Steve and Ilgaitis,

Thanks for your vote of confidence in my description of information. But please note that my view of information is not physics' view of information.

I distinguish:

1) information, which has inherent context with respect to the rest of reality; from

2) A) coded representations of information (e.g. words, numbers, equations, binary digits are coded representations), and B) mathematical calculations of probability performed on coded representations (which results in a number i.e. Shannon information), where both A and B are symbolic representations which have no inherent context with respect to the rest of reality.

I'm saying information is an observer's subjective experience of relationship and context, where this relationship and context is real: it is not a symbolic or coded representation of relationships and context. Physics is saying that information is objective facts, symbolic representations without context.

Physics' view of information is muddled, and somewhat mystical, because physics fails to distinguish between information and coded representations of information. Physics usually believes that coded information IS information. And physics contends that numbers that have no context, can have "surprise value" or equivalently "reduction in ignorance/uncertainty", and that this surprise value is a feature of information.

    P.S.

    Computers use electricity and integrated circuits on silicon chips to represent zeroes and ones and represent Boolean AND/OR/NOT logic.

    In quantum computers, quantum states are used to represent the quantum version of zeroes and ones; and special quantum logic gates/circuits are used to represent a special, looser, quantum logic, which provides the correct solutions with only a calculatable probability.

    We use these quantum states to represent a code, so that we can do certain types of mathematical calculations.

    But these quantum states are not actually a code. So, notions like the "computational capacity of the universe" [1] are completely misguided.

    1. "Computational capacity of the universe" by Seth Lloyd, October 2001, https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110141

    Hello Lorraine,

    You are welcome,I like read your ideas and thoughts.

    Best Regards :)

    Dear Eckard,

    I don't believe the analogy of pressure waves in air have much bearing on electromagnetic propagation in a medium.

    I include below an interesting quote I just found, the link follows.

    "However, there is another indisputable source of gravitational waves that we know about exceedingly well. This source is an electromagnetic wave. The argument is very simple: where there is an electromagnetic wave, there is an energy-momentum tensor. By the field equations of general relativity, wherever there is an energy-momentum tensor, there is a non-vanishing Ricci tensor, hence a non-vanishing Riemann tensor which invariantly characterizes the presence of spacetime curvature. This field of spacetime curvature is necessarily localized within the region of the energy-momentum tensor (one cannot boost from the speed c) and it flows with speed c. So we draw the following conclusion: electromagnetic waves have an intrinsic duality: they are necessarily also gravitational waves. Thus the detection of gravitational waves is the routine of our everyday existence as we detect electromagnetic waves.

    https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5852e579be659442a01f27b8/t/586c1b8d893fc03b140b25c7/1483479950312/Cooperstock_2015.pdf

    I do not recall which reference the Fizeau quote came from.

    I lived in Huntsville when I worked at NASA, I left to pursue microprocessor design and moved to Silicon Valley. I've been on the California Coastside for almost 40 years. I agree that it would be wonderful to meet and discuss things face-to-face, but it won't happen.

    My best regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Edwin,

    Let me go on preferring to trust in what you ascribed to HH on your page 20: "Michelson's experiment(s)is taken to imply that there is no ether. ... One paradox is (already) too much."

    Your Cooperstock paper deters me by using various tensors and the notion spacetime.

    While I am not at all interested in em propagation in a medium, AE is ascribed also on p. 20 to state: "Fizeaus's experiments and stellar aberration were the phenomena upon which I most strongly based my theory".

    What about your correct attribution of gamma to energy, i.e. v_squared, not to v. I found in the four annus mirabilis papers:

    Photonic effect

    Brownian motion

    Special Relativity

    Mass-energy equivalence

    nothing that justified SR. On the contrary, the first page of SR indicated to me that AE was aware of the issue v vs. v_squared.

    We should deal with more issues in which we agree.

    My best regards,

    Eckard Blumschein

    In reply to Eric's original query; there is a precise match!

