Is existance a physical property?

[WITHTEETH]

So if something exist, but you can't taste it, smell it, touch it, what is the objects state of existance then?

[Choobus]

you can't touch smell or taste an electron, but it's state of existance is quite well described by a wavefunction.

[WITHTEETH]

Ok that makes sense, so it has physical properties.

What if it has no physical porperties, what then?

[abortionman]

so...
no detectable physical properties of any kind whatsoever
can't be measured in any way, shape, or form and WILL not ever have the ability to be measured?
(something like string theory doesn't count...it assumes the ability to be measured)

...doesn't exist

[Choobus]

what is the shape pf an electron?

[WITHTEETH]

Can we observe an electron, or do they move as soon as we try to observe them?

Can we measure the negatively charged energy atleast?

[WITHTEETH]

What I'm trying to get to is that existance is not a physical property in itself. Does this sound right?

So does existance have to have a physical property? Common sense says yes, but still i question it. memories and consciousness have matter and waves(i believe).

force has the protential to be measured if we have the ability.

Causation can be observed through the senses and measured theoretically if we have the ability, but wait... does measurements count as physical properties? so does that have any physical properties still if we can measure hmmm.

Space.... I'm not quite clear om this one, but isn't antimatter a theory on space. That space isn't really just space anymore?

As for time, i believe the current theory is that it actually doesnt move and can be observed. but it can be measured.... right, thats how we actually tell time, This is very abstract now lol.

Now im more confused than ever! this is gonna take sometime to straighten out.

[Silentknight]

So if something exist, but you can't taste it, smell it, touch it, what is the objects state of existance then?
If this concerns arguments for the existence of God then it actually works against them. A god by definition is a worshipped being, and there has never been a scriptural deity from any religion that does not interact with its followers in some meaningful way. A being so inaccessible that it cannot be directly perceived would not be a god at all, as it could not be receiving prayers or sacrifices, nor could it have any kind of relevant impact on people's lives.

An entity that hides itself in a distant corner of the universe, or a being that exists out of phase with us and cannot be sensed, falls into the category of an alien intelligence, not a god. It would make no practical difference whatsoever whether we believed in it or not.

[WITHTEETH]

I agree, I as just thinking of a god that might be logically possible, the christian god is far, far, far, far, far, far ect... from that, not that i believe in a god. Just brushing up. Epicurus for example is a prim candidate for what you are describing - a god that is inaccesible.

Can any of you think of something that doesn't have any physcial properties, or can' be measured that exists? that whatever has the potential to be measured is all that exists. Still, im looking to see if any of you may have any examples of such objects.

[Rhinoqulous]

So if something exist, but you can't taste it, smell it, touch it, what is the objects state of existence then?
Imagine you have a wealthy Uncle. This Uncle will buy you whatever you want for your birthday. You want a car, and you have the perfect idea of the car, with all the details (properties) down to the smallest detail. You tell all this to your Uncle, and for your birthday, he presents you with a car that matches your description. Now, do you get upset and proclaim, "This isn't the car I wanted! This one exists!"

So no, existence isn't a property.

[WITHTEETH]

lol! I like that. What is existance then, metaphysical?

[ocmpoma]

"Can any of you think of something that doesn't have any physcial properties, or can' be measured that exists?"

Concepts:
Freedom, hatred, courage, rudeness, простор...

[WITHTEETH]

I see emotions that can have physical porperties, but the words themselves are getting in the same category as my "perfect" car i think. So are words, numbers, and my perfect car all just metaphysical? Is metephysical the right word?

[Sternwallow]

so...
no detectable physical properties of any kind whatsoever
can't be measured in any way, shape, or form and WILL not ever have the ability to be measured?
(something like string theory doesn't count...it assumes the ability to be measured)

...doesn't exist
Is god

[Sternwallow]

I agree, I as just thinking of a god that might be logically possible, the christian god is far, far, far, far, far, far ect... from that, not that i believe in a god. Just brushing up. Epicurus for example is a prim candidate for what you are describing - a god that is inaccesible.

Can any of you think of something that doesn't have any physcial properties, or can' be measured that exists? that whatever has the potential to be measured is all that exists. Still, im looking to see if any of you may have any examples of such objects.
Force and time are only measured by their effect on some physical material. That is how they exist, as causes of effects. There is a recently conjectured particle that has no properties at all. It is a theoretical construct useful as a placeholder for additive zero in many of the best wave functions. It can have no effects whatsoever and so it is safe to ignore the Nonion even though its existence is certain.

[Tenspace]

Information. Information meets physical laws (Beckenstein bound, for example), encodes life, releases heat when destroyed....

Is information a physical thing?

[WITHTEETH]

I would think so tenspace. We just perceive it differently as it transfers to our senses! This sounds right, to me. :)

It would be like me looking at a hot chick, im not seeing the particles, and its energy, im seeing tits! So to translate.... I'm not seeing the material information, I'm percieving its characteristics i think.

