Lorraine Ford
But what is information?
Underlying all surface appearances, if you want to talk about the fundamental nature of the world, you need to use the tried and true language of physics. The underlying fundamental nature of the world can only be represented in terms of categories (like relative position, mass, momentum, energy), lawful relationships that exist between these categories, and the numbers that apply to these categories. Leaving aside the question of what matter itself is, the relevant types of information that apply to matter are expressed in the language of physics. E.g., the mass of an electron might be symbolically represented as: “m = 0.511 MeV”.

While this symbolic form might represent information from the point of view of physicists, how would one symbolically represent the type of on-the-spot information that is available from the point of view of a particle? The only possible way that symbols could be used to represent this on-the-spot point of view information is in the following type of form: “(m = 0.511 MeV) IS TRUE”, using the logical connective “IS TRUE”.

My point is that zeroes and ones DO NOT and CANNOT EVER represent real-world information: there is absolutely no real-world information content represented by a zero symbol or a one symbol, or any combination of zero and one symbols. The above type of form, which uses categories, numbers, equals signs and the logical connective “IS TRUE”, is the only valid way to represent real-world information.

      Lorraine Ford
      I might sarcastically add, in relation to the issue of “information”:
      What a shame that poor old Shannon didn’t know the difference between real-world information, and the symbols that people use to represent information. Shannon’s misuse of the word “information” is yet another case of a blind, human-centred, anthropocentric view of the world.

          Lorraine Ford
          "consciousness
          is the aspect of the world involved with the mathematical and logical connections, links,
          and relationships between things"
          What about the following deduction from the logical statement:
          In 1911 Planck had deduced the following result:
          "The integral of action of a resonator is exactly equal to his constant h and so the energy of the resonator is quatified"
          In 2023 I had deduced the following result:
          "The integral of action times K/L where K is the stiffness of the resonator and L its mass should have the dimension of a power. So the energy of the resonator have the form of Planck formulae OR it can have another form as a new universal constant having the dimension of a power times the inertial time of the resonator "
          How much I can go from my deduction? Perhaps resolving the problem of disparency of vacuum energy between QM and GR, perhaps giving an entropy to vacuum, perhaps showing the limits of René Descartes of his assumption "I think so I am", perhaps extracting energy from vacuum...etc.

              Alaya Kouki
              I was suggesting that unmeasurable consciousness might be more about the unmeasurable links and relationships between the measurable aspects of the world. As opposed to the categories that are measurable or calculatable (like mass, energy, momentum, or position), consciousness is more about the unmeasurable mathematical operators, equals signs, and logical connectives. In particular, from the point of view of living things including human beings, consciousness is more about the unmeasurable logical IFs, ANDs, ORs, THENs and IS TRUEs, and similarly unmeasurable logical structures that can be built using these logical connectives.

                6 days later

                What is the difference between the logical connectives as used by philosophers, and the logical connectives as used by computer programmers in computer programs? As a former computer programmer and analyst myself, this is something I deeply understand, but I think that I didn’t explain this issue very clearly in my essay. And I think that many people without my deep hands-on experience in the industry would not be aware that there is a difference.

                With physics’ equations that represent the laws of nature, only the categories that apply to matter (like mass or relative position) are potentially measurable. The very important linking bits that connect and hold the world together, represented by the mathematical operators and the equals signs, are aspects of the world that are assumed to exist, but these symbols represent aspects of the world that are not measurable.

                Similarly, if these same categories that apply to matter, with their associated current on-the-spot numbers, were symbolically represented as a logical proposition in a logical statement, e.g.

                “IF (P IS TRUE) AND (Q IS TRUE) THEN (R IS TRUE)”,

                only the truth of the logical proposition aspect, e.g.

                “(m = 0.511 MeV) IS TRUE”

                would be potentially verifiable. The logical connectives themselves (like IF, THEN, AND, and IS TRUE) would represent aspects of the world that are not themselves measurable or verifiable.

                And, seemingly, there is in fact a logical aspect to the world, just like there is a mathematical-lawful aspect to the world. But, at least one of the logical connective symbols used by philosophers has a different meaning to the same logical connective symbol used by computer programmers in computer programs. The THEN logical connective used by philosophers has a completely different meaning to the THEN connective used by computer programmers in computer programs.

