physical entities are composed.

Since the physical entities that are directly perceived are nothing like the atoms of which they are composed, perceived physical entities, and their properties, it is claimed, are therefore just impressions or illusions produced by how the configurations of the, "really real," atoms are perceied.

The basis of this mistaken view is a total misunderstanding of the nature of atoms.

Image

Atoms are a method used by scientists to, "picture," or, "illustrate," the nature of the chemical attributes of actual physical entities. There are no atoms, "in themselves," only atoms as a means of describing the chemical properties of physical things. At one time, atoms were, "pictured," as, "particles," like tiny round pellets, then as little balls with other balls embedded in them, or miniature, "solar systems," like the Rutherford and Bohr models.

Atoms are no longer pictured as tiny particles, but more as, "clouds," or, "waves," as in the Schrodinger (or quantum) model of an atom. They are all only models, however, and have no existence of their own except as explanations of the chemical nature of real physical entities which actually exist on their own and can be seen, heard, felt, smelled, and tasted. Atoms are, in fact, just very useful fictions invented to help scientist picture what are only properties and not actual entities at all.

Here are three different renderings of the quantum model of an atom. Obviously, they are not pictures of atoms, at all, but merely visual representations of an atom's properties.

Image

Image

Image

Why Atoms Are Not Physically Real Entities

Every actual physical entity must be different in some way from all other entities. It is not possible that any two things can be identical in every way and be two things. If there were no difference at all in what were supposed to be two things, they would not be two different things, but the same thing.

In every model, all atoms of the same element are pictured as identical. All iron atoms are identical to all other iron atoms. If atoms were actual physical entities, every atom would have to be different from every other atom in some way. It would have to have some attribute or characteristic that was different from some attribute or characteristic of every other atom of the same kind. In order to account for the fact atoms have no inherent differentiating attributes, they are differentiated solely by, "relative attributes," like, "position," or "behavior" (such as energy levels, polarity, and spin). But relative attributes are not inherent in entities and only exist as relationships). No real thing can exist with no inherent attributes whatsoever—atoms only exist as concepts for attributes and characteristics of perceivable physical entities, not as independent entities on their own.

Physics and Fields

With quantum model of the atom, what were pictured as particles are now pictured as perturbations in fields. Fields are the concept in physics for phenomena of behavior, originally to explain the behavior of entities in relationships that we refer to as electro-static, magnetic, and gravitational. Michael Faraday coined the word, "field," as a way of illustrating the relationships between electrical and magnetic phenomenon. A field represented the difference in static or magnetic influence of one entity on another depending on their motion and distance. The concept of a gravitational field similarly illustrated the attraction between masses depending on their mass and distance.

In the same way that atoms and subatomic particles are mistakenly attributed actual physical existence as entities, fields are mistakenly described as actual existents because, it is explained, "they carry energy." But energy is not a thing.

Force And Energy

The concepts of force and energy, often attributed to or described in terms of fields in modern physics, were essentially concepts for relationhsips in the behavior of entities. The observation of one entity being attracted to or repelled by another entity is identified as a, "force." It is only a concept for the observed behavior, however, not a thing or substance. It is also not an explanation of why one entity attracts or repels another, only a description of that behavior. The concept of, "force," especially as a field, is only a way of envisioning or describing the behavior or entities, not the name of an actual existing thing that explains that behavior.

Energy, like force, is a concept for the behavior of physical entities, not the identification of some kind of physical thing. All physical action can be described in terms of energy which describes the relationships between of physical events and physcial attributes of entities like mass, momentum, and force.

There is additional confusion about both force and energy that results from the way physical behavior is experienced by human perception. The, "feeling," of being pushed by something or impelled by acceleration is mistakenly thought of as feeling, "force." The feeling of, "heat," "electric shock," or a "burst of physical stimulation," are mistakenly thought of as feeling, "energy."

Are Force And Energy Real?

Certainly they are real, because enitites really behave in the ways the concepts of force and energy describe. They are not some kind of, "stuff," and do not exist independently of the physical entities they are the attributes of. When a human being has an experience called force or energy, it is not a feeling of some independent metaphysical thing, but feeling the behavior of the actual phystcal material of one's body described by the concepts of force and energy. The feeling is of real events of real physical entities. Independently of real perceivable physical entities there is no force or energy.

<b>Atoms Are Real, But Not Substances or Entities</b>

They are certainly real as attributes of actual physical entities, because the entities they are the attributes of are real. It is not how they are, "pictured," that is real, and not as independent entities they are real. All the attributes attributed to atoms by chemistry and physics are derived as explanations of the properties and behavior of actual physical entities. If those physical entities did not exist and did not have the nature they have, there would be no atoms.