Take a computer for example, it goes by transisters instead of braincells, nerves, and waves. All information is made there, it doesn't come from an outside independant supernatural source outside this dimension.

I think the mistake I'm making is forgetting that us humans are what create the meaning for these ideas. and meaning is a physical thing to because its a thought and thoughts can be described as matter too. Meanings are just abstract definitions, that are really just absurd, and relative/subjective.

[Sternwallow]

I would think so tenspace. We just perceive it differently as it transfers to our senses! This sounds right, to me. :)

It would be like me looking at a hot chick, im[sic] not seeing the particles, and its energy, im[sic] seeing tits! So to translate.... I'm not seeing the material information, I'm percieving[sic] its characteristics i think.

Take a computer for example, it goes by transisters[sic] instead of braincells[sic], nerves, and waves. All information is made there, it doesn't come from an outside independant[sic] supernatural source outside this dimension.

I think the mistake I'm making is forgetting that us humans are what create the meaning for these ideas. and meaning is a physical thing to because its a thought and thoughts can be described as matter too. Meanings are just abstract definitions, that are really just absurd, and relative/subjective.
I would be interested to read your treatise on the physics of thought. How do you weigh one thought against another? Is it possible to destroy a thought or to create one? If a thought is a manifestation of information and information yields heat when it is destroyed (this may not be true), how does one measure the heat from destruction of a thought? Can thoughts be transmitted from one brain to another without a physical medium the way electromagnetism can? Can it be stored in a capacitor or generated by a brain spinning in a magnetic field?

Don't instruments like remote weather stations create information from outside stimuli?

I'm criticizing this notion because many theists claim that evolution is impossible because it would require the creation of new information and that information, like energy, can neither be created nor destroyed.

[Tenspace]

Information is not necessarily subject to the laws of thermodynamics. Any information theory practitioners out there? Care to discuss the 1st law of thermodynamics regarding how it applies to information?

[WITHTEETH]

I'm criticizing this notion because many theists claim that evolution is impossible because it would require the creation of new information and that information, like energy, can neither be created nor destroyed.
Hmm, well I know new genetic inoformation is possible because I've seen many examples of it. But i was refering to information on a quantum level not genetic. On a quantum level there is a theory that all matter if broken down will come to a point where it can't be broken down anymore, indivisible. And the indivisible particles can't be created nor destroyed, so are they new?

Your seeing the characteristics of the particles. but not the particles themselves. If you saw the particles themselves, you might not think of the the genetic information as new. I agree with you: That new genetic information is possible, the nylon bug is a perfect example. but if you look at the quantum particles that are indivisible (if this theory is correct), there is nothing new about these indivisble particles, they cannot be created nor destroyed. right?

Does this sound right?
I'm getting confused myself the more i read your post now Stern, damn you!!! :mad:

[calpurnpiso]

I would think so tenspace. We just perceive it differently as it transfers to our senses! This sounds right, to me. :)

It would be like me looking at a hot chick, im[sic] not seeing the particles, and its energy, im[sic] seeing tits! So to translate.... I'm not seeing the material information, I'm percieving[sic] its characteristics i think.

Take a computer for example, it goes by transisters[sic] instead of braincells[sic], nerves, and waves. All information is made there, it doesn't come from an outside independant[sic] supernatural source outside this dimension.

I think the mistake I'm making is forgetting that us humans are what create the meaning for these ideas. and meaning is a physical thing to because its a thought and thoughts can be described as matter too. Meanings are just abstract definitions, that are really just absurd, and relative/subjective.
I would be interested to read your treatise on the physics of thought. How do you weigh one thought against another? Is it possible to destroy a thought or to create one? If a thought is a manifestation of information and information yields heat when it is destroyed (this may not be true), how does one measure the heat from destruction of a thought? Can thoughts be transmitted from one brain to another without a physical medium the way electromagnetism can? Can it be stored in a capacitor or generated by a brain spinning in a magnetic field?

Don't instruments like remote weather stations create information from outside stimuli?

I'm criticizing this notion because many theists claim that evolution is impossible because it would require the creation of new information and that information, like energy, can neither be created nor destroyed.
I suggest reading 'What's Thought" by Eric Baum. ..:)

[Sternwallow]

Information is not necessarily subject to the laws of thermodynamics. Any information theory practitioners out there? Care to discuss the 1st law of thermodynamics regarding how it applies to information?
A minimum amount of work is required to change a physical object from one state to another. It is not the information that implies work, rather the change in the object. Shannon's formula presumes the minimum physical size that can have two states.

