Raphael Bousso - Is Information Fundamental?

[@Sam-we7zj]

im starting to think the idea of something being fundamental is misleading. I heard Wolfram talking about his ruliad, the entangled limit of all possible computational rules. an abstract object that he claims sits beneath all formalisations. its hard to get more fundamental than that. its everything but it tells you nothing he said. in order for it to tell you something it has to be sliced up, parsed. i love the idea that the more foundational a formalism gets, the more abstract it becomes, until in the end there's only some weird void that tells you nothing

[@wmpx34]

Interesting idea.

[@diabendoindia9707]

Very concise explanation connecting all the dots (quantum mechanics, space time geometry and information) in an accessible form -thank you

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Thanku Sir Raphael bousso for insisting on unified theory. Informations are definitely key to mastery.

[@djtomoy]

In my opinion information is so fundamental, we must understand this information so fundamentally to really get the most d fundamental information out there we can, fundamentally. Fundamentally this is my opinion information y’all. 🐈‍⬛

[@Velereonics]

Word

[@djtomoy]

​@@Rick_Mather re read and think harder about what I'm saying, a profound enlightenment awaits you dear fellow!!!

[@CMVMic]

Idk why ppl talk about information as if it's a platonic object floating around?? Information has to do with sense impressions that have influences on the activity of the brain

[@catherinemira75]

Getting closer to Truth? It seems that way... 💪🤞

[@catherinemira75]

@@Rick_Mather we're all waiting for you to be our guide in this matter😉

[@felipek.165]

So why to use the word “information” when we have the ancient concept of “Logos”?

[@grijzekijker]

You mean to say that in your mind those two concepts encompass the same? Are you aware of the religious layer within the meaning of Logos? Isn't 'information' much more neutral?

[@simonhibbs887]

Because they have different meanings, and in this case information has a very specific meaning completely different to any of the concepts associated with Logos.

[@Leif-yv5ql]

When I have more information, I make better decisions.

[@guidance_seeker_55]

Regrettably we become far away from truth each time we listen! I truly believe that what we know is about nothing compared with what we don't know...

[@alex79suited]

I think I agree. Peace ✌️ 😎.

[@LF-du4uc]

The amount of “you”’s in the explanation undermines the argument. If information is fundamental why does it require a human mind to exist?

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

Quanta mechanics pictures physic particles reality though information or anything else It is Impossible because unpredictable consciousness NOT show up random particles. This theory of information is completely physic wortheless. Problems is NOT theory pictures about quanta mechanics but unpredictable consciousness keep out how figure out random particles proceendings.

[@jackwt7340]

no space no universe, no information no space and universe

[@Sow777Reap]

Information is non-material and the product of Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence. *_"It is only at the semantic level that we really have meaningful information; thus, we may establish the following theorem: Theorem 14: Any entity, to be accepted as information, must entail semantics; it must be meaningful. Semantics is an essential aspect of information because the meaning is the only invariant property. The statistical and syntactical properties can be altered appreciably when information is represented in another language (e.g., translated into Chinese), but the meaning does not change. Meanings always represent mental concepts; therefore, we have: Theorem 15: When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender."_* Dr. Werner Gitt (Former Head of the Department of Information Technology at Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Germany)

[@rob.parsnips]

How does this interpretation account for the holographic principle?

[@simonhibbs887]

This is conflating together several different concepts, though they are obviously related. The most basic form of information is the self information of a phenomenon, which is the intrinsic properties and structure of the phenomenon itself, whether that's an electron, an atom, a molecule, or any physical system. The meaning of the self-information of a phenomenon is the state of that phenomenon. Aside from self information, meaning is not an intrinsic property of information, it exists as relations between sets of information through some process that actuates that relation. Consider a counter, what does it count? There must be an activity that increments the counter in specific circumstances, and that activity defines the meaning of the counter. The same set of information can have different meanings in different contexts. Consider the way that words in English, and many languages, can have different senses. On translation into another language, the meaning absolutely can and usually does change because the network of relations between words, their senses, and phrases in different languages don't map from language to language 1:1. They can be similar, but some concepts are so hard to translate we often loan a word from one language to another, but even then the meaning can drift. Meaning is a very complex issue precisely because it is relational.