                In philosophy, the “THEN” means “logically implies”, but when a computer programmer writes a “THEN” as part of a statement in a computer program, the “THEN” part of the statement is NOT logically implied by the “IF” part of the statement: the “THEN” part of the statement is essentially a product of the creatively free imagination of the computer programmer. However, once written and uploaded to a computer setup, and the computer program is running, the THEN statement becomes a mathematically necessary instruction for the computer to follow, due to the laws of nature.

                In computer programming, like in other aspects of real life in the real world, the “THEN” is not logically or mathematically implied by the "IF". In other words, in the real world, free will exists (at least for computer programmers!! 😊 ).

                  here you want to explain / accentuate the confusion of the fact that , what happens in the programming of the computer is telling, inducing, creating, real true statements about the underlying voltage circuitry that are more or less , remotely related with other physical true statement/experienced phenomena .

                  this confusion leads to potentially cognitive behaviors language consequences
                  in philosophy / science the intent is to fix things, discern , clarify, simplify and in programing the intent is to give options

                  so how this confusion might works, ? if you type something and there are no compilation errors then this gives the impression that the statement is more true than actually is .
                  or apply after learning (compare and use ) ,the way of how a computer work , distorting to other situations that are not in the same scenario .

                  i use this statement if - (then) a lot, how do you Lorraine Ford evaluate my written presence ?

                      cristi marcovici
                      I will only respond to properly constructed sentences, and a properly constructed argument. I will not waste my time trying to divine what on earth you are talking about.

                          Lorraine Ford
                          As opposed to the computer programmer’s “THEN” which, as explained above, is about a logical-creative aspect of the world, philosophy’s “THEN” is actually about the mathematical-lawful aspect of the world. So, while the philosopher and the physicist can see only law, the computer programmer and the artist can see creativity, because the “THEN’” is not implied by the “IF”.

                          But, is there in fact a genuine creative aspect of the world, where the “THEN’” is not implied by the “IF”, or are the “IF”s and “THEN”s just the superficial appearance of an underlying purely mathematical-lawful world? Seemingly quantum events are showing that at the foundations of the world, the “THEN’” is in fact not implied by the “IF”.

                          However, hordes of people can’t believe that genuine creativity could exist, and they are furiously trying to find a mathematical-lawful basis for the abhorrent-to-them idea that a genuine logical-creative-knowledge aspect of the world (IF, THEN, AND, OR, IS TRUE) could exist, underlying both the physics of the world, and the appearance of living things. But in my essay I’m contending that a logical-creative aspect of the world is necessary for the world-system to work:

                          When analysed from a systems point of view, it is easy to see that physics does not have an adequate explanation for why the system (i.e. the world) is moving, i.e. why the numbers are moving and changing. Physics can only ever say: IF some numbers change, THEN other numbers will change (where the ratios between the categories are prescribed by laws of nature). The essential systems issue is that, despite any delta symbols, equations can only ever show relationships between categories, equations can’t ever explain number change in a system. Looking at the world as a system, an adequate explanation of the number change issue requires a completely different aspect of the world: a logical-creative aspect of the world that regularly jumps the numbers to keep the system moving.

                            Lorraine Ford AmaranthLion
                            I will only respond to properly constructed sentences, and a properly constructed argument. I will not waste my time trying to divine what on earth you are talking about.

                            i could say the same about your words, i have no idea what your voice is like, if read i have a default voice that potentially sound like my own voice

                            i'm interested how ( much) this deviate ,or in what ways, compared to spoken language of a person 1400 years ago, before the printing was invented

                            , you might be even a literate deaf person that use sign language in the ordinary life , that's even more intriguing
                            are you a deaf ? since birth, or later in life

                            are you a man or a woman ?

                                cristi marcovici
                                As you would know, a disordered jumble of mathematical symbols cannot communicate mathematical ideas to other people. Similarly, a disordered jumble of symbols does not make a computer program that will work; and even the incoming data has to be ordered, or at least in a form that the computer program is set up to processes. Similarly, a disordered jumble of word symbols cannot communicate specific ideas or thoughts to other people, if in fact the communicator has any specific ideas or thoughts that he/she wants to communicate to another person.

                                Given that every person or living thing has an entirely different world inside their heads to any other person or living thing, it is up to the communicator to strive to bridge the gap, by using a common ordered language, and also by trying to avoid non sequiturs. The essence of communication, the ideal, is that another person might have an understanding of the communicator’s ideas or thoughts. Communication is hard work, and requires the communicator to consider whether or not what he/she says would make any sense at all to the person being communicated to.