    You appear to be talking about theories of Quantum Gravity or Geometrization, Eric. There is some resemblance with the conditional application of direction in CDT (Causal Dynamical Triangulations), where adjoining geometric segments must have the same time direction. But I see a pretty precise match with a recent paper by Paola Zizzi, which talks about a specific configuration of gates constructing spacetime in the early universe, in the context of a Quantum Growing Network.

    Entangled Space-Time is found at arXiv:1807.06433

    I hope the paper above is relevant to this discussion. I only discovered this thread today, but I recently submitted a paper for publication on the origin of time. So I think I might have something worthwhile to say. But I will wait until I've looked through the many interesting comments above. I intend to rejoin this conversation in earnest, when I have a little more time to spare.

    All the Best,

    Jonathan

      Hi Jonathan,

      Happy to see you again,thanks also for sharing your paper.You are relevant.BestRegards

      Dear Edwin,

      In order to check whether the Lorentz gamma is actually a time transformation, I looked into en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lorentz_transformations and found confirmed that not Einstein but Lorentz dealt with Fitzeau and aberration:

      "In order to explain the aberration of light and the result of the Fizeau experiment in accordance with Maxwell's equations, Lorentz in 1892 developed a model ("Lorentz ether theory")."

      "Similar transformations were introduced ... by Lorentz (1892, 1895) who analyzed Maxwell's equations, they were completed by Larmor (1897, 1900) and Lorentz (1899, 1904), and brought into their modern form by Poincaré (1905) who gave the transformation the name of Lorentz.[13]".

      My best regards,

      Eckard Blumschein

      5 days later

      Information is not objective [1]. Information is the only possible knowledge that components of the universe can carry i.e. incomplete subjective knowledge of their context within the system.

      This contextual information is not about relationships between the components of the system; and obviously, information has nothing to do with binary digits, which have no inherent context, and which can only ever symbolically represent information.

      Contextual information is about relationships between categories of knowledge, where "lower-level" categories of knowledge are e.g. mass, position, velocity (speed and direction) etc.

      But seemingly, time is a primitive "higher-level" category of knowledge, which can only be acquired via algorithmic analysis of "lower-level" information. Living things acquire sophisticated "higher-level" knowledge about their context, which is necessarily built upon analysis and synthesis of "lower-level" information. But one must ask: what is the use of this "higher-level" information if the information is not associated with "higher-level" outcomes i.e. outcomes that can't be provided by law of nature relationships?

      1. The Quantum Question of an Objective Reality, by Gabriella Skoff, 21st March 2019: "The researcher's findings suggest ... that in quantum physics there is no objective reality; that reality itself is observer-dependent... this conclusion ...calls the concept of objective fact--the very pursuit of science itself--into question." https://projectqsydney.com/2019/03/21/the-quantum-question-of-an-objective-reality

        More correctly, time is a "higher-level" category of information, which can only be acquired via algorithmic analysis of "lower-level" categories of information, where the quantities/numbers applying to these categories have changed. The sense of time is due to the sense of change.

        Some people would claim that this number change needs no explanation: that (what we would represent as) number change is just what the universe does, end of story. But this type of defeatist attitude is contrary to the spirit of physics. And in fact when looked at closely, number change is quantum: there is no smooth number change in the universe. This raises the question: should the numerical outcomes of quantum events be seen as "higher-level" outcomes, as opposed to the "lower-level" numerical outcomes that are due to law of nature relationships?

        Eric Aspling,

        Re "Understanding the Irreversibility of Time":

        Algorithmic information IS one-way information.

        Dear Lorraine,

        Your answer is incomplete. Algorithm is sequence of operations in time. There is other way: analog computing. In this case information is distributed in space and one gets result simultaneously.

        Best regards

        Ilgaitis

        It is good to see so many thoughts about time here. I have been fascinated by the puzzles in physics and started to think they might all be related to the nature of time. For example, to make sense of wave-particle duality, we can assume that time itself has duality. If time is a complex axis which includes two stages (continuous and discrete), then particle and wave are two natural phenomena we can observe as outcome. And it also answers some ancient paradox about motions, e.g. Achilles and the tortoise, flying arrow etc.

        I will explain in details if anyone interested and if it fits to this topic.