[Sternwallow]

I'm criticizing this notion because many theists claim that evolution is impossible because it would require the creation of new information and that information, like energy, can neither be created nor destroyed.
Hmm, well I know new genetic inoformation is possible because I've seen many examples of it. But i was refering to information on a quantum level not genetic. On a quantum level there is a theory that all matter if broken down will come to a point where it can't be broken down anymore, indivisible. And the indivisible particles can't be created nor destroyed, so are they new?

Your seeing the characteristics of the particles. but not the particles themselves. If you saw the particles themselves, you might not think of the the genetic information as new. I agree with you: That new genetic information is possible, the nylon bug is a perfect example. but if you look at the quantum particles that are indivisible (if this theory is correct), there is nothing new about these indivisble particles, they cannot be created nor destroyed. right?

Does this sound right?
I'm getting confused myself the more i read your post now Stern, damn you!!! :mad:
Damned, I may well be, but it seems that an indivisible particle could easily be the product of energy condensation via E=MC^2 at which time it would, I think, be new. In the meantime, the particle you postulate presupposes probable polarities or spins or other binary states which can encode information. If they begin in a random state and we force them into a particular chosen state that might create a new information bit where one did not exist before. Go ahead, damn me again.

[Oz]

so...
no detectable physical properties of any kind whatsoever
can't be measured in any way, shape, or form and WILL not ever have the ability to be measured?
(something like string theory doesn't count...it assumes the ability to be measured)

...doesn't exist
Do you mean no detectable properties in the abstract or relative to our abilities? That is, did electrons not exist for the ancient Egyptians? Is it the observance that causes existance?

[Tenspace]

Information is not necessarily subject to the laws of thermodynamics. Any information theory practitioners out there? Care to discuss the 1st law of thermodynamics regarding how it applies to information?
A minimum amount of work is required to change a physical object from one state to another. It is not the information that implies work, rather the change in the object. Shannon's formula presumes the minimum physical size that can have two states.
But information implies a limit as well, a physical limit. The EPR paradox is resolved by the fact that no information traveled faster than light. Many things can and do travel faster than light (topic for another thread, but I suggest reading something like "Faster than Light" by Nick Herbert first), but none can carry information faster than light. Quantum computing literally exploits the information-storing capacity of particle states.

I think that is what the original topic boils down to - is existence a representation of an information state such as the firing cycles and patterns of our brains? Or are we talking physical nuts and bolts matter, neurons and chemicals?

[Metman07]

In a way even ideas, information etc. have a physical existance. The concepts of freedom, justice etc. do not exist outside the brains of intelligent beings. We don't really know the mechanisms very well but this information is stored through a series of electrochemical reactions.

[Chiot Vulgaire]

We can measure the electrical signals that rise up when we think about the concepts of emotion and just about any sort of information, making information in its purest sense a physical thing.

[Sternwallow]

We can measure the electrical signals that rise up when we think about the concepts of emotion and just about any sort of information, making information in its purest sense a physical thing.
Sorry to disagree, but information, like mathematics, is not physical itself. It is manifested in physical systems and can only be measured by physical instruments when it is encoded physically. Your concept of say, "liberty", is a body of information that can be encoded in an individual's brain though it exists, like Pi, external to brains. I think that the ability of information to be represented in so many different physical ways, electrical signals, writing, patterns of pebbles on a sandy beach, Morse code, DNA base pairs, and so-on demonstrates that it is indipendent of physical systems.

Information can be viewed as data existing in a context. Thus "OOOXXXOXO" is data by itself. In the context of TicTacToe, it is information about the sequence of box values after a particular game. In a different context tha same data is different information, the combination to a binary lock, perhaps.

[Rhinoqulous]

Sorry to disagree, but information, like mathematics, is not physical itself. It is manifested in physical systems and can only be measured by physical instruments when it is encoded physically. Your concept of say, "liberty", is a body of information that can be encoded in an individual's brain though it exists, like Pi, external to brains. I think that the ability of information to be represented in so many different physical ways, electrical signals, writing, patterns of pebbles on a sandy beach, Morse code, DNA base pairs, and so-on demonstrates that it is indipendent of physical systems.

Information can be viewed as data existing in a context. Thus "OOOXXXOXO" is data by itself. In the context of TicTacToe, it is information about the sequence of box values after a particular game. In a different context tha same data is different information, the combination to a binary lock, perhaps.
What? Where is it then? Is "information" something like Plato's Forms? Wouldn't be easier (and ontologically economical) to have "information" and the like emerge from physical systems/processes instead of somehow existing independently?

[Rat Bastard]

Sorry to disagree, but information, like mathematics, is not physical itself. It is manifested in physical systems and can only be measured by physical instruments when it is encoded physically. Your concept of say, "liberty", is a body of information that can be encoded in an individual's brain though it exists, like Pi, external to brains. I think that the ability of information to be represented in so many different physical ways, electrical signals, writing, patterns of pebbles on a sandy beach, Morse code, DNA base pairs, and so-on demonstrates that it is indipendent of physical systems.

