Who was it that said, "There is more information in information than there is in the universe". Oh yeah that would be me, just now

 

Who was it that said, "There is more information in information than there is in the universe". Oh yeah that would be me, just now

Sounds like a quote from a Lewis Carroll book if you ask me.

Here's one:

"Information is the resolution of uncertainty."

- Claude Shannon

 

Sounds like a quote from a Lewis Carroll book if you ask me.

Here's one:

"Information is the resolution of uncertainty."

- Claude Shannon

The man of course was ultra-brilliant, but dare I disagree with that quote... if we didn’t have a hard lexical delineation of signal vs. noise as those numbers relate to true geometry somewhere not in the dead grey matter, no one would be able to even understand what he “meant.” Because “meaning” is the very ability to distinguish, and no machine cares without a human telling it what numbers are meaningful vs. others that are not.

 

Who was it that said, "There is more information in information than there is in the universe". Oh yeah that would be me, just now

Good one...Though I might add “observable” to “universe”

 

The man of course was ultra-brilliant, but dare I disagree with that quote... if we didn’t have a hard lexical delineation of signal vs. noise as those numbers relate to true geometry somewhere not in the dead grey matter, no one would be able to even understand what he “meant.” Because “meaning” is the very ability to distinguish, and no machine cares without a human telling it what numbers are meaningful vs. others that are not.

Right! We pour electrons down mazes of gated circuitry and call it "maths" or "algorithms" as if there were some inherent meaning in that. But there isn't. The question of information content is really just a matter of convention. You could also build the most sophisticated AI imaginable using carefully-controlled flows of water. It's just water sloshing about, but somehow "numbers" are moved around the system to "perform" amazing computations. The water "knows" nothing of our symbolic interpretations of it's flowing streams. It's a human abstraction.

 

Good one...Though I might add “observable” to “universe”

I had a feeling you would be the one to get that.
Sure, if you like, but i have a feeling even of the parts of the universe we may not see or know about dont add up to the amount of information we might surmise.

So what is information. A description of something in enough detail to convey meaning i guess.
Knowledge: a bundle of related information.

 

Sounds like a quote from a Lewis Carroll book if you ask me.

Here's one:

"Information is the resolution of uncertainty."

- Claude Shannon

Ha ha, it makes sense though right?

Oh yes that is good, from none other than the king of information.

 

I'd like to start with the fact that you both make the assertions that waves aren't "infinite-bit." I must humbly disagree with that with the below mini-discourse that is a "Cliff's notes" of my investigation on the topic.

I couldn't understand your "Cliff's notes". I think the primary obstacle for me was the fire-hose nature of your discourse. Rather than trying to say it all in one go, it would've been much easier to digest a more focused treatment on a specific aspect of your thoughts. This is compounded by the lack of a shared context. While you may know exactly what you mean by, e.g., "dimensional objects" (to pick one example), I have no idea, which makes it impossible for me to follow the argument. In metaphysical discourse, particularly when there can be few assumptions about shared background knowledge, it's helpful to make explicit what is otherwise implicit.

 

If you take a read of my mini-treatise there, it implies information is essentially stored in the same “substance” that comprises a force.

If by "force" you mean the physics concept, this is an example of the kind of "cross-context" analogy that confuses me. In modern physics, force is an antiquated concept that has been replaced by the notion of field interactions. But even if we use the 18th century definition, a force was neither a substance nor something that could store things. I'm at a complete loss for what you could possibly mean here.

It has no properties that can be discerned, and it’s all in a “5D” repository, or a database of “real objects” that comprise the very nature of thought itself—a kind of meta-substance that is separate from the brain.

Again, mixing metaphors leads to more confusion, not clarity. Calling something "5D" gives it a mathematical context, but then you equate it with a "database" (comp sci?) of "real objects" (physics?). Analogies can sometimes be helpful in explanations, but the model itself should be consistent and coherent. I have no idea what your model of information is.

 

On a synth with a split sound patch—left hand playing a G major triad in a piano sound and the right hand playing a D minor triad in a string sound, a new “principal wave” is formed.

Nice, this is a well-focused section; we can work with this.

The mind can audiate and thus semantically delineate the principal wave as G9, irrespective of timbres used.

There's an important distinction, I should think, between the waveform and its representation of the concept of "G9". If we filter the waveform, the filter knows nothing of G9, yet it will do its thing on the waveform nonetheless. Likewise, as you point out below, we can completely change the waveform and still retain the information of G9. Not only can we remove one of the D notes, but we can invert the note positions. Indeed, if we take G9 to be a 5-note chord, then there 5! = 120 different waveforms that can be equally said to be G9. This number explodes when we consider the possible variations in timbre (overtone series) for each note.

