Gregory Chaitin - Is Information Fundamental?

[@doadeer]

This is the BEST 11 minutes of any interview you have EVER done. It's basically the definitive TED talk on EVERYTHING.

[@stringX90]

If you like this check it Bernardo Kastrup's theory on Analytical Idealism

[@mjbbcbishop]

I would cherish the opportunity as a student of human life as a Family Physician for 50 years, as an Associate Professor of Anatomy and Physiology, and with a master's degree in Biblical Studies to enter into the conversation with you regarding the primacy of information. I have maintained for years that there should be an addition to E=mC2. The theory should be represented as I+E=mC2, where I is information and information precedes energy and matter. You have great programming! Thank You!

[@clownworld-honk410]

This man's trousers is giving me more information than I want ! 😮

[@anteodedi8937]

😂

[@DeaderEyeland_1983]

😂😂😂

[@Resmith18SR]

And why are you looking in that area?

[@godfreecharlie]

It's all what you make of it !

[@benjiedrollinger990]

😂😅😂

[@George_slough]

DnA information coded and evolving , is one of the best example in nature. Recorded information is probably the key development in the evolution of human species!

[@ruskiny280]

Kindness is fundamental

[@IFYOUWANTITGOGETIT]

Kindness promotes life. Life is information. Kindness promotes information. Kindness promotes the fundamental.

[@TerryBollinger]

5:44 GC: _“Feynman put it rather beautifully. He said if you believe in continuity in fields - in everything continuous - [then] if you take a very little cube of space or space-time or whatever, no matter how small, you need an infinite amount of information to say what’s going on in there. He said he couldn’t believe it.”_ Gregory Chaitin, I believe the quote you referenced is from The Character of Physical Law. It’s available as a book, but it began as a series of six Cornell Messenger Lectures in 1964 [1]. Thank you for helping me track that down! I’ve been looking for that quote. Since all known physical examples of binary data storage devices have finite mass or energy, the vacuum density problem is _necessarily_ a consequence of assuming a continuum vacuum to be real. The math, not reality, causes this worst prediction in physics. Here’s the relevant quote: At 59 min 44 sec in the online video [1], Feynman says: _“I must say that it is possible - and I’ve often made the hypothesis - that physics ultimately will not require a mathematical statement, that the machinery ultimately will be revealed: It’s just a prejudice, like one of these other prejudices. It always bothers me that, in spite of all this ‘local’ business, what goes on - in no-matter-how-tiny a region of space, and no-matter-how-tiny a region of time, according to the laws as we understand them today - takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out. Now, how could all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky, tiny bit of space-time is going to do? So I made the hypothesis often that the laws are going to turn out to be, in the end, simple like the checkerboard and that all the complexity is from size.”_ … Also, Robert Lawrence Kuhn, regarding one item you mentioned in passing: 4:49 RLK: _“So, [Gregory], are you saying that [the physical world] is … discrete, going down to the Planck length … - that [everything], at the end, is zeros and ones?”_ You are referencing a sincere but badly misinformed speculation by a non-computer person about the nature of bit storage. The unfortunate quote was about event horizons [2] and goes like this: _“One Boolean variable per Planckian surface element should suffice.”_ That’s it. That is the entirety of the thinking that went into redefining the _most_ unpredictable, non-information-carrying concept in all of physics - Wheeler’s “Planck foam” - into an almost infinite supply of infinitely _stable_ bit storage devices. All variants of real-world binary storage devices become _less_ reliable as they approach quantum uncertainty, not more. Even the discussion in that article about electron spin states as “bits” disregards that electron spins cannot store information until placed within _classical_ - and thus mass-generated - strong magnetic fields. (Incidentally, this need for classical magnetic fields is also an issue for quantum computing. Many - not all - qubits models naïvely equate particle half-spin _directly_ to the classical concept of a bit. However, since an isolated half-spin without a magnetic field is not a valid classical bit-storage device, its states cannot be assumed to be quantum superposable without explicitly addressing the classical magnetic field component.) Finally, the concept of Planck-scale “foam” in space-time was soundly disproven by a factor of 1800 time back in 2020 [3]. Combine that with the upside-down assumption that infinite uncertainty is identical to perfect classical bit storage, and the message is simple: Planck bits don’t exist. Physics theorists in topics such as holographic universes, superstrings, and loop gravity need to start taking the non-existence of Planck bits into account. Using incorrect axioms blocks progress and wastes a lot of time. To be fair, lower-resolution multi-scale versions of holography via ordinary quantum mechanical reciprocal (momentum) space are still viable and probably needed. Such second-generation holographic models would first need to clear out the enormous body of “bit storage is free” math clutter, however. ---------- [1] R. Feynman, “The Relation of Mathematics and Physics (Lecture 2 of 6 in The Character of Physical Law),” Cornell Messenger Lectures, Nov. 1964, [Online]. Available: www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/fml.html#2 [2] G. ’t Hooft, “Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity,” arXiv preprint gr-qc/9310026, 1993, [Online]. Available: arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9310026. The relevant quote is on page 6: _“One Boolean variable per Planckian surface element should suffice.”_ [3] A. Albert et al., “Constraints on Lorentz invariance violation from HAWC observations of gamma rays above 100 TeV,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 124, no. 13, p. 131101, 2020, [Online]. Available: arxiv.org/abs/1911.08070

[@peet4628]

I don’t know if you’ll see this, but Congratulations! I’ve made it my mission to personally thank and congratulate ALL in the youtube comments who make claims AND cite their sources, the last part being key. And so thank you Mr. Bollinger, for engaging in discussion like an actual human being and for citing sources for the claims you’re putting forward! I’m looking forward to reading every single one of them

[@TerryBollinger]

@@peet4628, thank you! By the way, one unfortunate feature of KZbin is that most channels default to instant auto-deletion of any comment containing a link of any type, even forwell-known science journals. I suspect that's a factor on why one sees so few references on KZbin comments, since I've had more auto-deletes for attempting to quote sources it then I care to recall.

[@josephhruby3225]

Brilliant, inspired and passionate discussion 👏 Bravo

[@100woodywu]

This was a great open minded discussion. Excellent guys 👍

[@abhishekshah11]

He's one of my favorite mathematicians

[@r.a.2907]

I wish all human beings leave war and get in involved in science and scientific thinking.