[@attilaszekeres7435]

Bousso talks about data at the fundamental level, aka quantum uncertainty potential, or microstate capacity, which has very little if anything to do with the original meaning of the word information. This conflation or perversion of information may represent physicists' pipe dreams to raise their theoretically complete ideal to a god-like pedestal. Microstate capacity (data/ontological primitive) represents all possible outcomes/relationships (including non-classical entanglements) that could emerge from a quantum system. It is principally uncomputable thus exists independently of any observer's ability to access, emphasizing its objective nature. It is constrained by the holographic principle, which posits that the total potentiality of a region of spacetime is proportional to the area of its boundary surface. It is data, that is, the sum total of relationships that exist between the constituents of a system. Classical information, on the other hand, is a dynamic, subjective process of meaning-making and knowledge representation that requires a conscious observer/sink. In-formation takes place within the conceptual space of the individual and collective and conforms to their structure. It is a progressive integration (spatiotemporal localisation) of observer-dependent representations of non-obvious relationships relevant to the observer's homeostasis. Processing information is a fundamentally incoherent notion. There is no such thing as information processors because classical information is representational. The holographic principle is key to understand this. What we mistakenly label as information processors are high-density (spatially constrained) dynamic representers of non-obvious relationships. Characterizing them as dynamic is somewhat superfluous, since in-formation is fundamentally a dynamic process. The etymology of the very word, stemming from the Latin in-formation, itself points to the essence of what information is truly - the process of creating representations of non-obvious relationships by an observer, for an observer, inside an observer. Quantum teleportation experiments demonstrate the non-physical nature of classical information. What is being teleported are representations of relationships, not matter or energy. These ideas and experiments align with the view that what we call physical reality is, in fact, a representation of non-obvious relationships that comprise a deeper layer of reality behind spacetime. In other words, spacetime and the physical world are representations of in-formation (process of meaning-making) that helps deeper levels of reality to be apprehended by observers equipped with a class of representers (mammalian and similar brains). The observers themseves are in-formations, and perceptual coherence and cultural consensus are the result of structural similarity of our repesentors. In the case of humans, physical reality is one of the representations constructed by a brain that utilizes space and time as its primary organizing principles for generating representations. The emergence of the fundamental categories, which comprise the human experience, including space and time, are emergent representations, and are layers within in-formaion.

[@gert8439]

@@attilaszekeres7435 Very interesting post, thank you. I don't understand the technical aspects of your post (or the video), but I think I agree with the gist of your comment. Put simply, Information is a descriptive framing, which conceptually represents our flawed and limited experiential (conscious observational and cognitive) human ability to model the actual real world of stuff and processes. For example we can humans can experientially model the stuff/processes over there as a car travelling down a road from A to B , and then Describe that in X number of ways (components, location, speed, relationship to other cars, the road, atoms, quantum mechanics, etc,). The total number of ways we can Describe that event = the total Information we humans can recognise in that event. Bousso is saying, as I understand him, that there's something FUNDAMENTAL about the RELATIONSHIP between number of ways we can describe an event in a specific location, and the Area containing it. That may be so, but we can lose the term ''Information'' and simply say the ONTOLOGICALLY FUNDAMENTAL RELATIONSHIP is between the Stuff/Event and the Area. That is what actually exists, the Stuff and Processes ocurring in a specified location. Which humans can experientially observe and model, and also meaningfully conceptualise as descriptive Information about that Stuff/Processes in a location. So the Event is over there, while the descriptive Information is here in my mind. As to how much our experiential models/representations create, and how much we reliably observe and understand, I think that's an open question. Including Space and Time. What we do know is that our experiential models are 'good enough' to allow us to usefully navigate the world and make predictions at certain levels of resolution.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@attilaszekeres7435 Information in the sense Bousso is using it consists of the properties and structure of a physical system. A computation, or process on information, in this sense is any transformation of those properties or that structure, so any physical process. The meaning of information is an actionable relation between two sets of information, so for example the activity that updates a counter based on some event defines the meaning of the counter. That is, the thing being counted. Another good example of meaning is that of a map. Its meaning is defined by the process that interprets the map into an actionable relation to the environment it is a map of.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Einstein said 0D subatomic, indivisible stuff like quarks are not fundamental and 3D atomic, divisible stuff like protons and neutrons are fundamental. That's our current leading theory with "4D spacetime". Let's be honest that we're still pretty dumb as a species if that's our leading physics theory calling indivisibility not fundamental and divisibility fundamental.

