Information, Numbers, Time, Life, Ethics by Lorraine Ford

Hi Lorraine,

Although I never got around to it, I intended several times to revisit your blog from your previous essay, as I recall a thorough discussion of information in those comments. [I'm still hoping that McEachern has submitted an essay in this contest!] In fact I suspect that the dialogue on your blog contributed to your thinking on this topic as you have written one of the most perceptive essays on information yet submitted.

You seem to be the only one saying that information is subjective, that is, requires awareness; that signs and symbols are markers that represent information but are not information. In this I agree with you. I've been saying that energy is transported from source to a detector, and only when it crosses a threshold and changes (informs) a structure, does it become information. But you are correct - it represents information. And this representation must be decoded by the context, code-book, or hierarchical context (neural network) before it is apprehended. [I don't think any other author has used this appropriate word.]

So my point has been that 'information' is not transmitted, signals are transmitted. When they 'in-form' structure in the receiver they become (a representation of) information. When this is decoded and apprehended it is true information.

I also agree with your wonderful statement that "information is apprehended at the foundations of reality" while recognizing the obvious, that plant cells and particles do not apprehend information in the same way as humans. I think you show remarkable insight with this statement. I also appreciate Wheeler's statement that "equations can't fly. But our universe flies. We're still missing the single, simple ingredient that makes it all fly." I've tried to describe this ingredient in my essay, and I hope you will read it and comment on it.

I'll skip your discussion of the physical as information and the non-Platonic nature of math and that the universe is not a computer and does not calculate. Instead I'll go to your key insight:

"Either "random choice" is a feature of reality or subjective choice [free will] is a feature of reality. Not just a feature of reality, but a crucially important pillar of reality: it is part of the essential nature of reality. [It is] the basis of ethics and morality...".

Lorraine there some excellent essays in this contest, but yours is one of the absolute best. I think it deserves a top score and should be one of the top three winners. But this contest seems to be leaning toward the mystical. Probably the most wonderful statement [of many!] in your essay is:

"There is nothing mystical about subjective experience."

You're absolutely correct. It is mysterious, but not mystical.

Thank you for writing and entering this essay. It is sorely needed.

My best wishes and highest regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Lorraine,

I have sent an email requesting that FQXi extend to those of you who had their essay posted on July 5, 2013, be allowed additional days to compensate for the days of not being able to rate these essays.

My experience in conducting the online Tempt Destiny (TD) experiment from 2000 to 2012 gave me an understanding of the complexities involved in administrating an online competition which assures me that the competition will be back up and running soon. Ironically, the inability of not being able to rate the essays correlates with the TD experimental findings, as presented in my essay, which show how the acts of selection are fundamental to our physical existence.

Anyway, I hope that all entrants will be allocated the same opportunity to have their essay rated when they are posted, and if not possible due to technical difficulties, will have their opportunity adjusted accordingly. Best wishes to you with your entry.

Manuel

PS I will be reviewing and rating your entry after this function has been turned back on.

Hello Lorraine,

You have put the best case I have heard so far for dropping the word "information" from the debate which Wheeler began many years ago. Biologist Jacob von Uexküll presented the best case I ever read for describing information as an "indication", and this almost a hundred years ago. As a software engineer I find that speaking about a set of indications in a memory register containing eight indications allows me to transition from computer science where a bit is a one or zero for good reason, to physics and quantum mechanics where the definition of information is so lax that it could be anything. While I do not agree with everything Professor Unnikrishnan's says in his essay (No: 1883), I believe the section which speaks of the context within which quantum states represent information is well worth reading.

Now, my only caution with regard to your essay would be to suggest never saying never, and I quote "...non-measurable constituent of physical reality...", the moment you say something like that someone comes along and proposes a means to the measurement. I think it has something to do with the law of absolutes, which says that nothing absolute lasts for long, or something like that. In cognitive mechanics you may also find that the transient representation of the objects of our attention are often refereed to as objective indication, or intuition, and the more persistent representations associate with knowledge are more often than not referred to as subjective, and as information.

Great read, and good luck.

Zoran.

Hello Lorraine!

There are very few women participating in this year contest and I am sure to read all their essays. I like to hear sensible and pragmatic female voices in the discussion that has traditionally been dominated by males. I very much enjoyed your essay. You give a very good analysis of what is information and emphasize that it is a subjective and contextual experience that requires awareness. Well done!