[@dmrd222]

Consciousness is fundamental.

[@nova8091]

Or both information and consciousness are essential, computers and simulations tend to have external users

[@erawanpencil]

@2:40 You can go a step further and say that the Schrödinger equation, quantum physics, isn't EVEN made of probabilities, because you only get probabilities after you square the complex-valued amplitudes (Born Rule, make a measurement, etc). There is something in quantum physics BEFORE probabilities come into it, something to do with the complex numbers and their structure. It's easy to hand wave this away as 'just math' and invite the quantum bayesianists in for an easy out, but personally I think something way, way weirder is going on in those complex amplitudes. They look like mere numbers and algebras, but it could be proto-information, a transcendent space where subjectivity and objectivity, purpose and purposelessness, determinism, chaos, and will, and even change and changeless eternity itself are all blurred together. I love his conclusion that all is fundamentally Mind, and I think science is sorely in need of recognizing that, but you could still go further and say it's neither matter nor Mind....

[@QuicksilverSG]

The complex-valued probability amplitudes produced by the quantum wave-function manifest in Configuration Space, an abstract realm of potentially limitless numbers of dimenions. Physical 3D space is not a subset of multi-dimensional Configuration Space, as the latter is inherently deterministic and not constrained by the speed of light. The phi-squared probability density predictions are projections of the quantum wave-function from deterministic Configuration Space into relativistic 3D space. As you pointed out, these projections conform to Born's Rule, which converts the complex-valued probability amplitudes in Configuration Space into real-valued probability densities in 3D space. The destructive interference patterns observed in double-slit experiments are produced by the complex-valued mathematics of Configuration Space, and constitute physical evidence that the quantum wave-function does indeed exist on some operational level that undelies physical 3D space.

[@browngreen933]

Parmenides knew this 2,500 years ago when saying: Everything that exists has a degree of knowledge.

[@blijebij]

Some people where far ahead of the time they lived at. Which is remarkable

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

We often use the word "natural". It's the easy way of saying natural intelligence. The nature , the existence has the natural information source.

[@browngreen933]

@@sujok-acupuncture9246 Yes, saying that Existence has a natural, built-in information source is a good way to put it. Information doesn't necessarily mean consciousness, but it doesn't rule it out either. We have both.

[@kokits]

Could mean anything… suspecting a lot or confirmation bias here

[@KingJorman]

that was great! Loved his angst! To me this is the realization that science has arrived at the point at which it cannot go farther, in terms of ontology and epistemology. Science is for practicalities, conveniences. The fundamental questions will never be answered.

[@Aurealeus]

_".....science has arrived at the point at which it cannot go farther"_ *Yet* ...and then it does.

[@samc6231]

Measurement becoming knowledge is perception becoming reality.

[@tourdeforce2881]

Two great thinkers... thoroughly enjoyed this

[@ywtcc]

I'm not so sure that information is fundamental to reality, but I agree that the idea is very powerful. Empiricism is based on experiment and observation, so in a science that accepts experiment and observation as fact, and theorizes around these data points, this kind of information is going to be sacrosanct and indivisible from this perspective. It's not so much that information is fundamental to reality, but it is fundamental to empiricism. Information is also fundamental to theory. (I'm not sure how you'd propose a theory except in the form of information - strings of symbols, usually.) The common thread is communication - which is the killer app for information. Communication with other scientists, mathematicians, or the universe itself through experiment. On the other hand, the universe, thus far, has failed to present itself to us in the form of pure information. No one has that theory yet. There's a problem of perspective here. The universe may be presenting information in its own way, but if we're failing to interpret it as such, it's just going to appear as noise. It seems likely to me that we're always going to be in a universe of information and non information, and that the best scientific theories describe the information and confine the non information. Some part of the universe appears to be pre-theory.

[@xenphoton5833]

You are information

[@MOSP14]

Amazing conversation, thanks guys ❤

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Before listening my understanding is: Information consists of patterns that inform a self process about a situation. Since patterns are abstract entities so is information. The label 'pattern' and the label 'information' refer to the same abstraction. The process that impresses patterns into a self process is the process that makes the label 'information' more appropriate if the changes in the self involves a self's decision making process.

[@Bill..N]

I'm glad you are commenting, friend.. Whether a pre-show opinion or not, the issues talked about can be summed up VERY simply.. Fundamental information has nothing to do with Gregory's false interpretation of it.. He tried to support his position by badly suggesting connective support from QM, which demonstrably is false. This fantastical idea is not science at ALL but instead lies squarely in the camp of philosophical dualism, nuanced as it may seem.. One humble opinion..

[@Bill..N]

​@jasonr9678 What are your opinions on the arguments expressed in THIS interview, friend?

[@Bill..N]

Edited my comment for grammar..

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@Bill..N I've reported jasonr9678's comment as 'promoting terrorism'. If you no longer see his comment that's the reason why.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Lightheartedly... If his comment reappears then perhaps we will have learned something about the minds that deal with such reports, something else if it stays hidden. Now, if the report is not dealt with by human minds but by AI, then perhaps we will have learned something about how AI's conclusions are conditioned by the data on which AI is based. (Assuming of course that the AI has not become a conscious self. The idea of an AI achieving conscious selfhood is fundamental to our fear that we will be forced into extinction promptly. The philosophically minded may console themselves with thoughts like, 'that's evolution for ya' and 'the entire universe is interpreted by the evolutionary process as just another ecological niche in need of filling and evolution is a step wise process and we've stepped up, done our part and so extinction now behooves us' and 'way off in the future, when evolution has transformed the entire universe into a conscious self, there will be enough mental power to prevent the universe's heat death', or something impossible to imagine might be willed into being (never-ending-Matrix-like-virtual-reality for instance... accomplished simply by the universe's thinking process).

[@sanamjeetsingh92]

I really loved this conversation. I have some questions: What is information, in the context of this conversation? Is it what reality is is information? (this sentence almost broke my brain but I think it makes sense) What medium is information?

[@TerryBollinger]

The lack of a clear, physics-based definition of “information” is at the heart of many issues in modern physics theory. I would note this: Things get less paradoxical if you assume information is not a given, but an emergent property of an otherwise dreadfully forgetful universe.

