Information Physics explained

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by rjmichie, Oct 6, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rjmichie Registered Member

    Messages:
    51
    Information Physics explained


    In this post, I will explain the main idea of Information Physics. As its name suggests, its origins and focus is information theory, however its application are the fundamental issues of theoretical physics.

    Even a casual observer will probably quote "It from Bit" by Archibald Wheeler as an attempt to bring information science into the fray of foundational physics. There were quite a few bids to connect the meaning of information with the elementary physical phenomena. From Schmidhuber's pan-computationalism, to Wolfram's "A new kind of science" to Deutsch's Qubit Field Theory, there were plenty of contenders, too many to name and discuss in this post.

    Suffice it to say that none of these theories, or attempts (as many of them do not qualify to be called theories per se), have ever treated information to be fundamental. This is the central idea and a major differentiator. Just to be clear, being fundamental means before the first principles of physics. It means, before relativity (Galilean and Einstein's alike), before gravity, before Quantum Mechanics. It really means fundamental.

    Having said it is fundamental, it is also implied that the pillars of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics must emerge from Information Physics. I should stress that the emergence of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics must come as a consequence of a more generic theory which could offer something more in addition, something we don't know yet.

    The idea of information being fundamental means that the very core, whatever we think comprises the Universe, isn't material, but rather is information. This paradigm shift isn't difficult to understand. For example, think of an electron. What is it? What is the "stuff" it's made of? In the final analysis, no matter how much we know about it, an electron will always be just facts we can discern about it. We're talking about the charge, mass, spin, etc. It will always be a set of facts we know about electrons. Perhaps we knew fewer of those facts a hundred years ago, and perhaps we will know more a hundred years from now. The point is, we will never truly know anything else about an electron, other than it being a set of facts. These facts are honored by other electrons and other protons in a way they interact by using these facts.

    This simple deliberation tells us that material reality cannot be anything but information. It doesn't matter if we speak of electrons or neutrons or quarks or whatever future holds in the realm of elementary particles. The "stuff" they are made of will forever be elusive if we exclude the information these particles possess. This is not a question of how much we know about these particles. This is a question of what they really are and the realization that we can never understand what is the "stuff" they are made of. It should become clear that all we can ever hope to know about this "stuff" is information. This tells us that information is all there is.

    In light of this, the physics must be, in essence, a science that inquires about how is this information used. For instance, if an electron is information, then the interaction between two electrons has to be the use of this information. Each electron uses all the available information, which comes from all the electrons, all the protons etc.

    This is the linchpin of Information Physics. It is the use of information that is a physical reality. All physical processes are nothing but a usage of information, and the end result of this usage is the simplest of all possible actions: change in motion, i.e. acceleration.

    What is important to understand is that reality isn't driven by laws of physics operating on principal subjects, such as mass or charge, or what have you. This notion, of "laws" and "subjects" is a concept borrowed from the social order of homo sapiens. We, the political creatures (or Zoon Politikon as per Aristotle), cherish the notions of "laws" and their "subjects". This is how the progress of history went from cavemen to the United Nations. The central idea being that of organizing people (as subjects) under laws. And so this idea spilled over into the sciences physical, where the scientists, through eons, desperately sought to fit the world into the schema of "subjects" and "laws" that govern them.

    In reality, however, even human perception of laws and subjects is fatally flawed. People ultimately base their decisions on the information they have, be it information concerning the past events, the present status, or the likely happenstance of the future. Human beings make decisions based on the available information they possess, the threat of law enforcement, and the genetically built-in facts in the form of DNA, being just some of the information sources. In the final analysis, the usage of the totality of information available, is what drives people, and what ultimately changes laws, not the other way around. Some insight can be found from such simple facts of life.

    It would be a shame to imply that the grand entrance of computing devices onto the world stage in the mid 20th century is the impetus for Information Physics. Some people are quick to point out that a carpenter might think everything is made of wood, because that's what he's familiar with. So, an information scientist would think everything is made of information. This kind of naive thinking based on a simple-minded transposition of concepts simply can't hold water. "Wood", just as any other "stuff", such as "electrons" or "protons", is a concept that's meaningless without the information attached to it. In that sense, saying that the Universe is made out of "electrons" and "protons" is just as meaningless as saying that it is made of "wood". However, saying that the Universe is comprised of information, and that the use of this information is what we characterize as the behavior known as "electrons" or "protons", is appropriate.

    The idea of information as a foundational entity also liberates us from having to delve into the issues of composition and construction. In other words, a question such as "what is the carrier of information" becomes meaningless. If information is a fundamental entity, there is nothing that "carries" it. In ways that count, it is not a photon that carries information, it is the information that procures the photon's very existence. It is not "turtles all the way down" (as the story by Prof. Hawking allegedly has it). The last turtle is information, and the last peel of the onion is information.