However, your analysis deals with more advanced levels of information, mainly as it is perceived by humans. In my essay I address information at the basic level of sensors capturing the' bits' and argue that our idea of 'It' is only as good as 'bits' our senses and sensors can deliver. I allude that there are other types of information 'out there' waiting to be discovered by means of improving existing or developing entirely new technology. I invite you to read and comment on my essay :)

Hellow Lorraine, Excellent essay. However, if I may say that nature is infinite, thus, no finite concept can defines the infinite. Furthermore, as nature is infinite I believe it is, if not tell me how big or how small it is precisely. In other words, no finite law can restrict the movement and creativity of the infinite even in principle. Thus, any idea, law or definition must NOT limit nature but it must enhance it. Thus I agree with you that subjectivity defines the objects but the objectivity simultaneously defines the subjectivity. If I understood you correctly. Thus both subjectivity and objectivity are intertwined and in the dance of helical entanglements that enhance both these subjectivity and objectivity in a trialectic dialogues and exchanges. Please look at my essay Child of Qbit in time, more or less we are on the same page, as we are together seeking for the truth no matter where this truth will lead us using both subjectivity and objectivity perspectives whatever they might mean. Best regards, Leo KoGuan

Dear Lorraine, yes I saw it and replied to your perceptive comment. I also think your view really says correct me if I am wrong that Quantum Mechanics combines us, the subjective being into the bossom of nature (objective being if there is no subjective being around to interpret her state of being)? I would further argue that this means we indeed are one with nature scientifically discovered and proven. If I may quote Zhuangzi who said that he and Nature are born together and are one. Again I am really happy reading your penetratingly subjective perspective and an outstanding literature on reality as we perceive her to be. Congratulation for work well done! Regards, Leo KoGuan

Dear Lorraine,

I have read your nice essay that catching of reader because fairness of polemic.

You clearly has defined what is the ,,bit,, and what is ,,it, and how these related each to other. You have demonstrated with the same the contentless of problem! I am inclined to explain your right approach conditioned with your right life style. I often see in my dream when I will go my village and live there in right way. I am very inclined to see your work as one valuable for me confirmation to my own worldview. I hope my work Es may deserve your attention then we can exchange our opinions.

Best wishes,

George

Dear Lorraine Ford :

You said you are interested in "time" also in the nature of reality, I send you a summary of my essay "The deep nature of reality" this way would be easy to decide if you read it or not, I congratulate you for your essay but I am not agree with: "The most important property of time is that it unfolds... You can predict the statistics of

what is likely to happen but not the unique actual physical outcome, which unfolds in an

unpredictable way as time progresses" physicist George Ellis [21]

"The activity of time is the process which generates the future out of the present"

physicist Lee Smolin [22]" And if you read my essay you will find why.

I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English) "Hawking, A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor

Dear Lorraine Ford :

You said you are interested in "time" also in the nature of reality, I send you a summary of my essay "The deep nature of reality" this way would be easy to decide if you read I or not, I congratulate you for your essay but I am not agree with: "The most important property of time is that it unfolds... You can predict the statistics of

what is likely to happen but not the unique actual physical outcome, which unfolds in an

unpredictable way as time progresses" physicist George Ellis [21]

"The activity of time is the process which generates the future out of the present"

physicist Lee Smolin [22]" and if you read my essay you will find why.

I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English) "Hawking, A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor

Lorraine,

thank you very very much for bringing my spelling glitches to my attention :) The funny thing was that I looked at them.. and saw nothing wrong ..at first. I even thought that I should capture a native in my environment and make him explain where my errors lie. And then I saw! Thank you :)

Wow woman, you have an eye!

Dear Lorraine,

Many thanks for answer.

On your remarks I can answer as follow:

1. Yes! I am saying that the behavior of single quantum object controlled by cause-effect (deterministic) laws. We are able to describe it, however we have no possibility to confirm those by direct observations. Why? - because of restriction of our direct measuring capability (see Hidden Variables) So, to be free from headache we just declare it as a ,,probability,, and have trying to move ahead! Let me see this not only empty declaration but I have pointed on the proofs (see references and my works)

2. In macroworld we are sure on deterministic character of laws controlling the behavior of single objects, as we can it proof by direct measuring (it is the classical physics.) However we can not use these to describe a lot of live cases because it demands take in account many of factors that make the problem as unsolvable practically. Then we going to use the average-probable description again to be somewhat solve our questions.

I think this the life and reality!

3. About information (and encoded information - ,,bits,,) I am just agree with you - it is human' creations and no need here to breaking the swords!

It is nice to meet with people with healthy and witty brains!

I am going rate your work as a very valuable for me (nine only). You see as it is right!

With honor and good wishes,

George

Hi Lorraine,

I am just curious if you noticed how much similarity there is in our views.

I did postulate quite early in my career the principal role of classes/categories in the informational organization of the Universe, but as is always the case in science, I needed a formal language to clarify the situation. However, it turned out that the new formalism required several decades just to be outlined. Fortunately, since I'm a mathematician by education and a great admirer of philosophy, this didn't prevent me from pursuing the goal. ;-)