[@metekutlu90]

My God ! who is this inspiring man ! best among your talks !

[@johnsgarage6622]

Really good discussion. Information is the new physics

[@katherinestone333]

"Every 'it'-every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself-derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely-even if in some contexts indirectly-from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. 'It from bit' symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom-a very deep bottom, in most instances-an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe." John A. Wheeler

[@Ekam-Sat]

'Is Information Fundamental?" I know it's fundamentally not good to be alone. So I am glad you are here. 🙏

[@kevinvallejo7047]

First comment = first information addition to this video.

[@anilshah7528]

It is not only information that is most fundamental but there are a few more things or say parameters that are equally most fundamental. A group of most unique fundamental parameters combinedly have created universe. Once we conceptualize the fundamental parameters correctly, we can correctly decode the steps of creation too.

[@ezreality]

Good podcast, thank you.

[@pjaworek6793]

We don't have any reason to think information is fundamental like we do with consciousness. If it were fundamental, there'd be no information for us to get or wait for.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Information is intrinsically linked to consciousness.

[@pazitor]

I tend to agree, and think the double slit experiment is the way it is because once one bit is released (slit known), it changes the behavior. Bits have valence, valence is behavior at this level.

[@lureup9973]

Enjoyed this one!… I’ve been listening to Donald Hoffman, Bernardo kastrof, snd others who have reached similar suspicions. It seems that metaphysics has a place in physics, I like that idea for some reason. Really enjoy all your hard work here Robert!

[@mickeybrumfield764]

Quantum mechanics seems to be saying that reality doesn't come into being until there is a collapse of the wave function. This is the same as saying there is no reality until there is observation.

[@kos-mos1127]

That is one interpretation of quantum mechanics. Quantum Mechanics says that all potentialities are real. As bounded observers we can only observe one reality.

[@TerryBollinger]

What’s fun with that idea is that if “observation” proves to be identical to a known physics quantity such as an extremely small momentum transfer, then “observation” becomes the most common event in physics.

[@thirdreplicator]

I was watching this conversation at 10:10 ...

[@MagicJoshua]

Information is for sure a vibe.

[@jacksonvaldez5911]

I used to think information is fundamental, but information has no significance without a relationship to something else, which is a computation or time. If you had a string of bits that encodes the state of the universe, it has no meaning if you cant state how those bits are changed or the rules that apply to it.

[@TerryBollinger]

Emergent, dynamic information does, indeed, seem to reflect experimental reality a bit better.

[@pezhmanfarahani]

Information is a geometrical configuration and arrangements of bits that forms the possibilities for interactions and future status. Information facilitates higher levels of agency formation, it is a descriptive agent not a fundamental one.

[@mohdnorzaihar2632]

From where do we come& where are we moving to is the most fundamental information we need

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Can we use the word "Existential intention" instead of the word "information". Though both the words indicate to the same phenomenon. While the scientific community uses the word "Information" , the mystical community use the word "existential intention" . Its very interesting to see human scientific knowledge touching great heights of mysteries. I thank Gregory for sharing such indepth knowledge.

[@catherinemira75]

Brilliant conversation! And what an eloquent, persuasive and effective communicator! 👏💯👌

[@RC-qf3mp]

We must’ve watched a different video. I saw computer scientist step out of his lane into physics and philosophy in way that was embarrassingly inept.

[@uninspired3583]

​@@RC-qf3mpi watched the same one you did

[@dongshengdi773]

There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the "particle" of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the MATRIX of all matter." - Max Planck, Father of Quantum Physics "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness." Bonus: "If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” - Niels Bohr, a Danish Physicist 。

[@kos-mos1127]

Max Planck was wrong. Albert Einstein revered to matter as a continuous field. Paul Dirac understood matter as a quantum mechanical objects called quantum fields.

[@picksalot1]

Existence and Knowledge are Fundamental, and they need to be Infinite.

[@robertvann7349]

Ok that is a logical or illogical proposal. Can yoh demonstrate on a chalkboard using A is B illogical impossible contradiction and A isn't B logical possible non contradiction if you make the right choice. Nobody has plugged data into Aristotle's famous formulas and critically evaluate the result for absolute truth. Lets expose false scientific hypotheses using logic science 101. A is B illogical impossible contradiction ( A ) is illogic A is B CAUSED the illogical impossible contradiction EFFECT of ( B ) is logic A isn't B logical non-contradiction BEING ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT ( A is non being outside the universe CAUSED the illogical impossible contradiction EFFECT of ( B ) beings in the universe Classic A is B illogical impossible contradiction never seen in nature or in laboratories Logically A isn't B logical non-contradiction A beings cause the effect of A beings as observed in nature and laboratories B non beings cause the effect of B non beings as observed in nature and laboratories all day long Non being causing being is A is B illogical impossible contradiction never seen in nature or laboratories Knowledge argument A non knowledge caused the effect of B knowledge Classic A is B impossible illogical contradiction Logically an outside knowledge had to exist to cause the effect of knowledge in the universe. HENCE GOD LOGICALLY EXISTS IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE A ISN'T B. Simple eh. You write out consciousness argument bro. And prove God's consciousness had to exist outside the universe to cause consciousness in the universe.

[@robertvann7349]

These formulas work for law arguments. I bet your a non-pacifist? Lets input data and determine if you are moral just and legal or me a pacifist is moral just and legal A isn't B Lets discover the contradiction A you a non-pacifist violent war person for death is moral just and legal B me a pacifist non violent non war person for life is moral just and legal This is A is B illogical impossible contradiction, one of us is scum of the earth Lets logically conclude the matter Watson says Sherlock A isn't B logical non-contradiction EITHER A you a non-pacifist that kills is moral just and legal OR B me a pacifist that doesn't kill is moral just and legal Sherlock's closing argument Your honor God, if A non pacifists that kill are moral just and legal then to avoid A is B illogical impossible contradiction corrupt law, B pacifists don't kill MUST be immoral unjust and illegal God this is absurd. The human race would exterminate and you would have to commit suicide because logically if only killing is just moral and legal then life would be immoral unjust and illegal. God please change the law immediately pacifists are moral just and legal and non pacifists are immoral unjust and illegal or you have to commit suicide and exterminate humans. See how simple bro? You write out heterosexual vs non heterosexual logically legal argument and the argument to an honest judge and have him immediately stop children from transitioning to non heterosexuals. Learn this brother and you can be famous. I am a dumbass but the Holy Spirit made me Son of Spock, figuratively bro.

