Gregory Chaitin - Is Information Fundamental?

Get free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Does information work at the deep levels of physics, including quantum theory, undergirding the fundamental forces and particles? But what is the essence of information-describing how the world works or being how the world works. There is a huge difference. Could information be the most basic building block of reality?
Watch more interviews on information: bit.ly/3OSIHPV
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Gregory John Chaitin is an Argentine-American mathematician and computer scientist.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@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

[@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!

[@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

[@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]

😂😅😂

[@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

[@ruskiny280]

Kindness is fundamental

[@IFYOUWANTITGOGETIT]

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

[@josephhruby3225]

Brilliant, inspired and passionate discussion 👏 Bravo

[@100woodywu]

This was a great open minded discussion. Excellent guys 👍

[@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.

[@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.

[@abhishekshah11]

He's one of my favorite mathematicians

[@ddmr44]

Consciousness is fundamental.

[@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

[@samc6231]

Measurement becoming knowledge is perception becoming reality.

[@tourdeforce2881]

Two great thinkers... thoroughly enjoyed this

[@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).

[@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!!

[@r.a.2907]

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

[@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.

[@MOSP14]

Amazing conversation, thanks guys ❤

[@kevinvallejo7047]

First comment = first information addition to this video.

[@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.

[@Ekam-Sat]

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

[@metekutlu90]

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

[@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.

[@johnsgarage6622]

Really good discussion. Information is the new physics

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@MagicJoshua]

Information is for sure a vibe.

[@ezreality]

Good podcast, thank you.

[@thirdreplicator]

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

[@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.

[@nextjedi6314]

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

[@vinm300]

Great interview - nicely ended

[@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/

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!

[@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

[@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?

[@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

[@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?

[@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.

[@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/

[@uninspired3583]

@@jamieedmonds574 you're taking narrow views of what consciousness is, and what data is. These aren't settled topics, so if a different view turns out to be right you're explanation here doesn't work. For example, the idea that consciousness causes the collapse of the wave function is supported by a very small number of physicists. Some physical models deny the collapse is even a thing that actually happens, it only seems like it from our perspective.

[@jamieedmonds574]

@@uninspired3583True, and the way to judge a theory is, a good theory should: 1) be based on the least number of assumptions 2) those assumptions should be as simple and as logical as possible 3) it should explain ALL the data (the physics and the metaphysics, the normal and the paranormal, etc.) without resorting to miracles or hand-waving 4) it should explain as many paradoxes as possible without introducing any new paradoxes 5) and ideally it should be able to make predictions about and explain new data that we haven't discovered yet Tom's "My Big TOE" is based on just one, simple assumption: "Consciousness exists", that is, some sort of primordial consciousness exists and it evolved into consciousness as we experience it. The rest (the Fundamental Process of evolution, Free Will, etc.) is logically derived from that one, simple assumption. It doesn't just reconcile Relativity Theory with Quantum Mechanics, but it also explains why the speed of light is a constant (and why it can also occasionally have small variations), how quantum entanglement works, etc.. But it also explains the real stuff the Materialists don't want to/can't really talk about let alone explain, like precognitive dreams, Remote Viewing, ESP, Out of Body Experiences, Near Death Experiences, profound spiritual/religious experiences, past life memories, the Akashic records, the Placebo Effect, etc.. Tom is a former NASA physicist who started studying consciousness with Robert Monroe as a grad student in the early 1970s. He's the co-inventor of the Hemi-Synch technologies and he's been studying consciousness as a physicist for 50 years now after reading "Journeys Out of the Body" and then meeting Robert Monroe. Tom helped Bob set up "The Monroe Institute" and worked with him for years until Bob's death. Bob also worked with the CIA funded Remote Viewing program for 20 years out at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI), and is the author of the "Journeys Out of the Body" trilogy. Tom is the "T.C. Physicist" mentioned in Bob's second book: "Far Journeys". Check out the excellent documentary "Third Eye Spies" about this fascinating program, information about which was only recently declassified. Tom's "The Center for the Unification of Science and Consciousness" (CUSAC) has been working on securing funding to continue conducting Tom's proposed variations on the double-slit experiment to show that Consciousness is fundamental and that we live in a probabilistic Virtual Reality. Three different labs are currently working on these experiments (basically variations of the delayed erasure experiments) and we hope to have some good data very soon . . . though he has been saying that for years now! :-) Since you seem interested and knowledgeable on the topic, you might enjoy his lectures explaining how his experiments hope to validate his theory. (second one down on this page): www.my-big-toe.com/explore/workshops-lectures/

[@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.

[@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?

[@hoon_sol]

Kuhn should sit down with Federico Faggin.

[@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.

[@kimsahl8555]

Observation is fundamental to the animate nature.