          Ilgaitis,

          Re Ilgaitis Prusis replied on Apr. 8, 2019 @ 16:25 GMT:

          We represent law of nature relationships (which represent categories like mass, time and position) with equations, symbols and numbers. A law of nature relationship that is written using symbols on a piece of paper, or symbolically represented within a computer, is a "dead" thing with no power over the universe. In comparison, real law of nature relationships are "living" relationships which have real power and effect in the universe.

          Laws of nature don't operate "in" time. Law of nature relationships connect natural categories like time, energy, mass and position: in the "living" laws of nature, time is just another category of information. So, laws of nature "sit above" time.

          We, and computers, take time to work out the results of equations which are meant to represent "living" laws of nature. To calculate the position of a particle in "the next step in time", will take us, or a computer, many "steps in time" to do the calculation. But "living" law of nature relationships are not performing calculations, they don't operate "in" time, i.e. they don't operate in time steps.

            (continued from above)

            To symbolically represent time steps in the universe you need to use algorithms, and you need to know what the algorithms are meant to represent. As above, these algorithms represent something "living" that has real power and effect in the universe; and these algorithms represent something that "sits above" time, because time is just another category of information in these algorithms. In addition, these algorithms don't necessarily represent something that is "set-in-stone" like the law of nature relationships are seemingly "set-in-stone".

            Lorraine

            Are there aspects of the universe that can only be represented algorithmically, and does this relate to the question of Time?

            1. Statements like the following represent the type of information that law of nature categories and their associated numbers provide:

            Relative speed = 23 (in some system of units)

            2. Statements like the following represent higher-level information (this is information about information, where comparisons have been made, and questions asked about more fundamental-level information):

            Relative speed > 17 is true

            Relative speed = 23 is true

            Relative speed has changed

            The delta symbol in physics' equations (that represent laws of nature) represents higher-level information.

            3. Are there aspects of the universe that can only be represented algorithmically? These algorithms would necessarily couple higher-level information with "higher-level outcomes" i.e. outcomes that cannot be achieved via laws of nature alone, because laws of nature are not affected by higher-level True/False information. Clearly, higher-level information can have no function, or reason to exist, in the universe unless it is coupled with higher-level outcomes.

            Statements like the following represent higher-level information coupled with higher-level outcomes (outcomes that cannot be achieved via laws of nature alone):

            IF relative speed > 17 is true, THEN make relative position = 41 (in some system of units)

              (continued from above)

              4. The above statement represents a genuine change of number for the relative position category. Something new has been added to the system: a genuine change of number, as opposed to a change of number that can be fully accounted for by the law of nature relationship structure, without adding any new numbers to the system. So, the above statement, in the context of the laws of nature, contains a higher-level category of information that could potentially be acquired:

              IF relative speed > 17 is true, THEN relative position = 41 AND change is true

              This can seemingly also be represented as something like the following:

              IF relative speed > 17 is true, THEN relative position = 41 AND time = time 1

              5. So, Time is a higher-level category of information: it represents whether it is true or not that genuine change of number has occurred in other, lower-level, categories of information.

              Here is some thoughts about time and its duality nature, too long and too much diagrams so I have to put it in the attachment. It is actually kind of "Alternative Models of time" to explain reality, hope my poor English doesn't bother your reading :)

              abstract: Wave-particle duality is an ongoing conundrum in modern physics. Most physicists accept wave-particle duality as the best explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena; however, it is not without controversy.

              Albert Einstein once wrote: It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do.

              Since the meaning or interpretation has not been satisfactorily resolved, physicists have various views about the nature of duality, which includes Both-particle-and-wave view/Wave-only view/ Particle-only view/Neither-wave-nor-particle view etc.

              If there are two kinds of reality at different times, it is easier to make sense of the duality by understanding the nature of time. Could time itself be composed of two aspects as well?

              We will raise this conjecture to the status of a postulate, and also introduce the concept of discrete time domain, in which all wave or energy appears to be particles. The theory to be developed is based on the relationships between discrete time observation and continuous motion process. Quantum experiments such as double-slit experiment, Wheeler's delayed choice experiment and Schrödinger's cat etc. are discussed and explained on this postulate.