So, in what sense can a specific waveform be said to be G9? The waveform is a physical thing that exists in the universe and can be acted upon by physical machines. The idea of G9 is a mental construct, applicable in certain music theory contexts. We might be tempted to say that each of those millions of waveforms (in the set that can represent the idea of G9) carries with it the information of G9, but I think that would be wrong, too. The waveform certainly carries with it information, but the information is of an acoustic event. We, as human perceivers, are free to use that acoustic information in any way we see fit. A typical case would be musical information, where we take the waveform to represent a harmonic idea. But, it should be well-noted, it would be just as valid to use the acoustic information in the context of, say, message transmission. In such a case, we might treat the G9 waveforms as representing a letter in the alphabet, such that the message receiver, upon detecting a G9 waveform, outputs the letter "K".

In short, physical waveforms carry information about physical processes, which humans can interpret to provide arbitrary semantic meaning. Depending on the details of the physical process, the waveform has an information capacity, which sets the limit on the amount of interpreted information that can be represented by the waveform. Telecommunication systems strive to maximize this information capacity.

So, there's really two levels of information that we're interested in here: 1) the raw, physical information of the physical process; and 2) the interpreted, representational information that the human receiver uses. It seems very clear that, from a physical standpoint, one unit of information is interchangeable with any other. Thus, as long as the size (in units of information) of our representations does not exceed the information capacity of the physical waveform, we're free to interpret the raw physical information any way we please.

 

Why make such a distinction between "here" and deep space though? Intense energy fields appear everywhere in the universe.

Because the point was brought up that deep space seems different in kind than "here". Of course, both are made of the same stuff, fields. The only difference between the two is the energy levels of the fields.

Acoustic events originate and operate within the confines of ALL of the physical dimensions of space. Sensor's readings however often are constrained to a single-dimension. And thus the humble sound sample.

Yes, an acoustic wave spreads through space as a three-dimensional sphere. But the information of the acoustic event has only one degree of freedom: local pressure up or local pressure down. The other degrees of freedom in the physical acoustic wave are either redundant (in the case of a free-field or anechoic environment) or contain extra information about the room the event happened in (reflections and such). Thus, we only need 1D sensors to get the information we care about -- the acoustic event. If we really want all that extra room information, along with the acoustic event information, then we use two well-placed 1D sensors (stereo recording). The extra degree of freedom from two sensors is used to hold phase correlations, which gives us the room details,

 

The waveform is a physical thing that exists in the universe and can be acted upon by physical machines.

Ok, I was afraid that attempting to "fire-hose it all into one post" wouldn't work. I will go section by section where we can discuss individual elements in piece-meal.

The aim of the beginning of the post was getting at the fundamental definitions the mind is using to define "reason."

We must start with some philosophical basis to delve into the topic, and naturalism is typically the one that makes the most sense as a presuppositional starting place. Naturalistic science defines a human being as an evolved entity that is essentially composed of physical elements from the ground. This would imply, that if the brain is a physical device originating from the ground, it is an extremely high functioning machine. A computer is the essence of a machine, because mathematical functions are machines, and numbers and waves what they "process" to come up with "other numbers and waves". We may even say "they're meaningless" to a machine, but "have meaning" to a human. But meaning is yet defined.

Information we could agree is something other than numbers and waves, correct?

So, my question is: if we close our eyes and envision a 3D object with 8 hard corners, and also mathematically define it as having infinite points, and then label it "cube," where exactly is that "object" located, where did it come from, and what is made of? As described, it does not exist in the brain by any observational definition, including if CT scanned. As described. I must stress that phrase, because that's the key thing I'm trying to home in on.

 

The aim of the beginning of the post was getting at the fundamental definitions the mind is using to define "reason."

In both computer science and physics, information can be rigorously described without any mention of reason, minds, or consciousness. I think we should follow suit and stay clear of such notions, otherwise we'll have zero chance of being able to communicate clearly.

Information we could agree is something other than numbers and waves, correct?

Yes. I believe that information is physical, but -- like entropy or temperature -- it is an emergent property.

So, my question is: if we close our eyes and envision a 3D object with 8 hard corners, and also mathematically define it as having infinite points, and then label it "cube," where exactly is that "object" located, where did it come from, and what is made of? As described, it does not exist in the brain by any observational definition, including if CT scanned. As described. I must stress that phrase, because that's the key thing I'm trying to home in on.