Information can be viewed as data existing in a context. Thus "OOOXXXOXO" is data by itself. In the context of TicTacToe, it is information about the sequence of box values after a particular game. In a different context tha same data is different information, the combination to a binary lock, perhaps.
What? Where is it then? Is "information" something like Plato's Forms? Wouldn't be easier (and ontologically economical) to have "information" and the like emerge from physical systems/processes instead of somehow existing independently?
I think I get you, Rhino. I seems like the information is more of a manifestation of the process, what we get out of it, rather than it being the process. Kind of like art, in that sense. A painting is not the thing it portrays, and many things can be gotten symbolically from a picture that are not even represented pictorially. Hope I don't seem to be pretending to be on you guys' level, my philosophical background is sophomore-level university.

By the way, today is national pi day. Pi rocks, and it ain't equal to three, fundies. Harr!

Must get spell-check in here.

[Rhinoqulous]

I think I get you, Rhino. I seems like the information is more of a manifestation of the process, what we get out of it, rather than it being the process. Kind of like art, in that sense. A painting is not the thing it portrays, and many things can be gotten symbolically from a picture that are not even represented pictorially. Hope I don't seem to be pretending to be on you guys' level, my philosophical background is sophomore-level university.

By the way, today is national pi day. Pi rocks, and it ain't equal to three, fundies. Harr!

Must get spell-check in here.
You get me exactly Log! You've pretty much given a layman's description of supervenience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervenience) theory. Supervenience was initially from Art Theory (the relation of the beauty of the painting and the painting itself) and Ethics (morality of an action supervening on the action itself) and has since moved onto philosophy of mind and metaphysics in general.

Pi Day! Hoo-rah!

[Sternwallow]

What? Where is it then? Is "information" something like Plato's Forms? Wouldn't be easier (and ontologically economical) to have "information" and the like emerge from physical systems/processes instead of somehow existing independently?
It might well be somehow more convenient for information to be tied firmly to physical entities (matter and/or energy), but it isn't. The configuration of chess pieces after the third move in your twenty-fifth game no longer exists in a physical form (I'm guessing you didn't record that particular game) yet it is still and always was a pattern. We can create physical configurations that match specific patterns (eg. draw a checker board or fake a Jackson Pollock painting or imagine the dots and dashes of a written Morse code for the message "What Hath God Wrang?"). If this view of information is correct, it should be possible to impress a pattern of information on a device that uses rules (more information) to recognize and modify the information found in other physical configurations. I think a DVD recorder answers this prediction. So, without actually writing down the patterns involved, we can say that ten binary digits can represent 1024 pieces of information, taken as a set.
I haven't identified where information resides when it is not tied to matter. I guess the same place that arithmetic does since arithmetic can be thought of as information plus rules.

Pi day, long may it wave (function).

[Sternwallow]

What? Where is it then? Is "information" something like Plato's Forms? Wouldn't be easier (and ontologically economical) to have "information" and the like emerge from physical systems/processes instead of somehow existing independently?
It might well be somehow more convenient for information to be tied firmly to physical entities (matter and/or energy), but it isn't. The configuration of chess pieces after the third move in your twenty-fifth game no longer exists in a physical form (I'm guessing you didn't record that particular game) yet it is still and always was a pattern. We can create physical configurations that match specific patterns (eg. draw a checker board or fake a Jackson Pollock painting or imagine the dots and dashes of a written Morse code for the message "What Hath God Wrang?"). If this view of information is correct, it should be possible to impress a pattern of information on a device that uses rules (more information) to recognize and modify the information found in other physical configurations. I think a DVD recorder answers this prediction. So, without actually writing down the patterns involved, we can say that ten binary digits can represent 1024 pieces of information, taken as a set.
I haven't identified where information resides when it is not tied to matter. I guess the same place that arithmetic does since arithmetic can be thought of as information plus rules.

Pi day, long may it wave (function).

[WITHTEETH]

Do you believe in souls and stuff sternwallow?

[WITHTEETH]

Do you believe in souls and stuff sternwallow?

[Sternwallow]

Do you believe in souls and stuff sternwallow?
You betcha! I am convinced that soul, memory, personality and thoughts are all patterns that are instantiated in the physical brain (but could, in principle, be duplicated in many other sufficiently complex physical media) and which vanish as soon as electro/chemical processes in the brain stop and they are irreversible in, say a silicon-based brain if decomposition randomly scatters the formerly operating connections.
Perhaps my pattern of information will go to Heaven one day. If it does I will neither notice nor care.