                                    Lorraine Ford
                                    Re Symbols:
                                    How could science be different? Physicists need to notice the difference between the symbols that people use to represent information, and the real-world information itself.

                                    The human use of symbols requires people to do a high-level analysis of low-level oncoming light and sound data – it’s the sort of thing that human beings specialise in. Speech symbols are not just sound waves, but ordered sound waves; written symbols are not just ink on paper, but ordered ink on paper. While the laws of nature apply to sound waves, ink, paper, and light waves coming from the ink on the paper, the laws of nature do not apply to the arrangements of ink on paper (i.e. man-made written symbols), and the laws of nature do not apply to the arrangements of sound waves (i.e. man-made spoken symbols). Logical analysis is required to decipher man-made symbols, which are special arrangements of matter.

                                    Similarly in computers, people have arranged it so that special arrangements and arrays of voltages, within the context of the whole computer setup, can be used as symbols. People have arranged it so that the individual voltages themselves, which have a whole range of actual numeric values, can be used to symbolise just two values, zero and one, i.e. the man-made binary digit concept. And people have arranged it so that the higher voltages in the range can be used to symbolise the binary digit zero OR the lower voltages in the range can be used to symbolise the binary digit zero.

                                    But the real world (the universe) is not founded on symbols, because the use of symbols requires high-level analysis: the sort of thing that human beings specialise in, and the sort of thing that people can get computers to do. The types of information that the underlying real world uses are: categories, that are inherently related to other such categories, and numbers that apply to these categories. Information in the real world is founded on inherent mathematical interrelationship, i.e. no high-level logical analysis is required.

                                      As I said in my essay, physics can’t explain why the world is moving and changing: the most that physics can say is that IF some numbers (for some categories like energy, position or momentum) change, THEN other numbers (for other categories) will change.

                                      As an analyst, this is my further, more detailed, analysis of this issue:
                                      The physics’ assumption is that some unknown thing provided the initial number change for some of the abovementioned categories at the start of the universe, and the numbers have been changing ever since, on the strength of that single, initial number change for some of the categories, and also on the strength of the laws of nature which mediate the “THEN”, i.e. the consequent number changes for the other categories.

                                      But that assumption, that a single initial set of number changes is all that is required to drive all subsequent number change, is clearly a fallacy because, when the world is looked at as a system of mathematical relationships, every “THEN”/ consequent number change, arising from that initial number change, is instantaneous i.e. completely outside of time. This is because:

                                      1) Time is just one of the categories (just like mass and relative position) that make up the mathematical relationships. A system of mathematical relationships does not exist inside one of its own categories. I.e. the mathematical relationships exist as part of the system, but they do not exist in time, which is just a category.

                                      2) All the “THEN”/ consequent number changes are nothing but lawful mathematical relationships, i.e. they are instantaneous, they “occur” completely outside of time. The number change is instantaneous because the number change is nothing but a mathematical relationship.

                                      So, the initial “IF” number changes, and all the “THEN”/ consequent number changes, comprise one single step. And then the system stops moving. The system stops moving unless there are more “IF” number changes input to the system. I.e. seen as a system, the world requires the continual input of new numbers if it is to keep moving.

                                      P.S.
                                      “Random” quantum events are, objectively, the input of new numbers to the system. So, rather than such quantum events being a problem for the system, as a result of the above analysis, I would conclude that such quantum events are necessary in order for the system to function, i.e. in order for the system to move.

                                      Curated lists of wild ideas in the sciences which anyone can submit to. The ideas are condensed, associated, and duplicated submissions paraphrased and combined. The purpose is to accumulate ideas that are new or unexplored in a format that attempts to prevent novel ideas from becoming lost in the crowd of repetitive thoughts. Then provide recognition for persons who successfully disprove ideas in the lists. Recognition for proofs can be acquired elsewhere.

                                      There are lists of ideas that people can currently post to, but they are not curated to reduce duplication. Another function of the curator would be to properly index the entries by subject areas. "If you cannot find it, you don't have it, and you cannot use it." Properly formatted, recorded, indexed, and retrievable ideas can be searched quickly by new thinkers. Reducing duplication of efforts and helping researchers to connect with others interested in exploring in similar directions are further benefits.

                                      How much would this cost to establish and maintain? How could it be financed over the long term? How often would you be likely to check your ideas against a list like this?