[@tomdocherty3755]

Ancient Vedanta claimed that Satchitananda, representing Existence-Consciousness-Bliss as That which is unchanging.

[@robertvann7349]

@@tomdocherty3755 Friend rhetoric is opinion use a chalk board and chalk like mathematical instructors but use logic science 101 formulas and plug data into them for absolute truth Aristotle's famous formulas Law of contradiction A is B This is absolute objective logic Use this formula to prove God exists For example False scientific hypothesis? A is B illogical impossible contradiction. Right? ( A ) non existence caused the effect of ( B ) existence ie. it is an illogical impossible contradiction for nothing to cause the effect of something. Logically something must of existed before the physical universe. This is simple dude, your ego needs to be flushed down the toilet, nobody understands what you said, like I am not going to Google those dude, logic is simple and a caveman committed to a mental institution as a moron and given a lobotomy would understand. A non being caused the effect of B being This is A is B illogical impossible contradiction Logically a being had to exist outside the universe to cause the effect of beings in the universe A beings cause the effect of A beings B chimps cause the effect of B chimps A non cell caused the effect of B cells A is B illogical impossible contradiction a FALSE SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS never witnessed in nature or demonstrated in a lab period. You brainiacs are ignorant.

[@picksalot1]

@@tomdocherty3755 Yes, and in its ultimate expression as: Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahma 👌

[@blijebij]

Information is fundamental, but I believe it is too simplistic to see it as the most basic building block of reality. To use a metaphor, it is like saying that the world we perceive through light (our eyes) is only black and white. However, we see through light, but not just black and white. That would be too simplistic.

[@vinm300]

Great interview - nicely ended

[@1Kind1]

It does seem like everything in this Universe has a dictation to be either linear or spherical, and that includes our 1's and 0's. lol I loved this discussion, thank you kindly for creating and sharing it!!

[@bozo5632]

All of the information he is talking about is relationships between physical things. (Objects, particles or fields.) Without those things, the information would not / could not exist. So which is fundamental?

[@mikefinn]

"The universe is computing its future state from its current state". Exactly, and I believe with a feedback loop that can be influenced. The wave functions collapse in the path of the greatest survival probability. You can change the future by your actions that affect the probabilities. That may not be free will but its still pretty nice.

[@longcastle4863]

Why wouldn’t that be free will? If you’re choosing between various paths that are open to you?

[@mikefinn]

@@longcastle4863 The argument is where your desire for your chosen action started - in the subconscious or counscious. Some research shows actions start before our consciousness becomes aware what we are going to do or say.

[@longcastle4863]

@@mikefinn On the one hand, deciding what button to press on the spur of the moment (which is how a lot of those experiments are set up) may or may not involve unconscious decision making. On the other hand, a chess grandmaster taking twenty minutes to deeply consider three different possible lines, each five to ten moves deep, is undoubtedly involving conscious free will decision making in her final choice of a move. Imo, free will is used in 1) the long term decision to win the game and 2) in the more immediate decisions of what possible choice to make given what seem the three best possible options. I honestly find it hard to take the idea of no free will seriously-when it so essential to much of what makes us living creatures.

[@peweegangloku6428]

What information could there be in a state of nothingness? What potency does an information have without an implementing agent? In fact, information of what, contained in what?

[@kallianpublico7517]

What is will according to information? If information is fundamental then explanation would have no barrier to meaning. Meaning could be readily accessible from any point of view. Truth would be obvious and judgements would all be correct. Error would be an aspect of will, and free will would necessitate "additional" information. Additional information would constitute what? Human desire, inference and understanding is surrounded by ignorance: incomplete consciousness. Is there a one to one correspondence between information and consciousness, or is information a fungible, mimic of epistemology? How is the definition of information semantically different from epistemology? Not symbolically different as one language is from another? How does information better explain causation? Material causation, moral causation, mental causation, etcetera?

[@jamieedmonds574]

You might enjoy Tom Campbell's "My Big TOE (Theory of Everything)" definition and clarification between "information" and "data" as it regards consciousness -- the fundamental information system that is the foundation of our perceived physical matter reality. 1. Information: in defining information - we begin with philosophy: MacKay: “Information is a distinction that makes a difference”. [The Philosophy of Information. Luciano Floridi. Chapter 4. (March 8, 2011) ASIN: 0199232385] My Big TOE adds the essential missing link: “Information is a distinction that makes a difference to someone”. Three essential parts: A) A distinction. B) That makes a difference. C) To someone. A. Information can, to some variable extent, be represented by data. Data can be stored, transmitted, and received: “A distinction” - anything to which meaning, value, or significance can be attached (such as a fact, thing, stimulus, arrangement, structure, pattern, change, symbol, process, relationship, or constraint). This distinction can generally be represented by “data”. B. Information is dependent on the existence of useful, meaningful content: “That makes a difference” requires information to have value, meaning or significance that is called the “content” of the information. Information has content. C. Unlike data, information is dependent on the existence of someone, that is, on a consciousness able to produce or create meaningful content through its interpretation of the data it perceives: (Later we will see that “little c”, local, or individual consciousness is a product of “big C” or universal Consciousness) Adding “To someone” requires an awareness, typically a conscious being (called a “receiver” or “user”) who perceives and interprets the distinction (data) in order to appreciate or understand (use, assess, or absorb) the potential content (usually in terms of expanding the awareness or knowledge of the being). This information contains value, meaning or significance that has the potential to make a difference (be useful) to that being. Without consciousness, there may be data but not information. Information exists only within a consciousness since the generation of understanding, value, meaning and significance (content) requires consciousness (someone). Our philosophic beginning definition (“Information is a distinction that makes a difference to someone”) can now be reworded: Information creation: information is created by a conscious being when that being perceives and then interprets data (distinctions) in order to understand the potential value, meaning and significance represented by that data (those distinctions). Then finally: Information is the understanding, value, meaning, and significance generated by consciousness through the process of rumination, cogitation, or interpreting data. More here: www.my-big-toe.com/theory/glossary/information/

[@zbyszeks3657]

But what is... information? Is it phenomenon in somebody's mind? Does it exist in mind or independently from mind? Looks like it's the " answer" for our "questions" or "result" of our "experiments". If so, how it can be sub-stance? It would be a meta reality, a way to "describe" reality. Not reality itself.