[Sternwallow]

Do you believe in souls and stuff sternwallow?
You betcha! I am convinced that soul, memory, personality and thoughts are all patterns that are instantiated in the physical brain (but could, in principle, be duplicated in many other sufficiently complex physical media) and which vanish as soon as electro/chemical processes in the brain stop and they are irreversible in, say a silicon-based brain if decomposition randomly scatters the formerly operating connections.
Perhaps my pattern of information will go to Heaven one day. If it does I will neither notice nor care.

[Rhinoqulous]

It might well be somehow more convenient for information to be tied firmly to physical entities (matter and/or energy), but it isn't.
Dualist! Platonist! If we can explain information theory by appealing to the physical alone, why introduce an unneeded "realm" for information to exist?

(side note: w00t, the Gophers just beat Wake Forest! Hazha!)

The configuration of chess pieces after the third move in your twenty-fifth game no longer exists in a physical form (I'm guessing you didn't record that particular game) yet it is still and always was a pattern.
That's absurd. So the particular "pattern" of the game of RISK I got schooled in last weekend existed in some way when Plato was running around in short-pants? It still exists right now? It will exist in 20 billion years after every single possible RISK playing individual is long dead? This is spiritualism disguised as contemporary physics/metaphysics/mathematics.

If this view of information is correct, it should be possible to impress a pattern of information on a device that uses rules (more information) to recognize and modify the information found in other physical configurations. I think a DVD recorder answers this prediction.
Last time I checked, DVD's are physical constructs of the universe, and the patterns of information that translate into a movie are imbedded into the disk by lasers. I don't see how Blood Simple exists independently of any medium (16mm, BETA, VHS, DVD, MPEG, what-have-you).

Also, if this theory is correct, can I re-make Blood Simple and claim I'm not infringing on any of the Cohen Brother's copyrights as the "essence" of that particular film existed prior to them actually making it?

I haven't identified where information resides when it is not tied to matter. I guess the same place that arithmetic does since arithmetic can be thought of as information plus rules.
Explain to me how the concept "2" exists outside of a conscious mind and I'll start listening to you.

[Rhinoqulous]

It might well be somehow more convenient for information to be tied firmly to physical entities (matter and/or energy), but it isn't.
Dualist! Platonist! If we can explain information theory by appealing to the physical alone, why introduce an unneeded "realm" for information to exist?

(side note: w00t, the Gophers just beat Wake Forest! Hazha!)

The configuration of chess pieces after the third move in your twenty-fifth game no longer exists in a physical form (I'm guessing you didn't record that particular game) yet it is still and always was a pattern.
That's absurd. So the particular "pattern" of the game of RISK I got schooled in last weekend existed in some way when Plato was running around in short-pants? It still exists right now? It will exist in 20 billion years after every single possible RISK playing individual is long dead? This is spiritualism disguised as contemporary physics/metaphysics/mathematics.

If this view of information is correct, it should be possible to impress a pattern of information on a device that uses rules (more information) to recognize and modify the information found in other physical configurations. I think a DVD recorder answers this prediction.
Last time I checked, DVD's are physical constructs of the universe, and the patterns of information that translate into a movie are imbedded into the disk by lasers. I don't see how Blood Simple exists independently of any medium (16mm, BETA, VHS, DVD, MPEG, what-have-you).

Also, if this theory is correct, can I re-make Blood Simple and claim I'm not infringing on any of the Cohen Brother's copyrights as the "essence" of that particular film existed prior to them actually making it?

I haven't identified where information resides when it is not tied to matter. I guess the same place that arithmetic does since arithmetic can be thought of as information plus rules.
Explain to me how the concept "2" exists outside of a conscious mind and I'll start listening to you.

[Rat Bastard]

I think I get you, Rhino. I seems like the information is more of a manifestation of the process, what we get out of it, rather than it being the process. Kind of like art, in that sense. A painting is not the thing it portrays, and many things can be gotten symbolically from a picture that are not even represented pictorially. Hope I don't seem to be pretending to be on you guys' level, my philosophical background is sophomore-level university.

By the way, today is national pi day. Pi rocks, and it ain't equal to three, fundies. Harr!

Must get spell-check in here.
You get me exactly Log! You've pretty much given a layman's description of supervenience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervenience) theory. Supervenience was initially from Art Theory (the relation of the beauty of the painting and the painting itself) and Ethics (morality of an action supervening on the action itself) and has since moved onto philosophy of mind and metaphysics in general.

Pi Day! Hoo-rah!
OK, but this means I have to go read some philosophy, now that my interest has been piqued. Shit, just when I thought I could kick back....:mad: :D

[Rat Bastard]

I think I get you, Rhino. I seems like the information is more of a manifestation of the process, what we get out of it, rather than it being the process. Kind of like art, in that sense. A painting is not the thing it portrays, and many things can be gotten symbolically from a picture that are not even represented pictorially. Hope I don't seem to be pretending to be on you guys' level, my philosophical background is sophomore-level university.