If actual perceivable physical entities (like apples) are not truly real, nothing invented to explain their nature (like atoms) can be true either.
seeds wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 4:20 pm ...you have single-handedly resolved the issue by implying that there can be no "measurement problem" because the proponents of the "Copenhagen Interpretation," and the proponents of the "Many Worlds Interpretation," are just fussing over a "metaphor" that has no actual (collapsible) substance to it.
That's right!
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

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

Post by RCSaunders »

jayjacobus wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 4:33 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 4:06 pm
jayjacobus wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 2:27 pm

The atoms contain the recipes. No one knows what the building materials are nor how they are combined.
I have no idea where your ideas come from but they are just wrong, A course in basic chemistry would totally disabuse of those ideas. What atoms are and why and how they behave as they do is what chemistry explains. Do you even know the difference between a chemical element and a chemical compound?
Yes. An atom is comprised of particles in motion. Chemical element and compounds are comprised of substances. Do you know the difference between particles in motion and immobile substances?

Can you explain how atoms are transformed or do you contend that they just are without an explanation.

Edit: Atoms have kinetic energy. Where does the kinetic energy go?

It becomes potential energy when it hits matter. So there must be matter for kinetic energy to hit.
All answered here in my response to seeds.
Atla
Posts: 6773
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Post by Atla »

Some reify information and believe in infinitely malleable substances, some believe in entities and naive realism, I guess it's a draw.
seeds
Posts: 2167
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

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

Post by seeds »

RCSaunders wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 8:15 pm
seeds wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 4:20 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sun Apr 10, 2022 1:23 am
...The only substances that exist are at the macro level of existence. Iron, sulfur, copper, oxygen, iodine and all other elements, water, salt, ammonia, and copper sulfate and all other compounds, milk, plastic, gun powder, martinis and all other mixtures are all the kinds of substances there are. Atoms and all the sub-atomic particles are only ways of picturing the nature of actual substances but are not substances themselves, except as metaphors....
An electron (a "subatomic particle") is a piece of material reality.
I don't blame you for taking that kind of view literally. It's what's taught in every high school science class and popular science magazine and by every crackpot philosopher who's learned a little science, but it's not really scientific at all.
Anyone who has looked into these issues to a reasonable degree should be well acquainted with the fact that the models being used to visualize atoms...

(such as the "Mickey Mouse cartoons" you used in your post :wink:)

...are just metaphors for something that humans literally cannot see in any direct manner.

As physicist and author Nick Herbert stated in his 1985 book, Quantum Reality:
How dishonest I feel—as "expert" in atomic reality—whenever I draw for schoolchildren the popular planetary picture of the atom; it was known to be a lie even in their grandparents‘ day.
_______
The point is that you are not offering me anything that I am not already aware of.

Furthermore, none of what I am assuming is your own personal "opinion piece" that you copied from the "Free Individual" website (yours?), explains why the word "substance" cannot be applied to whatever it is that is interfering with itself in the interim space between the double-slitted wall and that of the measuring screen in the double slit experiment.

I suggest that you are being far too inflexible and narrow-minded in your definition of the word "substance."
seeds wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 4:20 pm ...you have single-handedly resolved the issue by implying that there can be no "measurement problem" because the proponents of the "Copenhagen Interpretation," and the proponents of the "Many Worlds Interpretation," are just fussing over a "metaphor" that has no actual (collapsible) substance to it.
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 8:15 pm That's right!
Keep on wishing on that star, Jiminy C.
_______
wtf
Posts: 1179
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

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

Post by wtf »

seeds wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 12:06 am Keep on wishing on that star, Jiminy C.
A Disney reference. OK groomer!
Atla
Posts: 6773
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Post by Atla »

Applying Occam's razor, it's probably the case that no collapsible substance or information-based substance is needed to resolve the quantum measurement problem. However the problem persists, one of the, if not the biggest scientific/philosophical mysteries of our time. Good to see that someone here resolved it so easily.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

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

Post by RCSaunders »

Atla wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 8:58 pm Some reify information and believe in infinitely malleable substances, some believe in entities and naive realism, I guess it's a draw.
How odd that those who believe the world they are directly conscious of, that they see, here, feel, smell, and taste, the world they are born and live in, work in, and enjoy are called naive, but those who believe the world of direct experience is some kind of illusion or not quite real and that reality is some ineffable thing, that can never been seen, perceived, or perfectly known is the real existence behind the one directly experienced are called, appropriately enough, sophisticated. They are sophisticated in the true sense of the word; sophists who prefer to believe in some mystical existence made up in their minds because they despise the actual real world because it is too demanding and difficult.
Atla
Posts: 6773
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

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

Post by Atla »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Apr 12, 2022 4:19 pm
Atla wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2022 8:58 pm Some reify information and believe in infinitely malleable substances, some believe in entities and naive realism, I guess it's a draw.
How odd that those who believe the world they are directly conscious of, that they see, here, feel, smell, and taste, the world they are born and live in, work in, and enjoy are called naive, but those who believe the world of direct experience is some kind of illusion or not quite real and that reality is some ineffable thing, that can never been seen, perceived, or perfectly known is the real existence behind the one directly experienced are called, appropriately enough, sophisticated. They are sophisticated in the true sense of the word; sophists who prefer to believe in some mystical existence made up in their minds because they despise the actual real world because it is too demanding and difficult.
The weak-minded choose what they want to be true over what is true.
Post Reply