In the allegory of the cave sense, the concept of "cube" -- the Platonic ideal -- is purely mathematical and has no physical existence. The cardboard box sitting on my kitchen table is roughly "cube-like", though it is not, of course, a perfect cube. I can close my eyes and imagine both the ideal cube and the cardboard facsimile. In both cases, my mental image is not a physical object, though one could argue that the neuro-electrical state of my cerebral cortex is the physical manifestation of the image. But, as my cerebral cortex shares very few properties with either perfect or cardboard cubes, I'm hesitant to give physical status to my images qua images. Indeed, mathematics is filled with physically-impossible objects that can nonetheless be held in thought.

 

So, my question is: if we close our eyes and envision a 3D object with 8 hard corners, and also mathematically define it as having infinite points, and then label it "cube," where exactly is that "object" located, where did it come from, and what is made of? As described, it does not exist in the brain by any observational definition, including if CT scanned. As described. I must stress that phrase, because that's the key thing I'm trying to home in on.

True for most representations of cubes that are not actual cubes.Photograph,cad file painting etc.

 

In both computer science and physics, information can be rigorously described without any mention of reason, minds, or consciousness. I think we should follow suit and stay clear of such notions, otherwise we'll have zero chance of being able to communicate clearly.

Ok, but it's information describing information. Boole makes a very specific delineation between the number "1" and what it's denoting, namely "A universe of thinkable thoughts."

It is most obvious to me that he is here making "1", which is doubling as a logic state, a representation of "something." That "something" is the basis of information.

Information is therefore separate from numbers. We don't know what it is. So how is it being "rigorously described" if information is being used to describe it? Is this not circular?

In the allegory of the cave sense, the concept of "cube" -- the Platonic ideal -- is purely mathematical and has no physical existence. The cardboard box sitting on my kitchen table is roughly "cube-like", though it is not, of course, a perfect cube. I can close my eyes and imagine both the ideal cube and the cardboard facsimile. In both cases, my mental image is not a physical object, though one could argue that the neuro-electrical state of my cerebral cortex is the physical manifestation of the image. But, as my cerebral cortex shares very few properties with either perfect or cardboard cubes, I'm hesitant to give physical status to my images qua images. Indeed, mathematics is filled with physically-impossible objects that can nonetheless be held in thought.

Ok, here's my textual "flow chart" thinking for it:

1) Mathematically/scientifically we define a line as being composed of infinite points having no dimension, do we not? X dimension.

2) We then define a square as composed of 4 of those lines, connected at hard right angles, correct? Y dimension.

3) We define a cube as composed of 6 of those squares connected at 90 degrees with a "Z" dimension, correct?

If you can pinpoint a cube in material reality, your reference point is the above tenets, no? Otherwise you can't identify one, because a numeric representation of the cube is not the cube itself, and no machine knows what it's identifying unless a human tells it "the binaries match", and even then, a "match" is just another set of binaries.

So then, without quoting anyone else's notion (because no one has a proven notion yet worth quoting) — where do you say the cube exists as specifically defined above, if a CT scan does not show it constructed in that exact manner in the grey matter?

 

If by "force" you mean the physics concept, this is an example of the kind of "cross-context" analogy that confuses me. In modern physics, force is an antiquated concept that has been replaced by the notion of field interactions. But even if we use the 18th century definition, a force was neither a substance nor something that could store things. I'm at a complete loss for what you could possibly mean here.

Again, mixing metaphors leads to more confusion, not clarity. Calling something "5D" gives it a mathematical context, but then you equate it with a "database" (comp sci?) of "real objects" (physics?). Analogies can sometimes be helpful in explanations, but the model itself should be consistent and coherent. I have no idea what your model of information is.

Ok, we're going to start from scratch ... see my post above. And sorry for quoting "bogosport" in prior messages — I somehow read it once quick and retained it with a p.

 

Ok, but it's information describing information. Boole makes a very specific delineation between the number "1" and what it's denoting, namely "A universe of thinkable thoughts."

It is most obvious to me that he is here making "1", which is doubling as a logic state, a representation of "something." That "something" is the basis of information.

Information is therefore separate from numbers. We don't know what it is. So how is it being "rigorously described" if information is being used to describe it? Is this not circular?



Ok, here's my textual "flow chart" thinking for it:

1) Mathematically/scientifically we define a line as being composed of infinite points having no dimension, do we not? X dimension.

2) We then define a square as composed of 4 of those lines, connected at hard right angles, correct? Y dimension.

3) We define a cube as composed of 6 of those squares connected at 90 degrees with a "Z" dimension, correct?

