Beyond information: A bit of meaning. by Olaf Dreyer

Dear Hugh:

Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply to my essay!

I have actually thought about the similarities between the layers in my essay and the layers that appear when programming. I think though that there is a clear difference. Think of a subroutine in a computer program:

procedure DoStuff( var1, var2, ... )

begin

...

return stuff;

You can use this procedure from a higher level and you do not care how it looks on the inside. You can replace the whole thing and as long as the new routine accepts the same variables and returns the same kind of data you'll be fine.

The important point is now that you have to know what kind of data to hand the procedure and what to expect back (c++ overloading is just a slight weakening of this). This part of the procedure is external to it. What I was describing is more internal. The meaning of a procedure becomes clear by kicking it.

I think our real difference becomes clear when you say: "Yes, but a dictionary is just information, more bits. It does not have to contain (even pointers to) Its." You are pointing to an infinite regression here that I want to end. The way I do this is by having Its interact. That is the key part of my argument.

Looking forward to reading your essay.

Cheers

Olaf

Dear Charles:

Thanks so much for reading my essay and the kind comment!

I think the connection of emergence and randomness is important. In particular in connection with the measurement problem.

Cheers

Olaf

Dear Jim:

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting on it so kindly.

Looking forward to your essay.

Cheers

Olaf

Dear Amazigh:

Thank you very much for the good wishes (and rating the essay)!

I'll have a look at your essay.

Cheers

Olaf

Dear Carlo:

Thanks for the interest in the essay and acknowledging the point. It was important for me to capture enough of the a notion of information (and the shortcomings of the old notion) that it becomes apparent how it is related to the solution of a number of problems (like the measurement problem).

A tighter definition will appear in a longer article.

Cheers

Olaf

P.S.: I think emergence is a really important concept that has not been properly understood yet. I think it is also important in quantum gravity and allows for results like these (alternative to inflation):

http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6169

Dear Vladimir:

I think your quote is spot on! Thanks for the kind comments.

I'll have a look at your essay (so many essays to read!).

Cheers

Olaf

Dear John:

Thanks for the interest in my essay. I am going to have a look at your essay and see if I can answer your question.

Cheers

Olaf

Dear Yuri:

I liked the quote from Wheeler. I am not sure I get the claim. It would really help if you could state the claim more clearly. What are the places where the angle of 18 appears? Are there exceptions? What works? What does not?

The point with these kind of things is that they might signify something deep or they might just lead you astray. People have invested a lot of time on the fact that the fine structure constant is 1/137. Why 137? As far as I can tell no good reason has been given yet.

It would really help if you'd work on the presentation.

Cheers

Olaf

Dear Amos:

Sorry if I wasn't clear. About the asymmetry:

When the system reaches a ground state it has fewer symmetries than before. Think of a system of spins. Before the transition they point in all possible directions after the transition all spins point in one direction. Which direction is determined by random fluctuations. That is the connection between randomness and asymmetry.

Thanks for the interest.

Cheers

Olaf

Dear Yuri:

I guess the number of different contributions to this essay contest attest to the difficulty of coming up with a good description of what we mean by information. I am not sure that this the greatest riddle though.

Cheers

Olaf

Dear Joe:

Thanks so much for the kind words. Can you explain a bit more what you mean when you use the word once? I am not sure I understand.

Cheers

Olaf

Dear Giovanni:

Thanks for these remarks! I guess I have to read Lee's book now.

The discussion with Mauro has just started (further down).

Cheers

Olaf

Dear Antony:

Thank you for the interest in my essay. I had a look at your essay and I must say that I am not at all sure what the role of the Fibonacci numbers is. It seems a bit too much numerology to me.

Cheers

Dear Israel:

Thank you for having a look at my essay!

You say:

The reality emerges by the interaction of objects and evolution of objects,

I agree. But then you say

so definitely information is crucial.

Can you explain this? I am not sure I understand.

Cheers

Olaf

Dear David:

Thanks for looking at my essay and especially for remembering the earlier ones!

I do think that thinking involves information. The point that I am trying to make is that the information has to have meaning. The way that information is stored has to be such that it does not require an outside dictionary. I argued for how this could be achieved.

Cheers

Olaf

P.S.: If you liked my earlier essays you might like http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6169. (An alternative to inflation)

Dear Cristi:

Thank you for reading my essay and for commenting so favorably on it. I am developing the connection with quantum mechanics but I had to finish something else first (http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6169).

Cheers

Olaf

Dear Chidi:

Thanks for reading my essay and for the comments. I have tried to read your essay but I had some problems with the axioms that you formulated (see your thread).

All the best in the contest.

Cheers

Olaf