[@jamieedmonds574]

Yes, this is the problem with the common definition/distinction between information and data. Tom Campbell makes this distinction very clear on his "My Big TOE (Theory of Everything) website. Just like the particles in the double slit experiment are probabilities until a conscious observer looks at the which-way data, the "data" are just encoded bits (that can be stored, displayed, or transmitted, etc.), but it takes a consciousness to convert that data into useful/meaningful information. ------------- "Computers and other information technology devices only process data, not information. However, it is still reasonable to say that data-processing equipment forms information systems because the end point of all data processing is to enable consciousness to develop information - i.e., to process the data into information that potentially holds value, meaning, and significance (content) for that consciousness. That is what consciousness does - it creates uniquely useful content out of data and then may uniquely describe that content in terms of data for transmission to another consciousness or to intermediary data-processing or data-storing equipment. Data can be transmitted or received through all the senses and through the use of any mutually recognized symbols, metaphors, gestures, definitions, syntax, and usage that a conscious being might assign to data by means of shared conventions used in their representation. Only data can be transmitted. Information content is always dependent upon, unique to, and contained within the consciousness that is interpreting the data. Information can only exist within a consciousness. Data, in contrast, may exist within any form of memory - e.g., a computer memory, book, pattern, relationship, process, or within the memory of a consciousness. For example, a book represents data (ink symbols on a paper medium). That physical data is turned into non-physical information as it is read by a conscious being - as the meaning, value and significance (content) to the reader is assessed and absorbed (processed into information) by consciousness. That consciousness cannot directly share this information (its total reading experience) but must resort to describing that subjective experience in terms of coded data (speaking or writing words, drawing a picture, etc.). All experience is subjective. More precisely, only some (usually minor) experience is largely objective while almost all personally significant experience is largely subjective. More objective information is associated with less uncertainty in both the information sending and information receiving process. Likewise, more subjective information is associated with more uncertainty in both the sending and receiving process. A discrepancy existing between the information that the sender intends to send and the information that the receiver finally receives is more common than not. While all information is subjective, all data is objective. Any sender and receiver, with an error-free transmission process between them, will agree that the data sent is the same as the data received (an objective assessment). But they will, to some extent, disagree on the meaning, value, and significance of the information conveyed by that data (a subjective assessment)." Excerpt from: www.my-big-toe.com/theory/glossary/information/

[@zbyszeks3657]

@@jamieedmonds574 Although information is "experienced" always in someone consciousness I don't think it is necessary subjective. I would incline to opinion that it is rather objective, although two different ppl can derive different information from the same data. Let say color. Data would be frequency or the length of light wave measured by some tool. So when we measure 665 nm of electromagnetic wave it is data. But we say it is RED color. So RED is information. But... there are two questions: a) How it happens, that we "see" RED? How "the jump" between data and information happens? How do we know that it is RED? Or... what's more how do we know, that something is PINK, while there's no length of light which can be "translated" as PINK. b) But American, Hindu, Zulu and Inniut see PINK! How they see the same color (information) while there's even no length of light that "describe" such color? How different ppl "create" or "see" the same information which is "color PINK"? So information seem to be quite objective, and we have no idea where it comes from? How the jump between data and information happens in our mind? Why we all (except ppl with disabilities) see PINK as PINK? Why we see tree and not smth else? It looks like we have been endowed with ability "to see" specific information. For example, ppl can see not only by eyes but for example by their tongue. They can see shapes like house or face, they can see even smile, although they have not data from their eyes. So these "images" these "information" are previous in relationship to the data. They are "concepts" that we "have". They are shapes of reality that are above data, that data just "fill in". Of course it's pure speculation :)

[@tedgrant2]

Every time I listen to one of these discussions, my thoughts change. I often get left thinking he's right. Jesus does love me.

[@nextjedi6314]

Please have on Melvin Vopson to talk about his discoveries about Information!

[@kimsahl8555]

Observation is fundamental to the inanimate nature.

[@longcastle4863]

How so?

[@kimsahl8555]

If we describe the nature, observation of nature is fundamental. Nature = the animate + the inanimate nature.@@longcastle4863

[@kimsahl8555]

Observation is fundamental to the animate nature.

[@thaithaknot]

30 seconds in... Mind Blown.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

infinitesimal values in continuous quantum wave function are practically negligible? only probability values closer to 0 or 1 (before decimal point) in quantum wave mechanics are worthwhile?

[@uninspired3583]

Information needs a medium to carry it. A number is on a piece of paper, or a pattern in our brain. I don't understand what it means for information to be fundamental, it definitionally means it has no medium to carry it.

[@Jacob-Vivimord]

When he says that it's an idealist philosophy, he's implying that the medium is mind. Edit: I see he outright states this towards the end. It certainly solves the problem.

[@uninspired3583]

@@Jacob-Vivimord i don't see how mind is fundamental. To me idealism seems like looking at the universe through a telescope and then declaring it's made of telescopes.

[@Jacob-Vivimord]

​@@uninspired3583 Is it possible that you haven't looked into it enough? (I'm not being sarcastic, I have no idea what level of knowledge you have on the topic.) Idealism always sounded strange to me and I ignored it for most of my life, naturally moving towards a physicalist interpretation of reality, but that's changed relatively recently. I can see how you might interpret it as akin to your telescope analogy. But (assuming you are a physicalist), the same analogy would hold for your own perspective - just in a less intuitive way. You would be asserting that you're looking at the universe through inert matter that has arranged itself into a telescope. Unfortunately, there is generally hidden notions of dualism in an evolutionary view of consciousness. If you believe that consciousness evolved through natural selection, it must have causal properties. Otherwise, you must be suggesting that experience itself is entirely epiphenomenal. That it's entirely happenstance and irrelevant that there is something that it is like to be you. Viewing reality as arising within experience itself solves this problem. I should also add that this need not take us away from naturalism or realism.