By the way, today is national pi day. Pi rocks, and it ain't equal to three, fundies. Harr!

Must get spell-check in here.
You get me exactly Log! You've pretty much given a layman's description of supervenience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervenience) theory. Supervenience was initially from Art Theory (the relation of the beauty of the painting and the painting itself) and Ethics (morality of an action supervening on the action itself) and has since moved onto philosophy of mind and metaphysics in general.

Pi Day! Hoo-rah!
OK, but this means I have to go read some philosophy, now that my interest has been piqued. Shit, just when I thought I could kick back....:mad: :D

[Sternwallow]

Explain to me how the concept "2" exists outside of a conscious mind and I'll start listening to you.
Certainly "2" as a concept requires a concept processing mechanism. Any time a pair of similar objects appear in proximity to each other, they acquire the information attribute of being 2 things rather than just a thing and another thing. It doesn't need to be perceived to exist. This is why, at the logical extreme, the information itself does not require physical expression. It does imply, however, that "2" has no more importance or primacy than any other possible pattern of the configurable material or symbols. "00000000000010" is also a representation of "2". There is nothing spiritual or supernatural or even Platonic about the set of possible patterns in a system (material or not) consisting of a specific number of members each of which can have one of a specific number of states.

In a way I AM a dualist. I take the physical brain to be a configurable system and the pattern imposed on it by inheritance, experience, chemical inclinations and other influences to be the personality. By this hypothesis, if it were possible to non-destructively read the pattern configuration of a brain, one could impress that same pattern on another sufficiently complex device which would then display the same personality as the source. It would most certainly not transfer or split any spirit or soul to do this.

Here is my objection to the Einstein book analogy. If you wrote down the exact pattern in Einstein's brain as of some point in time, you could not leaf through the book to find how he would answer a new question. The book does not interrelate the pattern as an active machine could so a critical part of the information is lost in writing it down. If, instead, the pattern was input to a supercomputer with modifiable interconnections, it could acquire the knowledge and behavior of Einstein and would probably tell the questioner to go soak his head.

Given that there are some 2 billion neurons each with up to some 10,000 possible dendritic connections, the number of bits required to represent the brain pattern would be at least
27 billion (2x10^9 * log base 2 of 10^4). That would show the atates but not their interconnectedness. The number of possibly linked (both ways) neuron pairs in 2 billion would require at least 2x10^18 bits.

[Sternwallow]

Explain to me how the concept "2" exists outside of a conscious mind and I'll start listening to you.
Certainly "2" as a concept requires a concept processing mechanism. Any time a pair of similar objects appear in proximity to each other, they acquire the information attribute of being 2 things rather than just a thing and another thing. It doesn't need to be perceived to exist. This is why, at the logical extreme, the information itself does not require physical expression. It does imply, however, that "2" has no more importance or primacy than any other possible pattern of the configurable material or symbols. "00000000000010" is also a representation of "2". There is nothing spiritual or supernatural or even Platonic about the set of possible patterns in a system (material or not) consisting of a specific number of members each of which can have one of a specific number of states.

In a way I AM a dualist. I take the physical brain to be a configurable system and the pattern imposed on it by inheritance, experience, chemical inclinations and other influences to be the personality. By this hypothesis, if it were possible to non-destructively read the pattern configuration of a brain, one could impress that same pattern on another sufficiently complex device which would then display the same personality as the source. It would most certainly not transfer or split any spirit or soul to do this.

Here is my objection to the Einstein book analogy. If you wrote down the exact pattern in Einstein's brain as of some point in time, you could not leaf through the book to find how he would answer a new question. The book does not interrelate the pattern as an active machine could so a critical part of the information is lost in writing it down. If, instead, the pattern was input to a supercomputer with modifiable interconnections, it could acquire the knowledge and behavior of Einstein and would probably tell the questioner to go soak his head.

Given that there are some 2 billion neurons each with up to some 10,000 possible dendritic connections, the number of bits required to represent the brain pattern would be at least
27 billion (2x10^9 * log base 2 of 10^4). That would show the atates but not their interconnectedness. The number of possibly linked (both ways) neuron pairs in 2 billion would require at least 2x10^18 bits.

[Rhinoqulous]

Explain to me how the concept "2" exists outside of a conscious mind and I'll start listening to you.
Certainly "2" as a concept requires a concept processing mechanism. Any time a pair of similar objects appear in proximity to each other, they acquire the information attribute of being 2 things rather than just a thing and another thing. It doesn't need to be perceived to exist. This is why, at the logical extreme, the information itself does not require physical expression. It does imply, however, that "2" has no more importance or primacy than any other possible pattern of the configurable material or symbols. "00000000000010" is also a representation of "2". There is nothing spiritual or supernatural or even Platonic about the set of possible patterns in a system (material or not) consisting of a specific number of members each of which can have one of a specific number of states.
If the concept of "number" had never been created, in what sense are there "2" apples when you have an apple and another apple? Numbers are like the bunny in the cloud; they only exist as a linguistic system of convenience, they're not "out there" in the world. Mathematics is a language, and without a conscious mind, there is no language, and hence no numbers.