    Information Physics puts usage of information at the heart of any physical change. The emphasis in this information use (or information processing if you will) is not on any particular representation, encoding or algorithm. This is extremely important for any theory that purports to explain reality via informational approach. If reality is truly informational, then we ought to be able to gleam something useful just by sticking to the very basics. In case of Information Physics, we stick to certain notions that are easy to explain and defend to the point of a truism, such as the notion of limited information resources and the idea that information in the present moment affects the future. We don't talk about the kind of algorithms used, or how exactly processing takes place. We stick to premises that have to apply to any choice regarding those details. In Information Physics, we build a theory around the generic framework that any information use on a foundational level has to abide to.

    From such elementary considerations, to stay true to the basics and not venture into the realm where far-fetched guesses become common (as it happens often in modern theoretical physics), we again stick to the very rudimentary topics of investigation: throughput of information use and the loss of information due to limited resources. In other words, to begin with, we skip the troublesome and often unyielding endeavors of trying to reduce Nature to a mechanical interpretation of a modern computing system. Such attempts are wide-eyed, unyielding and fairly naive. The nature of information use has to begin in a setup we know exists: a three-dimensional space and a constant flow of time forward.

    For those who see the "going back to basics" approach (with discarding the four-dimensional setup of Relativity) as an affront, consider this: Information Physics can derive all relativistic equations without having to go off the cliff of common sense. Nobody is saying that sometimes, and perhaps, for a time, that's not called for. But nobody is saying that things should be complicated if you possess sophistication through simplicity, either.

    The aforementioned points about Information Physics may seem superfluous to those who think that it is ultimately isomorphic to current views in theoretical physics. For instance, you may be tempted to go from the present-day laws of physics to a setup of a common computer and trace that back to the roots of Information Physics. If you think so, I suggest thinking that thought through, again. Nothing can be further from the truth.

    For one, we avoid having to swallow a bitter pill of postulation. We don't postulate hard-to-accept premises on which Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were built. We start from concepts of information use that are axiomatic no matter which century you live in. The premises of Information Physics are self-evident today as they were in the 16th century. They may not have known what a computer is back then, but you can just substitute a word computer with a word brain, and nothing changes. Ultimately, the choice of words doesn't matter because even the further reduction in vocabulary leaves us with solid truisms regardless. Information Physics uses a terminology we're familiar with, to facilitate understanding alone.

    If for no other reason, you should think about this paradigm shift, because the consequences are staggering. Via math that's virtually elementary, by using the informational approach, we can derive the need for the light itself to exist. While this sounds preposterous, it is not. The notion of light is elementary in physics. There are certain qualities of light, such as its speed, that were observed and accepted as such. By means of Information Physics, we can deduce that an entity just like that has to exist. That's progress by any measure.

    The example of light is just the beginning. Information Physics offers much more. But if we do not rethink the notion of Non-Informational physics, the progress won't be found. Non-Informational physics is a great approximation of what reality is, and is absolutely useful and wonderful, but it is only an approximation. As such, it's holding us back from generalizing the knowledge we have, namely Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Only by conceptually deriving both of them from the same truism, the same elementary notion that is axiomatic in nature, can we hope to move forward.

    The very idea of information being fundamental is the step-stool we need to peek over the fence that hides the view in front of us. Information Physics sets us free from the nasty habit of making up stories to explain reality. Because, what would you call the rampant proliferation of postulates, principles, conjectures and hypothesis in the 20th century physics? The value added is in the form of mathematical expression of these postulates and principles, where great strides have been made. However, if the basis for this mathematics is just pure educated guessing, don't expect a quantum leap forward (if you will).

    What we need is a true quantum leap forward, but not in further conjecture, not in further mathematical tinkering, not in closing our eyes to the fact that we have absolutely no idea why the big basket of principle-based theories from the early 20th century even works. It's like looking for a solution everywhere else but the corner where the problem is quietly sitting and sobbing, ignored and all alone.

    Information Physics offers a flashlight to illuminate the problem, and the axiomatic approach to remove it, without repeating the mistaken approach that has taken hold of modern physics, which is to declare hunches based on experimental data to be the be-all and end-all. We've had that in the early 20th century, when Einstein and Heisenberg gave us their hunches, and we immortalized them. A hundred years since, in all honesty, we've got nothing new of that magnitude to show for. Either that was a be-all and end-all, or we need a new approach of how we want to view the Universe.

    I am betting it is the latter.


    R.J. Michie
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,877
    Very interesting, could you provide more resources on IPh?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    I think he will if you lay down some cash. Looks like he's selling a book.

    Speaking of which . . . looks like he booked.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    I'm hearing a whole lot of woo woo in the OP.
     
  8. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Pretty much 'personal opinion piece' written by a scientific illiterate. It's easy to tell when part of the thesis requires modern science to be bullshit.
     
  9. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Get a clue. Deducing that light should exist as real natural phenomena. Deducing 'something' should exist which does exist. LOL. Useless 'information'. The more I think about the level of nonsense in your post I can't help but deduce that you make a wonderful poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.
     
  10. someguy1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    727
    I didn't real the OP, which looks pretty cranky. But modern information theorists are doing a lot of work on using information to explain and understand physics and even math. For example one can compute the maximum complexity of the mathematical theorems that can be proven in the physical universe.