                                      The human use of symbols requires people to do a high-level analysis of low-level oncoming light and sound data – it’s the sort of thing that human beings specialise in. Speech symbols are not just sound waves, but ordered sound waves; written symbols are not just ink on paper, but ordered ink on paper. While the laws of nature apply to sound waves, ink, paper, and light waves coming from the ink on the paper, the laws of nature do not apply to the arrangements of ink on paper (i.e. man-made written symbols), and the laws of nature do not apply to the arrangements of sound waves (i.e. man-made spoken symbols). Logical analysis is required to decipher man-made symbols, which are special arrangements of matter.

                                      in some (math) books the page number ,is part of the meaning ,content.
                                      or i just try to find more meaning than there actually is there

                                      maybe there could be other patterns that for example people could make use and be (over) exposed. an other example that comes to mind is numbering the floors in elevator, in some places they choose letters no numerals like , 0123456789

                                      an other issue is the the ability to jump skip that is not really a characteristic of speech conversations, that can be used differently not only just the so called the reading diagonally; a visual sign language for deaf packs differently not just speed (intonation etc,) also location or relative hands positions , that can be chunked, simultaneously ,abstraction is not the right word because has other roles , but it is a different mode to think that in the end could also potentially help new way to abstract

                                        cristi marcovici
                                        But, what are numbers? Your “page numbers” are not numbers: they are symbols, i.e. special arrangements of matter (in this case, ink) that human beings recognise only after their brains have processed the light waves coming from the page. These are symbols, “numbers” that only exist from the point of view of human minds: the laws of nature don’t know about these “numbers”.

                                        The numbers that the laws of nature know about, the real-world numbers of physics, are a different thing. Real-world numbers are things that exist, but people only know about real-world numbers when people measure a real-word category like mass or relative position: real-world numbers can’t be measured, only categories can be measured. Real-world numbers can’t be measured, but they can be represented with number symbols. Also, the numbers that only exist in people’s minds can be represented with number symbols.

                                        Computer programming and analysis is, firstly, all about being able to notice the difference between the real world “out there” of people and things, and the symbols that a computer programmer would use to represent and analyse the world. If you are going to program a human-computer interface, you would usually need to be the type of person who inherently appreciates the difference between man-made symbols on the one hand, and the real world on the other hand: most people don't really understand that there is a difference.

                                          https://sign2mint.de/entry/Zahl/5750242766511595:701

                                          a friend that studies acting told me once , why i don't pay attention to people when i speak with them ,
                                          maybe i do i may not be good at showing it back

                                          firstly, numbers are how you react when you hear /use this word, by some chances(mainly due to interactions) many people happens to react the same way ,

                                          after many hours at computer that use numbers (that means installing programs, tweaking,scripting, adjusting settings, ) doing a food receipt is like, a ! i have to move this distance make this action for that amount of time ,it is me doing this task ? this is real life ? am i in a movie?

                                          the laws of nature don’t know about these “numbers”.

                                          secondly imagine doing an experiment that ties / connect/ binds/ this number representations to some physical laws , it may happen only via a decoder , i'm not completely excluding the possibility that in fact have a physical meaning .
                                          by studying handwriting( calligraphy / graphology), i was pondering a couple of days ago(the second/third time, firstly was a couple of years ago) about a device that intermediate (the normal handwriting
                                          in to tiny small handwriting, in order to the make the most out of the surface paper, because we can read a much smaller font than we are capable of writing ourselves, quickly, with bare, pencil and paper, hands,( like a remote surgery haptic shrink interface for writing ) , i have small hands by default settings my handwriting tends to be ugly and not pleasing for reading.

                                          in order for us to evolve to have hands that write with certain shapes and sizes , the evolution must obey physical laws , therefore,i believe it could have not been that much different in a different timeline ; so i'ts a given we live in an universe where there are people writing with letters of size from 3 mm up to 1 cm , not sure about others alphabets /writing but the height and volume of letters looks approximately similar

                                          thirdly going back to the first point

                                          what are numbers?

                                          neuroscience, just reading the news,- graphs are better.

                                          numbers are functions, in the case of book page , the function is to help the reader find the content ,if you explore other kinds of book bindings (or utilization modes like for example an accordion book) the book get handled differently ) if you read the paper online /computer device , the content presentation (/interaction experience)could be varied by much

                                          or differently said, numbers are skewed / deformed/ stretched , graphs,

                                          what is a graph than ? , a surface with multiple,high bandwidth simultaneously interacting points, in this comparison, a number is just a point.