The language of the Piraha is interesting in this regard (read about the Piraha and their language here (http://www.jcrows.com/withoutnumbers.html), here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_people), and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_language)) in that their language completely lacks the concept of "numbers". There is no such thing as "one" or "two" in their language, and the Piraha people have been unable to learn even simple arithmetic (even 1+1=2). So, it would seem that the Piraha show that "number" is wholly linguistic, and not independent or a priori to learning the language of numbers.

[Rhinoqulous]

Explain to me how the concept "2" exists outside of a conscious mind and I'll start listening to you.
Certainly "2" as a concept requires a concept processing mechanism. Any time a pair of similar objects appear in proximity to each other, they acquire the information attribute of being 2 things rather than just a thing and another thing. It doesn't need to be perceived to exist. This is why, at the logical extreme, the information itself does not require physical expression. It does imply, however, that "2" has no more importance or primacy than any other possible pattern of the configurable material or symbols. "00000000000010" is also a representation of "2". There is nothing spiritual or supernatural or even Platonic about the set of possible patterns in a system (material or not) consisting of a specific number of members each of which can have one of a specific number of states.
If the concept of "number" had never been created, in what sense are there "2" apples when you have an apple and another apple? Numbers are like the bunny in the cloud; they only exist as a linguistic system of convenience, they're not "out there" in the world. Mathematics is a language, and without a conscious mind, there is no language, and hence no numbers.

The language of the Piraha is interesting in this regard (read about the Piraha and their language here (http://www.jcrows.com/withoutnumbers.html), here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_people), and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_language)) in that their language completely lacks the concept of "numbers". There is no such thing as "one" or "two" in their language, and the Piraha people have been unable to learn even simple arithmetic (even 1+1=2). So, it would seem that the Piraha show that "number" is wholly linguistic, and not independent or a priori to learning the language of numbers.

[Philboid Studge]

Of course, I have my personal pet dichotomy between knowledge (thinking) and truth (feeling), between quantifiable things and qualifiable things. And, yes, I'm going to drag that pet point-of-view into this: As I've said before, the way I see it is that there is a difference between knowledge and belief - the former is based on facts, evidence, and can ultimately be expressed mathematically. The latter, simply, is not and cannot.
In my view, whether numbers can exist without a conscious mind or not is crucial to OC's dichotomy.

[Philboid Studge]

Of course, I have my personal pet dichotomy between knowledge (thinking) and truth (feeling), between quantifiable things and qualifiable things. And, yes, I'm going to drag that pet point-of-view into this: As I've said before, the way I see it is that there is a difference between knowledge and belief - the former is based on facts, evidence, and can ultimately be expressed mathematically. The latter, simply, is not and cannot.
In my view, whether numbers can exist without a conscious mind or not is crucial to OC's dichotomy.

[calpurnpiso]

Explain to me how the concept "2" exists outside of a conscious mind and I'll start listening to you.
Certainly "2" as a concept requires a concept processing mechanism. Any time a pair of similar objects appear in proximity to each other, they acquire the information attribute of being 2 things rather than just a thing and another thing. It doesn't need to be perceived to exist. This is why, at the logical extreme, the information itself does not require physical expression. It does imply, however, that "2" has no more importance or primacy than any other possible pattern of the configurable material or symbols. "00000000000010" is also a representation of "2". There is nothing spiritual or supernatural or even Platonic about the set of possible patterns in a system (material or not) consisting of a specific number of members each of which can have one of a specific number of states.
If the concept of "number" had never been created, in what sense are there "2" apples when you have an apple and another apple? Numbers are like the bunny in the cloud; they only exist as a linguistic system of convenience, they're not "out there" in the world. Mathematics is a language, and without a conscious mind, there is no language, and hence no numbers.

The language of the Piraha is interesting in this regard (read about the Piraha and their language here (http://www.jcrows.com/withoutnumbers.html), here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_people), and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_language)) in that their language completely lacks the concept of "numbers". There is no such thing as "one" or "two" in their language, and the Piraha people have been unable to learn even simple arithmetic (even 1+1=2). So, it would seem that the Piraha show that "number" is wholly linguistic, and not independent or a priori to learning the language of numbers.
Could this be because they do not let the brain rest , reboot and back-up the information learned, since they only sleep for two hours a day?..I think that's where the problem lies. The human brain needs rest....:)

[calpurnpiso]