[@simonhibbs887]

I don't believe Einstein ever said any such thing.

[@esorse]

Logical contradiction is grounds for theory rejection ; we don't have to make any sense !?

[@tedgrant2]

Money is fundamental

[@hakiza-technologyltd.8198]

Hahahahaha... you’ll line up eventually .

[@pandoraeeris7860]

Both information and computation are fundamental.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Do you know that information is in forms. Information cannot be fundamental.

[@jeffwilliams6681]

No, it’s the common error of physicists to take a metaphor literally.

[@simonhibbs887]

The word information has many different meanings, but in this context it is a very specific well defined concept.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Because the Divine is concealed and of secrecy, there is much depth, and is why such metaphysics and scriptures are so enigmatic. But yeah, the not very wise class look at it literally and then walk away.

[@bluesky45299]

Quran says: “Allah:there is no deity worthy of worship except he”:The Neccessary life/consciousness,sustainer of life/consciousness.” Wire like neuronal structures that conduct electricity via ions/neurotransmitters in the CNS/PNS possess no attribute of thinking/life and yet that has “randomly” led to life. Consciousness/thinking is an innate idea(“Fitra”)that is distinct from carbon skeleton and yet the materialist scientist believes that chemistry turned into biology via “god of randomness”/”Emergent property”/”law of nature”. Consciousness can only stem from Necessary Consciousness (Allah-One/Indivisible/All-Loving/Self-Sufficient/Infinite Perfection).

[@S3RAVA3LM]

I want to believe that society is at the next level. Tesla said that the work of Walter Russel, the universal one, was a 1000 years too soon for the people, something like this anyways. Wish Robert Kuhn to atleast become aware of these texts and just consider it for a moment. Periphyseon, by Eriugena, translation by O'Meara. Plotinus Enneads, 'Select works' translated by Thomas Taylor and complete translation by Lyyod Gerson. Plato, translated by Thomas Taylor. Proclus books, translated by Taylor. Iamblichus books. Syrianus books. Bhagavad Gita, translated by Sri Aurobindo. Upanishads translated by Nikhilananda 4 vol. set, and the 18 principal Upanishads translated by Radhakrisnan. Upadesa sahashria by sankara, translated by jagadananda. Vivekacudamani by sankara, translated by Madhavananda. Buddha Nikayas Philosophy as a rite of Rebirth by Algis U. Meister Eckhart complete works. The Unknown God, by D. Carabine. Mystical languages of unsaying, by M. Sells. Plotinus: Road to Reality, by JM Rist. Bible - KJV translation only. archaic is very important here with mysticism. Jacob Bohme books - a German mystics Emmanuel Swedenborg books - a scientist turned mystic and metaphysics. Ananda Coomaraswamy books & essays. The presocratic Philosopher's - book. Sweet touches of harmony - book; Pythagorean influence. Lore and science in ancient pythagoreanism - book. The Universal One, by Walter Russel. The gods of field theory: Henri Poincare Tesla Steinmetz Maxwell Heaviside Dollard

[@alex79suited]

Hu hum

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(7:30) *RB: **_"The amount of information that you can fit on the surface of some box at a density of one bit per Planck tile is sufficient to tell you absolutely everything that could happen within this box."_* ... And here is where the limits of using a *single information processing system* (Physics) comes into play. This is based on a physicalist's perspective of the universe and does not factor-in the full spectrum of "Existence." "Conception" is just as much of an *information generator* as particles, matter and energy, but it doesn't physically exist within Raphael's box. *Example:* The conception of "God" results in information that (depending on your belief system) does not _physically_ exist in the universe. It is a completely conceptual proposition that's held within consciousness. There are no particles flying around that are representative of God, and neurons that wield this information are NOT the actual information that the God concept conveys. The concept of God is *raw, nonphysical information* that can reside inside Raphael's box, and a physicist would have no way of detecting it, observing it, nor be able to assess how much information the construct is producing. This is because *information is fundamental,* and a physical universe is merely one manifestation of information with life and consciousness providing even more layers of the same. ... You'll need far more than Physics to figure out the entirety of "Existence."