                                            cristi marcovici
                                            Unlike the universe of nonsense that can exist inside people’s heads, physics seeks to establish a firm basis upon which to understand the world. Physics has in practice found that 3 distinct types of information are necessary in order to describe the world: categories (like energy, momentum, mass, position), relationships, and numbers. These are 3 distinct aspects, which can’t be collapsed down into 1 or 2 aspects: the numbers can’t be collapsed down into the relationships; the categories can’t be collapsed down into the numbers or the relationships. So, what you say about numbers (“numbers are functions”) is incorrect.

                                            This is complicated by the fact that, in order to understand the world, physics needs to represent the world with man-made symbols. But unlike the genuine, powerful, real-world categories, real-world relationships and real-world numbers behind gravity and atomic energy, these mere symbols of categories, relationships, and numbers have no power at all.

                                                to be honest i don't know what numbers are i saw many definitions for example https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/ETCS

                                                to misquote joel david hamkins (logician), why not going with all the definitions in parallel

                                                if you consider counting aspect for distinguishing with relations , graphs can be infinite , imagine something like a finite graph blob that goes infinite in one of the edges like a line, in other edge makes a start like a line but ends up infinite like a surface , the important idea here is at once, simultaneously, concomitantly, if counting is dependent on the human voice trrrr: step step step step,

                                                by the limits of the eye retina image gets to make its impression by taking pictures : image, image ,image, image
                                                or graph graph graph graph

                                                _Unlike the universe of nonsense that can exist inside people’s heads, _

                                                accordion book

                                                !the danger of reading! is that by reading your comment in a way get to be a little bit like you , the act of deciphering a human(code) is an emphatic act more or less,
                                                unfortunately, thats why is a danger , i believe is irreversible ,the human memory has difficulties at managing forgetting or the version control of the modification, so to say this is my steady fixed position ,i'm going to compare it with an other opinion, and not being influenced by it at all

                                                the function is to help the reader... bla bla bla

                                                plural versus singular
                                                in this language english the, german der die das ,or french la, is like a handle , that accentuate the unicity, singularity ,the only thing , the area of linguistics studying this sort of things is called pragmatics

                                                Lorraine Ford
                                                (continued)

                                                Moreover, regarding the symbols used in computers:
                                                In the real world, these 3 necessary aspects of real physical world information (category, relationship and number) exist together in the one spot (so to speak). But in computers:

                                                • The many different real-world categories, relationships and numbers are symbolised using just one real-world category i.e. voltage. (Voltage, in an appropriately arranged setup, is made to represent binary digits; and these binary digits in turn are arranged to represent categories, relationships and numbers);
                                                • These symbols of the 3 necessary aspects of information are held physically separated in the computer, because a computer can only processes symbols of the information.

                                                How could science be different? As I say in my essay, science could be different if physicists resisted the urge to be dazzled by the superficial appearances of man-made objects (AIs), and instead looked deeply into the nature of reality AND looked deeply into how people manipulate and arrange reality.

                                                    Lorraine Ford
                                                    Re information versus symbols of information:

                                                    When it comes to the physics of the world, the 3 necessary aspects of real-world information are categories (like mass, position, momentum, energy), relationships between the categories, and numbers that apply to the categories. These three aspects are seemingly necessary because a number cannot imply a relationship, and vice versa; a relationship cannot imply a category and vice versa; and a category cannot imply a number, and vice versa. In the real physical world, these three necessary aspects of real-world information are not held separately. And without these three necessary real-world aspects (category, relationship and number), any purportedly existing “information” is not actually information.

                                                    When it comes to how people represent the real world, people must use written, spoken or binary digit symbols to represent information, and the three necessary aspects of information must be separately symbolised. Obviously, computers/ AIs are not processing the real-world information (i.e. the categories, relationships and numbers) that the world is constructed out of. But computers/ AIs are not just processing mere symbols of real-world information: computers/ AIs are processing mere separate symbols of the separated-out aspects of real-world information.

                                                    In the real physical world, the 3 necessary aspects of information are not held separately. But the so-called “information” processed by computers/ AIs is not at all like real-world information; in fact, the purportedly existing “information” processed by computers/ AIs is not actually information at all.