[@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?

[@EdwardAmesCastellano]

30 seconds in... Mind Blown.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

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

[@stevendavis8636]

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

[@4pharaoh]

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

[@gmxmatei]

Yes!... for human being.

[@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 :)

[@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.

[@cristianm7097]

What year is the interview from ?

[@MFJoneser]

Does information intercommunicate?

[@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

[@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..

[@peterdorn5799]

I think is information, is consciousness and fundemental

[@healingplaces]

Yeah. Passionate minds in the Mind. Go on!

[@gettaasteroid4650]

First of all gods she contrived Love -Simplicius

[@healingplaces]

Indeed. Greetings to Elea@@gettaasteroid4650

[@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?

[@bozo5632]

Even digital computers are analog machines.

[@r2c3]

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

[@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

[@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

[@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..".

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@websurfer352]

Information is what characterizes something as opposed to nothing, so off course it is fundamental to the definition of something!! Location is information so, real numbers are information because they are individual locations as mathematical points they are nothing dimensionally since they have no dimension but they are numbers and they are distinct one from another, so you could say that information is more fundamental than matter, but every bit of matter if it had dimensionality would be characterized by locations within it?? Bits of Information are discreet by their very nature as bits and discreetness is also a factor that characterizes something as opposed to nothing!! Nothing is totally devoid of information!!

[@tomdocherty3755]

Interesting that Penrose, Nobel Laureate Mathematician says consciousness is Not computational!

[@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."_

[@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.

[@davidwright8432]

It seems to me that to say the universe (whatever that is!) 'is' information is telling the universe what it is. Any account of it we arrive at ourselves, is in terms of ideas now using math, rather than words or paintings or any other communication medium. But as the old warning has it, the menu is not the meal, tho it bears a special relationship to the meal. Our attempts to do physics (in this case) is menu-writing based on what we permit language to tell us. We can look at the meal ('reality'), and describe it by words, or pictures, or for all I know, music. Doing experiments is tasting the meal. The results are a description of that taste. But for God's sake, keep God out if it. Or you'll lose yourself in an nightmare funhouse of distorting mirrors.

[@gmxmatei]

Probability is not information.

[@mathematician8378]

The continuum of the univeese is hidden in non-perturbative situations of QCD. So this universe is not discrete. The guest of this conversation seems has no knowledge on modern aspects of Quantum Field Theory which search for clarification of the nature of space-time as an emergent or a fundamental entity. The way physicists use real numbers made huge confiuations. Because of that topos reconstruction of physical theories have been developed to clarify the logical foundations and suitable systems of numbers for the presentation of informations derived from experiments generated by theory of computation. Information is the result of computational processes therefore information is Not fundamental. The universe is Non-computable and conputational algorithms gives us only some approximations. I am not sure choosing this person as a guest for this rigorous dialog was smart.

[@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.

[@Moofie-rc5dd]

The cat is fundamental

[@elcapitan6126]

the interviewer sounds so child-like and patronising as if he's talking to preschoolers. meanwhile gregory is a very smart guy and humors the interviewer.

[@SherwoodBurke-g9s]

Jones Margaret Gonzalez Michael Hall Shirley

[@KevinSandy2]

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

[@caricue]

These CTT videos really show how modern mainstream science is getting more and more confused. It never seems to occur to them to question their base assumptions, like reductionism and determinism. They believe that particles are fundamental and all the larger structures are derivative, but wouldn't it make more sense to see our everyday reality as fundamental, as "real" reality? In this way, the parts are derivative from the whole. Doesn't that make a lot more sense?

[@simonhibbs887]

It's easier for us to reason about things at a high level because our everyday level is more familiar to us. The problem is this everyday level breaks down and ceases to tell us anything useful at different levels of analysis. Everyday understanding won't give us transistors which rely on quantum tunnelling, lasers that rely on light quantisation, atomic clocks that give us spectacularly precise time keeping, superposition that gives us quantum computers, etc, etc. Everyday understanding is only useful at the everyday level. To do anything useful at other levels, we have had to leave it behind.

[@anteodedi8937]

Well, not necessarily reductionism. You may hold that the parts are fundamental, and the whole emerges out of them. You don't reduce the whole to the parts. Meanwhile, you are suggesting that the whole is fundamental. That doesn't make much sense to me. What makes more sense, that the car emerges out of its parts or that the parts emerge out of the car? You can conceive the parts without the whole, but you cannot conceive the whole without the parts.