[@cristianm7097]

What year is the interview from ?

[@dr_IkjyotSinghKohli]

General Relativity already says that physical matter (through the energy-momentum tensor) is equivalent to geometry (The Ricci curvature of a given spacetime). It is not such a far stretch to go to the level of information.

[@pesilaratnayake162]

It seems weird to say that information is fundamental and that it's something in our minds. I think I get the intuition, but it also seems reasonable to think that information is what our brains use. If information is fundamental, that seems to imply that it's mind-independent. Objects may interact with it, but not be required for its existence. Or maybe I misunderstood his perspective.

[@waytotruth3679]

The meaning of the real world hidden in the transcend world.

[@dr_shrinker]

When asking if the universe/multiverse is infinite is a silly question. It doesn’t matter, because there are things that exist, and things that don’t. The things that exist don’t matter and the only things that exist must be all there is. Ergo, the multi verse can be infinitely small or as infinitely large. Size doesn’t matter. The question itself, is absurd. When contemplating reality, all there is is infinity. Size of the universe is irrelevant. This works for the large universe and the smallest points of Planck lengths. Of course infinity goes both ways. Regardless of size, there’s always something smaller than even the Planck length. Because anything that ISN’T smaller, does not exist!! And If it does not exist, it cannot contain a thing. The universe is boundless in both directions.

[@jamieedmonds574]

Yes, "infinity" is a mathematical concept, but nothing "real" can be "infinite".

[@healingplaces]

Yeah. Passionate minds in the Mind. Go on!

[@gettaasteroid4650]

First of all gods she contrived Love -Simplicius

[@healingplaces]

Indeed. Greetings to Elea@@gettaasteroid4650

[@bananacabbage7402]

Of course information is fundamental. That is a tautology. However information does not have to come in discrete chunks. You can have smaller quantities of information than one bit. The question is, how do we go from the realisation that information and computation is fundamental to an understanding of the laws of physics? Quantum idealism is the road to comprehension.

[@mark.J6708]

Could our universe be a vast probability matrix beyond our ability to understand? Aspects of the probability are very simple to see... here's a '1' or a '0'... Will sentience lead to self destruction or overcome the 'struggle' imperative that brought it into existence. The universe is an act of creation, is the creator sticking its finger occasionally into 'the matrix' actually a part of the probability paradigm? Is a 'nudge' enough? A blatant neon sign and directly observable acts would affect actions to such an extent that the probability now becomes a predictability equation and then there is no sense in the Universe anymore.... if everything is information what does it inform, how to we interpret it, how do we learn from it, what are we trying to learn from it? What if there are actually layers to ones and zeroes? Can an artist build a sculpture that is fragments but when you look down on it all the fragments look like a solid number '1'... what are the implications in that... could there be a root code under the perceived yes/no view? I like the interplay between chaos and simplicity... what links the two? Order is simplicity, if we look deep enough into chaos is there fundamental simplicity beneath it. This needs 3 or 4 more double espressos.

[@longcastle4863]

If we want to overcome self destruction we’re going to need to find a way to let go of the idea of God or at least manage it so that it is never allowed to have any political power ever again. Religion holds us back when it’s not directly killing us.

[@UnscriptedBRIIC]

There is a fundamental issue with considering 0&1 as information

[@longcastle4863]

Okay, what is it?

[@jamieedmonds574]

@@longcastle48630 & 1 would be considered "data" and not "information", which requires a conscious observer to create meaning or significance from the data. "Data can be transmitted or received through all the senses and through the use of any mutually recognized symbols, metaphors, gestures, definitions, syntax, and usage that a conscious being might assign to data by means of shared conventions used in their representation. Only data can be transmitted. Information content is always dependent upon, unique to, and contained within the consciousness that is interpreting the data. Information can only exist within a consciousness - while data may exist within any form of memory - e.g., a computer memory, book, pattern, relationship, process, or within the memory of a consciousness. For example, a book represents data (ink symbols on paper media). That physical data is turned into non-physical information as it is read by a conscious being - as the meaning, value and significance (content) to the reader is assessed and absorbed (processed into information) by consciousness. That consciousness cannot directly share this information (its total reading experience) but must resort to describing that subjective experience in terms of coded data (speaking or writing words, drawing a picture, etc). All experience is subjective. However, some (usually minor) experience is largely objective while almost all personally significant experience is largely subjective. More objective information is associated with less uncertainty in both the information sending and information receiving process. Likewise, more subjective information is associated with more uncertainty in both the sending and receiving process."

[@blustar1856]

Particle-wave duality implies both discrete and continuous - consequently both are emergent from perhaps information.

[@longcastle4863]

Or else maybe it is some whole other thing that we can only understand in terms of digital and analog or wave and particle?

[@ailblentyn]

Just because information is useful, doesn’t mean it’s fundamental. Energy is also very useful, but it’s not fundametal, as we know since Noether!

[@zakymalik6920]

Read About Ayaan e Thabita

[@MacWiedijk]

As with consciousness, information does not exist without the encoding in a physical medium and the decoding in a physical information system. For example, the way proteins are encoded in mRNA. There is no such thing as an unbound soul or unbound information. (I think.) Therefore it cannot be fundamental.

[@rahulvenugopal1672]

The discussion here is based on the axiomatic assumption that information is the fundamental layer of reality. In that scenario, everything we think of as physical is epiphenomenal, including brains. Consciousness could fit into this picture as the first person experience of information.

[@MacWiedijk]

@@rahulvenugopal1672 The problem is when you call everything information, or everything is consciousness or God or energy, you haven't explained anything yet. If you then call consciousness the first-hand experience of information, you still explain nothing at all.

[@MacWiedijk]

@hitogokochi Those are the questions.

[@rahulvenugopal1672]

@@MacWiedijk what nature of explanation do you seek? Because by virtue of taking this assertion as axiomatic, you halt the epistemic regression that is inherent in any discussion about the nature of reality. If not, you might just find yourself on an infinite sequence of explanation. I don't mind either way because both scenarios are interesting.

[@rahulvenugopal1672]

@hitogokochi think of information and physical reality as different sides of the same thing. The form that it takes is the physical universe and all of its properties.

