FQXi commentary iiii Aug 5
Hello Anastasi
Your essay left me breathless - !!! - am I allowed to say that ?!!! I had to use ten different coloured markers to highlight my favourite passages. Phew, bravo. I don't remember the last time reading something that was ten-colours-worthy !!
Not the least of your analysis' good points was the fact that you ended with a 'Perhaps' !!
As you will see in my essay I have committed myself - on the very best of evidence mind - to the notion that 'information' is none other than the full set of (real) geometrical objects present here in our universe (in contradistinction to those of the abstract variety otherwise quite properly present in mathematicians' & theoretical physicists' minds & textbooks). (Nor does this definition include any Einsteinian space-time curvatures, precisely because I am convinced that 'light bending/lensing' around massive bodies is due not to gravitational warping of aforesaid space-time but to the always-attendant heliopauses or magnetospheres or solar winds which perennially accompany such bodies - which latter entities are quite 'material'.)
'Constructor theory' ? I came across this approach to describing & understanding our universe only as I watched David Deustch's 'Edge' video (edge.org) a few months ago in which he too explains that he is searching for 'information's' exact ontological identity, all as in his wider search for a final constructor process. I quote him in my essay but I repeat it here as I found that his question as to information's identity literally handed me my very own definition thereof, 'on a plate' as it were - indeed as I think of it, 'on a silver platter' no less !!!! ('Silver' in reference to such an august source !!! if I may be so intemperate to note.)
'I'm speaking to you now : Information starts as some kind of electrochemical signals in my brain, and then it gets converted into other signals in my nerves and then into sound waves and then into the vibrations of a microphone, mechanical vibrations, then into electricity and so on, and presumably will eventually go on the Internet, this something has been instantiated in radically different physical objects that obey different laws of physics. Yet in order to describe this process you have to refer to the thing that has remained unchanged through out the process, which is only the information rather than any obviously physical thing like energy or momentum.'
Although David hasn't found this elusive 'thing', it is geometric objects plain & simple.
Geometric objects are the one & only phenomena here in our universe that can be & routinely are copied / transferred on to consecutive sequences of widely different physical objects - from medium to radically different physical medium to radically different physical medium to radically different physical medium - & yet retain their shape - at least this obtains as to certain mediums as on many others they fade quickly away. (Which is why we ourselves choose our mediums with a careful eye to their ability to carry information (in its native that is geometric form) on themselves with optimum stability.)
Among a very numerous & full complement of other properties, features & assets which in addition to their penchant for being copied ad infinitum on (certain) mediums, which all together go towards a successful recommendation of these particular geometrical entities for their job of being the (one & only) purveyors of information here in our universe is the fact that although real, each & every one is completely immaterial, wholly insubstantial, totally weightless, intangible, utterly invisible (or more correctly completely transparent), not to omit completely tasteless, odourless, soundless, wholly without temperature or density or Ph balance or colour, utterly insensate, totally passive & completely pawn-like, inert, wholly without any forces of any kind or amount either associated with or emanating from, them, totally without any energy or agency of any kind or amount.
With this amount of existential impoverishment to their credit one might well ask 'do they exist at all'. Fortunately - at least fortunately for my case - in spite of this woeful handicapping, geometric object do verily indeed possess/evince just enough observable, measurable, identifiable, demonstrable, verifiable 'physical' features elevating them up to the realm of reality - of physical reality.
A list of these measurable features includes such phenomena as length, breadth, size (obviously a relative metric), shape, location, temporal duration & life history.
Admittedly poor little (real) points have neither length nor breadth & can be located only by measuring the things around them, nevertheless each & every real point here in our universe (& not the infinite number with which mathematicians & theoretical physicist populate their imaginary worlds) does verily indeed possess measurable location, temporal duration & life history. Lines fare a lot better as in addition to size (obviously a relative metric), shape, location, temporal duration & life history they also have length; & of course planes go one better still by having breadth as well as all of the other measurable features listed above.
Planes are infinitely thin; lines are not only infinitely thin but also infinitely narrow, while poor little points - although real !! - are not only infinitely thin & infinitely narrow but also infinitely short to boot.
But as we all know none of these lower dimensional objects possess any depth which is presumably why they don't have any mass - having nowhere to pack any even if they did happen to chance upon some, & it is precisely this lack of mass, or substance, which renders them all so existentially impoverished in the eyes of us 'solids'. Without any mass to their credit they possess the very quality you yourself are so desirous of in what you consider to be at the base of 'everything'.