[@caricue]

@@anteodedi8937 Man-made objects are reducible to the parts, and the parts are designed to assemble into the whole object. Natural objects like people and rocks don't work like that. As soon as you disassemble a natural object, it ceases to exist and you just have a pile of dust. Reductionism is a mental exercise, not an organizing principle of nature. The very concept of emergence had to be concocted to explain why you couldn't just take parts and put them together and get an organism. You don't need emergence if you don't fool yourself into believing in reductionism as a real thing.

[@caricue]

@@simonhibbs887 There's nothing wrong with studying the very small, and any technology that comes from this study is only useful if it can be scaled to our everyday level, the one that matters.

[@anteodedi8937]

@@caricue “As soon as you disassemble a natural object it ceases to exist, and you just have a pile of dust” You are making my point. The whole object ceases to exist but the parts remain, which means the whole object was derivative/emergent. The same story goes for man-made objects. And the concept of emergence is perfectly valid. It's not like you offered any argument against it…

[@nextjedi6314]

Dark matter = information ?

[@womagrid]

What happens to the idea of the universe when an originating or underlying computer enters the story? Where is this computer? Now, either the universe is incomplete, since that computer is somehow out of reach, or the universe contains (or includes) both the computer and the information upon which it acts. In the latter case, what is the computer made of? Pretty soon you have information that is role-playing or has agency all by itself. This is only one route to the conclusion that there must be at least one aspect of reality that is pre-objective or unmeasured. Whether you choose to call it a probability distribution, a simulation, or the mind of God is largely irrelevant.

[@ralphhennen5769]

Good grief, I find this conversation disturbing. It’s like trying to describe gold by looking at a piece of fools gold. So many components to this diatribe : information, universe, quantum theory, time (which is argued not to exist) - there is no sense to be made in this fashionable swill. Where are the answers to: the difference between data and information, must information be unique to it’s function, what is the nature of moving data to information, and what good is information without a generative question? Come on! Land this plane on the runway before it crashes into the quantum forest of our anti-knowledge.

[@aniruddhamandal1544]

Data is simply the output of some kind of sampler from a probability distribution/ Information. It is true that we still don't have a good theory for what could be the sampler of the universe. But, we cannot deny that information is the true fundamental nature of reality as shown by the popular double slit experiment.

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

He are only play word about matter with his word information. But what is it.? Nothing absolutetly nothing Guys show up with his information phich reality is nill. He information keep out phich proceendings. He speculation about phich is only bluff words . In other words his information keep out phich proceendings show his desnt know nothing concern fundamental Law phich proceendings. He is by product fundamental Law of phich

[@michelangelope830]

Wisdom is not "spam" to be destroyed. I am a psychologist and I say unambiguously to end all the wars in the world and atheism and religion the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. I only talk with people who understand what I just said. The greatest knowledge of all time is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. I am talking about knowledge that should not be censored in the first place that saves the lives of your own beautiful, innocent and vulnerable children. Are you a mother? What are mothers for if not to protect their children? Every person is half man and half woman, impossibility possible miracle God. What are humanity waiting for? Just thinking about what humanity are waiting for leaves me depressed depleted of life. Don't let this loving poem get confiscated from you because it is a present for you and if the information falls in the wrong hands it will be destroyed. Now you are playing in the perfect role playing game of the Miracle of Infinite Possibilities of God's Life and Death and your choices have eternal consequences. How hard should be to get published that a psychologist have discovered atheism is a logical fallacy to end the war?

[@tomjackson7755]

We have covered this lie many times. You are not a psychologist, you are under the care of one. Your post proves that you are not in touch with reality.

[@longcastle4863]

I think what you are saying is that you are not a PhD psychologist. Thanks for clarifying ; /

[@brothermine2292]

Chaitin appears to be an example of someone with a hammer -- computer science, in this case -- who comes to see everything as a nail.

[@stoneysdead689]

He's not alone though... he's joined by some of the greatest minds of our time, and they didn't just happen upon the idea arbitrarily- they were led here by the evidence. I'm afraid, if you want to dispute his assertions, you'll need more than some cute cliché phrase about hammers and nails. Like an explanation for why when we measure the amount of information required to describe a 3-dimensional space we find it's proportional to the surface area of that space and not the volume. Or an explanation of why energy appears to be quantized, for why the world becomes grainy when you look at smaller and smaller spaces instead of remaining continuous, etc., etc. Unless you can explain all that way, then you have to admit- they may be on to something.

[@brothermine2292]

@@stoneysdead689 : Your examples don't imply information is the only thing that really exists. That's one of those metaphysical theories that can't be falsified, and it seems very underbaked. You might want to watch the Closer to Truth episode posted 5 years ago titled "Sean Carroll - Is Information the Foundation of Reality?" Seth Lloyd used the hammer & nails metaphor too, in the Closer to Truth episode titled "Seth Lloyd - Is Information the Foundation of Reality?" Although Seth is more sympathetic to the idea than Sean, what Seth actually supports is the mundane idea that the universe is a computer, not the woo-woo idea that the universe is information. The information processed by the universe computer is stored as properties of particles, such as charge and angular momentum (spin), and like Sean I see no reason to abstract away those properties and the computer hardware and leave only 0s and 1s. It's a stretch for you to claim evidence "led" to this idea. There are other alternatives, and the evidence underdetermines.