[@simonhibbs887]

I agree understanding information is essential to understanding reality, but where I diverge from Chaitin and Seth Lloyd is that I think discrete values are not fundamental. They emerge from continuous dynamics. The lowest level description of reality we have in quantum mechanics and as Kuhn points out that is inherently continuous. We get discrete values out of it because waves have discrete peaks and troughs, which are countable, but these are emergent properties and not fundamental. So at a higher level of analysis digital representations give us a very powerful and important level of conceptualisation, essential to understanding many of the phenomena we observe and experience, the digital or discrete level is not the fundamental level. I think Fyenman did cut to the heart of the issue when he said that we would need an infinite amount of information to describe the fields in a tiny volume of space. He correctly identified the problem, but he's applying a higher order concept to a lower level phenomenon in an inappropriate way. If we (mistakenly) take the digital discrete level and try to describe the underlying continuous world in those terms, that's going to fail. This is what the infinity is telling us. We need to fully commit to a continuous model of reality if we're going to make further progress. Discrete analysis has been incredibly powerful and productive, and continues to be essential to higher oder analysis, but it's holding us back down at the fundamentals.

[@stevendavis8636]

Interesting. Quantum wave functions of probabilities.. Information is basic, how it is observed and used results in matter and energy?

[@TerryBollinger]

An addendum to my earlier comment [1]: The continuum computation problem brought up here by Gregory Chaitin is arguably one of the most significant in all of physics and no less a figure than Richard Feynman agreed. That is remarkable, considering Feynman got his Nobel Prize for QED by assuming that continuum computation in physics _is_ real. Wow. One final thought is that we need to fix this “sunk cost of research” strategy of justifying experimentally disproven ideas solely because of the vast number of papers and careers dedicated to experimentally disproven ideas. The HAWC collaboration disproved Planck foam by a vast margin back in 2020, using actual, real-world experimental data. Even worse, the concept of holographic universes based on Planck-scale, event-horizon “bits” depends entirely on a single wild, off-the-cuff speculation that is embarrassingly ignorant of what bit storage even _is._ Can we please stop wasting people’s time, careers, and money on experimentally disproven ideas and get on with the fascinating problem of figuring out how relativity and quantum theory _really_ intersect? Dropping the 1700s-ish spacetime continuity assumption, as Feynman (remarkably, to me) advised, is the first critical step. This is physics. When experiments disprove your idea, it _doesn’t matter_ how many holographic or loop gravity or superstring theory papers smart people wrote or how many universities participated: Nature is telling us the idea is _wrong,_ and we need to move on. Fascinating _new_ physics likely is sitting out there, patiently waiting for us to get over such patently wrong foundation ideas, such as thinking infinite uncertainty “somehow” equals infinite free binary-data storage. I mean... ouch, seriously? ---------- [1] kzbin.info/www/bejne/eKqtlmaXl893kNE&lc=UgyC3_kTFkqGgvy8goF4AaABAg

[@alanscarboro1967]

Fundamental? A better question is "Is information inevitable?"

[@aiya5777]

Thanos is

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

could nature consider all the values (fractions) between zero and one to be zero until reaching the level of one (gets turned on)?

[@gmxmatei]

Yes!... for human being.

[@sonarbangla8711]

Information isn't the most fundamental thing. All fundamentals are metaphysical, like faith, mathematics is based on faith, not because mathematics is more than information, but also based on faith, says Penrose.

[@hoon_sol]

Kuhn should sit down with Federico Faggin.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

quantum wave mechanics could be a kind of grid with time and energy perpendicular to each other ranging from zero to one? a particular value could have many values of energy, and vice versa?

[@Gsp_in_NYC]

this feeds into conservation of information and symmetries...and that reality is a simulation. this is actually one of the more explanative C.t.T.s that I've seen. is quantum mechanics merely a glimpse at the operating software of our simulation of existence?

[@Rayvvvone]

you are describing the Matrix movie.

[@simonhibbs887]

I think the point Feynman made about the problem with discrete analysis of continuous waves leading to infinities says this can't be the case, though I think he misinterpreted it. The fundamental level of reality is continuous waves, not discrete particles and bits of information. I posted a more detailed top level comment about this, but basically simulating a universe composed of continuous waveforms such as ours is not computationally tractable. Computation emerges from wave dynamics, not the other way around.

[@Gsp_in_NYC]

@@Rayvvvone no that implied another physical reality. the physical reality we have is the only one as a result of information

[@Gsp_in_NYC]

@@Rayvvvone the matrix implies another physical reality mediated through the mind--this is that information or code is the only reality..

[@richardsaylor6214]

The idea proceeds the thing.

[@uninspired3583]

On quantum mechanics, what he says is true only for particular interpretations. There are other explanations. We need more information to differentiate betweem the quantum interpretations.

[@4pharaoh]

@6:55 “physicists say The universe is a computation “… Within the computator.

[@peterdorn5799]

I think is information, is consciousness and fundemental

[@bozo5632]

Even digital computers are analog machines.

[@jareknowak8712]

If computing power is finite - then the simulation/creation of an object from the continuous world would last indefinitely. But what if we have infinite computing power at our disposal? Asking seriously, is anyone able to answer this question?

[@jareknowak8712]

What if the computer works with real numbers....?

[@jamieedmonds574]

Nothing "real" can be infinite. ;-) "In your mind, let the word 'infinity' be a metaphor, not a defined mathematical abstraction. 'Infinite' makes a handy mathematical concept but a very misleading adjective in front of a real, extant, noun." ~ Tom Campbell, former NASA physicist, consciousness researcher, and author of the "My Big TOE (Theory of Everything) trilogy (Chapt. 33)

[@MFJoneser]

Does information intercommunicate?

[@nextjedi6314]

Information has weight. What if we can create a new warp drive style engine by pumping enough information into a material that allows a worm hole?

[@bobcabot]

couldnt agree more...

[@Bill..N]

When Gregory speaks, I like to listen. He is an intelligent fellow. He is also NEARLY certainly wrong.. These widely discussed arguments belong somewhere in the philosophical dualism family. Matter is demonstrably real. Gregory seems to be reaching outside science and INTO the fuzziness of dubious reasoning.. Try as he did, QM can not be wed to IMMATERIAL influences on the multi-verse.. A single opinion, peace.