[@rob.parsnips]

Sounds like information of the gaps to me. Just because we have no physical account of subjective phenomena doesn’t mean one is not forthcoming. And it seems unparsimonious to me to believe information with no physical description emerges strictly from physical phenomena like brains. Better to be agnostic about the ontology of information right now, I think.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@rob.parsnips *"Sounds like information of the gaps to me."* ... How is a nonphysical construct created solely by a human consciousness (or a "brain" if you prefer) considered "information of the gaps?" Please explain. *"Just because we have no physical account of subjective phenomena doesn’t mean one is not forthcoming."* ... We already have a satisfactory account of the conceptualization called "God." It's a *nonphysical construct* generated by human consciousness that has no physical shape, no dimensional properties, nor any material structure. ... _It's just a concept!_ Where do you expect to "physically find and observe" the nonphysical construct called "God?" True, religion provides a "description" of their God, but it is a description of something that does not physically exist. Therefore, it's information residing inside Raphael's box that cannot be observed, predicted, nor accounted for. *"And it seems unparsimonious to me to believe information with no physical description emerges strictly from physical phenomena like brains."* ... Why is that so hard to believe? Your brain can easily acquire and process physical and nonphysical information. It's a very powerful, resourceful organ! ... Why limit the overall scope and power of your self-aware mind? *"Better to be agnostic about the ontology of information right now, I think."* ... "Playing is safe" is obviously an option, but that will never generate any *new information.* All you end up with is the status quo. Innovators, trend setters and revolutionaries don't play it safe. They move right on past everyone who plays it safe.

[@simonhibbs887]

Concepts can be communicated through physical methods of communication though. How can that be so if the concept cannot be represented physically?

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@simonhibbs887 *"Concepts can be communicated through physical methods of communication though. How can that be so if the concept cannot be represented physically?"* ... The words, medium, and definitions used to describe a construct can be communicated via physical structure, but the concept itself has no physical structure. It's just a nonphysical byproduct of human intellect. ... It only exists as a _propositional_ form of existence. *Example:* If I hand you a rock, it would be chock full of physical information. In fact, there is nothing "nonphysical" about the rock. The concept of "God" can also have a lot of physical information attached to it, but I cannot hand you a physically existing God. Everything regarding what this God construct represents is completely nonphysical. If your position is still that everything is physical, then you're stuck trying to explain how I can hand you a rock ... but not hand you a God. ... How can the two be considered physically the same if one doesn't possess any physicality?

[@simonhibbs887]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC There is a distinction between a thing itself and a description of that thing, and a description of that class of things. Descriptions are physical. We have rocks, and we can have the description of a rock, and a description of rocks in general. A concept is a form of description of a thing or a class of things that we have in mind, although we do talk about written concepts, they’re all just descriptions. A concept in our minds is a description encoded in the neural networks of the brain. When we write a concept down we translate the neural network encoded representation into a written representation, and the receiver does the reverse and thus learns the concept. Some concepts or descriptions don’t refer to anything that exists. Only the description exists. The present king of France is a concept, we can describe it, but it’s not a reality as there is no such king. These are fictions, like Sherlock Holmes and Hobbits. I think the concept of god is a fiction, actually many competing often mutually contradictory fictions, others don’t. I can hand you a written description of a rock, or rocks in general, and I can hand you an actual rock. I can hand you a description of hobbits, or Sherlock Holmes or God. I can’t had you the actual things. But then I can’t hand you the Planet Saturn either and I think we agree that exists.