[@stoneysdead689]

@@brothermine2292 I see- we have another KZbin scientist - how dare anyone question his knowledge- he watched a documentary after all and is just puking back up what he heard and liked- how typical. You literally don't even understand the assertion on the table- and yet you think you have it all figured out. The things I listed suggest very strongly the world is not continuous but discreet- and that was the assertion made in this video moron- not that matter isn't real, but that it's not "fundamental". Ppl like yourself know just enough to make a fool of yourself.

[@kos-mos1127]

Quantum Mechanics is the theory of matter. Quantum Fields are matter so it’s not an idealistic theory. There are interpretation of quantum mechanics where the wave function does not collapse in the many worlds interpretations.

[@longcastle4863]

Yeah, I felt he was quite loose about what he defined as idealism. Why would information about the probability wave of an atomic particle be “an idealist position”, as he claims? To me it’s just information about a particle. Is information about the probability of certain whether conditions occurring somehow an idealist position?

[@k.m.h.4493]

What's interfering is the measurement. A quantum measurement is an interference on the quantum level, a physical interference. Gregory Chaitin is mathematician, not a physicist. Don't get your hopes up. He is missing a lot of data.

[@keithmetcalf5548]

Sup wit the camel toe tho bro. Unacceptable. Lol.

[@dongshengdi773]

Materialism has already been debunked

[@tomjackson7755]

The christian god has already been debunked

[@missh1774]

Hmm 9:01 the universe is computatible... not computation? 🙄 ummm hmm what does that do to time and signal? I mean what is happening with the signal? Is it being relayed back from some distant panet or is it the future position where potential is compatible to the highest value that mirrors a percentage of the present time. Oh that should be easy aye? Be good tomorrow and santa will put a nice present under the tree 😏. Haha funny. No actually God doesn't prefer digital but humans stopped thinking and began fearing the unknown. The architypes of such things are only representations of a very God like group and variated sets of molecules that has been attached to outdated names and characteristics that insufficiently meet the needs for "sense making or meaning" in this present era, for coming generations and innovative learning approach to meet the challenges into the next 6 centuries.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Information is a misconception and can only exist in the mode or condition of ignorance. Never is Information the heart of what something truly is, and only a contrast of what something isn't. Information itself is ignorance as you're never going to the heart, but going round about upon the wheel of samsara; this transitory realm of multiplicity, relations, object - subject, polarities, time & space, relativity. If you study this 'information' hoping to arrive at the door of Truth then you are greatly mistaken. Information is a round about. Knowledge is antecedent to information. Without Knowledge what information, and potiential knowing, would be possible? Put Mystically: Light is antecedent to illumination; illumination is the scattering from the light. Information is a scattering of things and multiplicity. This is no longer centered, in the radii, in rest, rather in motion, transitoriness, the proccession. Wisemen new retroduction, the going up stream to the source of the abode. The quasi science guys go downstream hoping to find new information, without realizing what is occuring. You wont find Truth in information, from controlling, manipulating and exploiting things. These guys are stuck at the atom, they have nowheres to go now but inventing more quantum bullshit. He who Knows, hasn't any need of information. He who is ignorant, seeks informations, and if properly realized will lead back to the ONE. Information cannot be fundamental. What's entailed here is phenomena; the wheel of samsara. Without transitoriness, otherness, division, change, life, death, there is no information. Ignorance is information. The axel is what the wheel revolves around and that is Knowledge. The Greeks considered this Wisdom or Gnosis, Light because it's rest, inertia, immutable, unaffected; the scattering is illumination, avidya, information, this is transitory, phenomena, changing, dying, it cannot be the Truth. Very important to know: all models, diagrams, charts, mathematics, exist only in our heads. They are used to mimic this...ineffable .... ONE(God). Nature doesn't use a calculator. Let's not believe more in a model, exemplar, equation, more than what really is, the ONE, Divine, Truth, Justice, Beauty, Majesty, August, Purity, Rest. Persons today have fallen more in love with their equations and ideas about GOD & life than with The ONE and Divine.

[@tomjackson7755]

All aboard the woo woo train of obvious misinformation.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

@@tomjackson7755 i know right. People need start using their minds again.

[@tomjackson7755]

@@S3RAVA3LM Yes you are the first one that needs to get your mind fixed so you can use it again.