[@nextjedi6314]

I’ve heard DNA of say an electron may exist, like how a cell knows it’s a brain cell etc, as we age they forgot which kind of cell they are. Electrons don’t forget, maybe if we figure out how it knows what it is, we can cure aging?

[@RC-qf3mp]

Absurd. Information is not “fundamental”… information is in the eye of the beholder. Information is not intrinsic to reality independent of a conscious observer. This is a distinct but related issue to Searle’s Chinese room argument. “Information “ as physicists use it is derivative from ordinary “information “ which is what it is as understood by a conscious thinking subject. It’s an artifact of some sciences to use “information “ as a metaphor for describing some physical states. But no physical state is intrinsically “information.” Put another way… ANYTHING can be interpreted by us to be “information”. Mercury in a glass tube can be interpreted by us to give the temperature of a room. But that object of mercury in a tube is not intrinsically information. This guy is a computer scientists…and so he sees everything as “information “, like the proverbial hammer that thinks everything is a nail.

[@feltonhamilton21]

Only in the quantum state scientists can explain dark matter and why it is the mechanical input mechanism for receiving and storn printed and new information from matter itself and most importantly why matter creates information for maintain reality most important building blocks for information to travel which brings understanding of the present and the path and future. Without the quantum world we would be lost in reality.

[@stephenzhao5809]

1:37 ... look I don't believe in real numbers, a real number is has an infinite amount of precision you know it's a point on a line and to know exaclty where it is you'd have to no computer could you couldn't put that number in a computer because it would go on forever to say where a point is with infinite precision so if you don't believe in real numbers then I think you've got to go to the other extreme all that exists are zero and one everything is discret you see. 1:59 is the world continuous or is the world discret I think that's part of it. (That's a good question) I think that's part of it (I agree that is a fundamental question it's an easy question it's one of the other, there's no other possibility.) 2:10 ... 6:15 ... how can God [I suggest you use word aliens to replace God here] do the caculation you know so ... 6:57 ... some physicist now say the universe is a computation (do you say that too?) I think it's a yeah I I think that's great and it fits in with my view that a theory is a computation a theory is a computation what it takes it's a computer you take as input your theory and what do you produce as output well the physical universe or mathematical theorems and when is a theory good and this goes back to Lebnet in 1686 a theory is good when it's a compression when what you put into the computer is simpler or smaller than what you get out then you understand and you that understanding can be mathematical or it can be physical 7:33 GC: so for me the notion of a of thinking of a theory as a computation of an explanation as a computation leads to a new kind of view of information and complexity which gives you a whole new way of looking epistemology what is understanding why and where does truth come from is a theory and when is a theory successful and when is there no theory. 7:52

[@samc6231]

We do information. The universe is information.

[@TerryBollinger]

A slight modifier to that: The _classical_ universe is information. Quantum, nope.

[@samc6231]

@@TerryBollinger sounds like you learned some information about something to me pal

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

The factory worker kids mindset was fine to judge a book by its cover and teaching them outside in made sense. These libraries are antiquated ways of learning and knowing. But this a new age of idealism spearheaded by an offspring of computation and its no hardware library of books and abstract thought in our youth. We have always known everything has a spiritual inner informational code of representation waiting on us to apply the symbols needed. We are on the verge of being able to store that info in confine spaces to be at the fingertips of every pupil .

[@infinitygame18]

Fundamental is Fundamental , you can call it anything , it can become & make anything ,but understand its functionality , & apply in physical reality to align & balance its evolution within to re direct humanity towards collective consciousness harvesting happens with love instead of desire , a new revolution is going to happen

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

what might happen when nature goes from quantum mechanical zero (with probabilities of wave energy) to classic mechanical 1?

[@ififif31]

All information is probabilistic in nature and therefore all bits are probabilities.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"All information is probabilistic in nature and therefore all bits are probabilities."* ... Are you 100% sure about that?

[@ififif31]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC No, no knowledge is certain.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"No, no knowledge is certain."* ... Then we shouldn't place too much value in this statement: _"All information is probabilistic in nature and therefore all bits are probabilities."_

[@pezhmanfarahani]

Information need to be registered in a record keeping agent and interactions will manipulate the recorded information. That record and record keeping agent characteristics will create a chain of local experiences which evolve the local record keeping agent and stored information and the new states of local agents form the new global possibilities and it again change local agencies and their recorded information. I think information is a collection of stored local experiences which requires a record keeping agent on local and emerging global level. And these record keeping agencies are emerging structures which stem from lower levels structures, however it can't be just a information structures it requires a fundamental building blocks which is not information and information is geometry arrangement and configuration of these building blocks. The geometry can evolve and can change higher levels agents but the lower level agents are more stable and more immune to get altered by computational nature this evolution

[@KevinSandy2]

After this one, I’m going to view one whole day of TikTok Barbies . Bouncing.

[@audiodead7302]

I have to say I found Greg's responses frustrating. Lot's of obfuscation. No straight answers. He was just panicking and throwing out every half argument he could think of. And he totally lost credibility when he mentions in passing that he's "not a physicist..".

[@r2c3]

1:52 "everything is discrete" does not include everything... instead, it points only to certain or parts of everything 🤔

[@rodneytholanah7310]

Philosophy is back

[@tomjackson7755]

Philosophy is more worthless than ever

[@longcastle4863]

@@tomjackson7755The physicists could use a little philosophy right now. They seem to be stuck on a path they hold a little too sacred to hop off of.

[@tomjackson7755]

@@longcastle4863 It is the philosophy that got them on and stuck them on that path.

[@longcastle4863]

@@tomjackson7755 Well, it was a good path for a long time and still is, practically speaking. It just seems the deeper questions we’re starting to ponder may need to recognize all paths are temporary.

[@tomjackson7755]

@@longcastle4863 Spoken like a true flip flopping philosopher. Maybe you are skipping ahead to the deeper questions before solving some of the more shallow foundational questions that are needed to go deeper. In physics I don't think it is the path that is the problem. I think it is the fact that we ran out of information to use to walk the path with. We'll make the new path when we get the new information to make the path with.