Yes, your own analysis was adamant that there is something immaterial at the bottom of everything. It is my position that these wholly immaterial (yet real) entities are verily indeed at the very bottom of information, but are not at the base of hard, physical reality.
In establishing a full ontology/taxonomy of these critters it became amply apparent that it is matter & matter alone which possesses whatever agency & energy & power to DO things here in our cosmos (including clinging onto each other in many & various ways & strengths by way of making up the full complement of solid objects here in our universe) BUT that these fat, busy, solid, powerful critters ALWAYS used each other SHAPES (each others' GEOMETRICITIES) as that which (helped, but critically so) guide & direct their every move. 'Fat' ? Lower dimensional objects are all infinitely thin, some are also both infinitely thin & infinitely narrow with poor little points running a dismal last being not only both infinitely thin & infinitely narrow but also infinitely short.
Information as geometrical objects can not DO anything & so cannot be the bedrock bottom of our own particular very busy highly interactive densely populated universe. My analysis compels to conclude that matter is, but that it (again) uses each others' shapes - in conjunction with subject's own - to guide & direct each of their every moves.
Actually, this observation led me to a definition of 'thinking' which is 'using information (always in geometrical form) to guide & direct action' - & as this is the way all solid bodies use each others' shapes, then we are compelled to conclude that thought is an innate capacity of matter & occurs on the most routine of bases no less than each & every time any two solid bodies interact.
Our own thoughts are distinguished from those of the rocks & stones beneath our feet & the atoms & molecules in the air 'in degree' but not at all as to 'kind'. The distinction lies in the proximity of the information we use to guide & direct our actions. Inanimate objects have no option but to wait until they bang right into whatever then can become the subject of their thoughts (whatever then can they only 'take the measure of' & respond appropriately thereto) whereas we humans are able to use 'distance information' which information we glean off of mediums, which means among other things that we can react proactively - or postactively - towards all kind of things & events which remain at some certain spatio-temporal remove from us. ..... .. .
I'm very cross at myself for not starting to review essays much earlier in the game as had I done so I would have enjoyed getting into a lot more back & forth with you, dear fellow essayist !!! Anyways here is my little 'blanket comment' which I am popping into all of the contributions I do actually get to read & rate at this very late stage. It stresses a feature of 'information-as-geometrical objects' that I failed to emphasize sufficiently in my essay, specifically the fact that 'thinking' & 'computing' are two entirely different phenomena, each requiring entirely different elements to 'run'.
My own investigations have led me to conclude that 'information' is NOT digits - no kind nor amount of them (including any that can be extracted from quantum phenomena!), nor how algorithmically-well they may be massaged & shunted through any device that uses them.
Unequivocally they - digits - make for wonderful COUNTING & CALCULATING assistants, witness our own now many & various, most excellent, counting, calculating devices BUT according to my investigations real thinking is an entirely different phenomenon from mere counting, calculating & computing.
For which phenomenon - real thinking - real information is required.
My own investigations led me to discover what I have come to believe real information is & as it so transpires it turns out to be an especially innocuous - not to omit almost entirely overlooked & massively understudied - phenomenon, none other than the sum total of geometrical objects otherwise quite really & quite properly present here in our universe. Not digits.
One grade (the secondary one) of geometrical-cum-informational objects lavishly present here in our cosmos, is comprised of all the countless trillions & trillions of left-over bump-marks still remaining on all previously impacted solid objects here in our universe - that is to say, all of the left-over dents, scratches, scars, vibrations & residues (just the shapes of residues - not their content!) (really) existing here in the universe.
Examples of some real geometrical objects of this secondary class in their native state are all of the craters on the Moon. Note that these craters are - in & of themselves - just shapes - just geometrical objects. And the reason they are, also one & at the same time, informational objects too, can be seen by the fact that each 'tells a story' - each advertises (literally) some items of information on its back - each relates a tale of not only what created it but when, where & how fast & from what angle the impacting object descended onto the Moon's surface. Again, each literally carries some information on its back.
(Note : Not a digit in sight !!)
How we actually think - rather than just count, calculate & compute - with these strictly non-digital entities, specifically these geometrical-cum-informational objects, in precisely the way we do, please see my essay.
I did not make the distinction between computing with digits & real thinking with real information, sufficiently strongly in my essay.
This contest is such a wonderful 'sharing' - Wow - & open to amateurs like myself - Wow. How great is that !!! Thank you Foundational Questions Institute !!! What a great pleasure it has been to participate. What a joy to read, share & discuss with other entrants !!!
Margriet O'Regan