If you can pinpoint a cube in material reality, your reference point is the above tenets, no? Otherwise you can't identify one, because a numeric representation of the cube is not the cube itself, and no machine knows what it's identifying unless a human tells it "the binaries match", and even then, a "match" is just another set of binaries.

So then, without quoting anyone else's notion (because no one has a proven notion yet worth quoting) — where do you say the cube exists as specifically defined above, if a CT scan does not show it constructed in that exact manner in the grey matter?

That may the most common but that may not be the only way to describe a cube.
Underlying is the fact that we must all agree on the way we represent something.
For example, if we denote dE as being the distance between dots, if we start from the point (0,0) and darw a line left to right to the point (1,0), then double back and draw the next line from the point (0,dE) to (1,dE), then double back again and draw a line from (0,2*dE) to (1,2*dE), then double back again and again until we reach the point (1,1) with the last line then we would have draw a shaded square. Draw an infinite number of those squares and we would have drawn a shaded cube.
Now interestingly, we could associate each point in that cube with a SINGLE number which is the enumeration of the 'dots' that it took to get there. Welcome to the world of the 1d universe,
Of course there is also nothing stopping us from defining the cube in terms of 3d angles also such as in spherical coordinates however that is still 3d not 1d.
There is also the intrinsic coordinates which define things from the inside out more or less.

 

Ok, but it's information describing information. Boole makes a very specific delineation between the number "1" and what it's denoting, namely "A universe of thinkable thoughts."

It is most obvious to me that he is here making "1", which is doubling as a logic state, a representation of "something." That "something" is the basis of information.

Information is therefore separate from numbers. We don't know what it is. So how is it being "rigorously described" if information is being used to describe it? Is this not circular?

It's actually the other way around. Numbers carry information, they go hand in hand. As far as ever truly understanding the essence of everything, I don't know. But I do know that we can still learn a lot about the universe by applying what little knowledge we do have.

Ok, here's my textual "flow chart" thinking for it:


1) Mathematically/scientifically we define a line as being composed of infinite points having no dimension, do we not? X dimension.


2) We then define a square as composed of 4 of those lines, connected at hard right angles, correct? Y dimension.


3) We define a cube as composed of 6 of those squares connected at 90 degrees with a "Z" dimension, correct?


If you can pinpoint a cube in material reality, your reference point is the above tenets, no? Otherwise you can't identify one, because a numeric representation of the cube is not the cube itself, and no machine knows what it's identifying unless a human tells it "the binaries match", and even then, a "match" is just another set of binaries.


So then, without quoting anyone else's notion (because no one has a proven notion yet worth quoting) — where do you say the cube exists as specifically defined above, if a CT scan does not show it constructed in that exact manner in the grey matter?

Correct, there are three known (orthogonal) spatial dimensions (and quite possibly more). Time is special because it is actually "nothing more" than the unfolding of entropy. In other words, the dimension where all of the "s**t falling apart" happens!

Packets of waves emanate throughout the entire universe. Sometimes they even get trapped into little continuums (particles). All of this energy, within and without, always pulsates at the speed of light. These energies manifests themselves as the combination of several simultaneous forces, of which we know a few. Were I to hazard a guess, I would say that most likely there are (exactly) five of them. But nobody really knows for sure. In any case these force-field interactions go on to create the literally infinite variety of "emergent" physical effects that we observe and measure. Sound, for example...

 

It's actually the other way around. Numbers carry information, they go hand in hand. As far as ever truly understanding the essence of everything, I don't know. But I do know that we can still learn a lot about the universe by applying what little knowledge we do have.




Correct, there are three known (orthogonal) spatial dimensions (and quite possibly more). Time is special because it is actually "nothing more" than the unfolding of entropy. In other words, the dimension where all of the "s**t falling apart" happens!

Packets of waves emanate throughout the entire universe. Sometimes they even get trapped into little continuums (particles). All of this energy, within and without, always pulsates at the speed of light. These energies manifests themselves as the combination of several simultaneous forces, of which we know a few. Were I to hazard a guess, I would say that most likely there are (exactly) five of them. But nobody really knows for sure. In any case these force-field interactions go on to create the literally infinite variety of "emergent" physical effects that we observe and measure. Sound, for example...

Ok, so: "Then, without quoting anyone else's notion (because no one has a proven notion yet worth quoting) — where do you say the cube exists as specifically defined above, if a CT scan does not show it constructed in that exact manner in the grey matter?"

 

Ok, so: "Then, without quoting anyone else's notion (because no one has a proven notion yet worth quoting) — where do you say the cube exists as specifically defined above, if a CT scan does not show it constructed in that exact manner in the grey matter?"

The existential nature of cubes? I don't know. Kind of a weird question.