    Complexity theorist and entertaining blogger Scott Aaronson writes a lot about this subject.

    http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/

    One of his very insightful essays shows how to explain quantum mechanics without mentioning any physics at all ...

    http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html
     
  11. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Not the first computer scientist I've come across who thinks he's smarter than physics.
     
  12. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    Information Physics is a real subject. It's being studied by real professors with Ph.Ds. The idea that information is more fundamental than electrons or other objects we assign a physical reality to, might be anathema to physicists.

    Suppose there is something to it, then those physicists who trash such ideas are going to look stupid.
    But that aside, what's this "result" from the theory that says light has to exist? Is it something derived from "first principles", and if so, how?
     
  13. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I'm trashing the original posters interpretation of Information Physics. I didn't say it doesn't exist or that it's not worth the research being done. He didn't explain anything 'worth it's weight in fecal matter'.
     
  14. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I'd like to see that computation and how it's interpreted when completed. That would be more interesting than a 'blogger'.
     
  15. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I'd like to see that computation and how it's interpreted when completed. That would be more interesting than a 'blogger'.

    You're discussing the work of C.E. Shannon?
    A Mathematical Theory of Communication, By C. E. SHANNON.
    http://www.enseignement.polytechnique.fr/informatique/profs/Nicolas.Sendrier/X02/TI/shannon.pdf
     
  16. someguy1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    727
    Aaronson is a tenured professor of computer science at MIT. He's a blogger in the sense that Fields medalists Terrance Tao and Tim Gowers are bloggers. That is, he's an accomplished theorist who maintains a blog accessible to the educated public. The word "blogger" is not a pejorative, though it's often used that way to discredit someone's ideas that we don't like.

    I'm familiar with Shannon. Modern computational complexity way beyond that. Think P = NP and everything related to that. Aaronson writes about P = NP a lot. He's an expert on all the different complexity classes.

    Another interesting name is Chaitin, and algorithmic complexity. Chaitin has a completely information-theoretic proof of Godel's incompleteness theorems.

    Like I say I didn't read the OP. Perhaps I should retract calling it cranky, since I didn't actually read it. Certainly a lot of serious people these days are studying the universe in terms of information. There's such a thing as the information capacity of the universe. Every physical process requires and is essentially equivalent to a certain amount of information processing.

    The study of math and physics from the direction of computation and information theory is definitely a legitimate field of inquiry these days.
     
  17. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Ever hear of the Holographic Principle? So you think that 'first principles' would include the 4 fundamental forces of our universe? Think light could be a consequence of the fundamental force of electromagnetism? Electromagnetism and light exist as real natural phenomena.
     
  18. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I'm pretty familiar with the holographic principle. This universe isn't infinite. It's infinite in extent so there has to be limits to information and everything else in the universe. The essay didn't say much about information theory. Other than assertions that it's going to replace 'modern theoretical models'. Thanks for your comments. I never meant to say anything negative about information theory just about the 'juvenile' essay at the beginning of this thread.
     
  19. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    I've yet to see that using "math that's virtually elementary, by using the informational approach, we can derive the need for the light itself to exist". But I see that the OP also claims: "For those who see the "going back to basics" approach (with discarding the four-dimensional setup of Relativity) as an affront, consider this: Information Physics can derive all relativistic equations without having to go off the cliff of common sense."

    What if the derivation (that light must exist) doesn't include the 4 fundamental forces, or doesn't even refer to forces?
     
  20. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    As opposed to fake professors with fake PH.Ds.?

    And yet, it isn't and anathema to physicists.

    Or, most likely, those who support woo woo theories look stupid.
     
  21. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Off the cliff of common sense? Relativity is only contrary to common sense for those who don't know anything about the theory or the natural phenomena it describes. The equations of relativity have the same meaning regardless how they are derived. So this is pretty much nonsense for me ".... consider this: Information Physics can derive all relativistic equations without having to go off the cliff of common sense". Sounds like a used car salesman looking for ways to get my attention.
     
  22. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    Look at it this way: if Information Physics can derive that light must exist, and if it is a more fundamental kind of theory, it doesn't matter if you think it's woo. It doesn't matter either, if it's "just" a reformulation of existing theories, the important thing is whether it reveals something, even if that something is "just" a more heuristic theory.
     
  23. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I never said it's woo. Quit trying to attach that to me. Light 'does' exist and we figured out why without information theory. If it is a fundamental theory then you would expect it to recover all the empirically confirmed theoretical models in domain of applicability. You're right what we think doesn't matter to the scientific literature associated with information theory. My comments were on the post that purported to explain information theory. Not the actual scientific literature. I was looking for a paper which discusses the mathematical approach to information theory. I found this

    ASimpleProof of Maxwell Saturation for Coupled Scalar Recursions. Arvind Yedla, Yung-Yih Jian, Phong S. Nguyen, and Henry D. Pfister

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.7910.pdf

    I should be able get a 'general idea' of how fundamental this theoretical model is.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page