Explain to me how the concept "2" exists outside of a conscious mind and I'll start listening to you.
Certainly "2" as a concept requires a concept processing mechanism. Any time a pair of similar objects appear in proximity to each other, they acquire the information attribute of being 2 things rather than just a thing and another thing. It doesn't need to be perceived to exist. This is why, at the logical extreme, the information itself does not require physical expression. It does imply, however, that "2" has no more importance or primacy than any other possible pattern of the configurable material or symbols. "00000000000010" is also a representation of "2". There is nothing spiritual or supernatural or even Platonic about the set of possible patterns in a system (material or not) consisting of a specific number of members each of which can have one of a specific number of states.
If the concept of "number" had never been created, in what sense are there "2" apples when you have an apple and another apple? Numbers are like the bunny in the cloud; they only exist as a linguistic system of convenience, they're not "out there" in the world. Mathematics is a language, and without a conscious mind, there is no language, and hence no numbers.

The language of the Piraha is interesting in this regard (read about the Piraha and their language here (http://www.jcrows.com/withoutnumbers.html), here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_people), and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_language)) in that their language completely lacks the concept of "numbers". There is no such thing as "one" or "two" in their language, and the Piraha people have been unable to learn even simple arithmetic (even 1+1=2). So, it would seem that the Piraha show that "number" is wholly linguistic, and not independent or a priori to learning the language of numbers.
Could this be because they do not let the brain rest , reboot and back-up the information learned, since they only sleep for two hours a day?..I think that's where the problem lies. The human brain needs rest....:)

[Rhinoqulous]

Of course, I have my personal pet dichotomy between knowledge (thinking) and truth (feeling), between quantifiable things and qualifiable things. And, yes, I'm going to drag that pet point-of-view into this: As I've said before, the way I see it is that there is a difference between knowledge and belief - the former is based on facts, evidence, and can ultimately be expressed mathematically. The latter, simply, is not and cannot.
In my view, whether numbers can exist without a conscious mind or not is crucial to OC's dichotomy.
OC is making a point about epistemology, while Stern and I are discussing the ontological status of numbers. So no, the existential status of numbers has nothing to do with OC's dichotomy (though I'll point out that one of the conditions for knowledge is belief in a particular statement of knowledge).

[Rhinoqulous]

Of course, I have my personal pet dichotomy between knowledge (thinking) and truth (feeling), between quantifiable things and qualifiable things. And, yes, I'm going to drag that pet point-of-view into this: As I've said before, the way I see it is that there is a difference between knowledge and belief - the former is based on facts, evidence, and can ultimately be expressed mathematically. The latter, simply, is not and cannot.
In my view, whether numbers can exist without a conscious mind or not is crucial to OC's dichotomy.
OC is making a point about epistemology, while Stern and I are discussing the ontological status of numbers. So no, the existential status of numbers has nothing to do with OC's dichotomy (though I'll point out that one of the conditions for knowledge is belief in a particular statement of knowledge).

[Philboid Studge]

Yet another distinction lost on me. You're the philosophy mogul and I defer on all matters of terminology, but both ontological and epistemological inquiries have implications for conceptions of reality. When you decide on the ontological question of whether numbers exist independently of minds, then OC should have to decide whether he's justified in making epistemological judgments vis a vis his knowledge claims -- specifically because his claims are reliant on numbers. No?

[Philboid Studge]

Yet another distinction lost on me. You're the philosophy mogul and I defer on all matters of terminology, but both ontological and epistemological inquiries have implications for conceptions of reality. When you decide on the ontological question of whether numbers exist independently of minds, then OC should have to decide whether he's justified in making epistemological judgments vis a vis his knowledge claims -- specifically because his claims are reliant on numbers. No?

[Rhinoqulous]

Yet another distinction lost on me. You're the philosophy mogul and I defer on all matters of terminology, but both ontological and epistemological inquiries have implications for conceptions of reality. When you decide on the ontological question of whether numbers exist independently of minds, then OC should have to decide whether he's justified in making epistemological judgments vis a vis his knowledge claims -- specifically because his claims are reliant on numbers. No?
I'm not sure what OC's theory actually is (could you point me to the thread?), but it seems his theory would be valid or not independently of the ontological existence of numbers. Whether "numbers" and "math" are constructs of language or exist independently and only instantiate in language is irrelevant to his theory; Stern and I are at the beginning of the road arguing about the nature of the road itself, OC's a few miles down from us worrying about the view. :P

[Rhinoqulous]

Yet another distinction lost on me. You're the philosophy mogul and I defer on all matters of terminology, but both ontological and epistemological inquiries have implications for conceptions of reality. When you decide on the ontological question of whether numbers exist independently of minds, then OC should have to decide whether he's justified in making epistemological judgments vis a vis his knowledge claims -- specifically because his claims are reliant on numbers. No?
I'm not sure what OC's theory actually is (could you point me to the thread?), but it seems his theory would be valid or not independently of the ontological existence of numbers. Whether "numbers" and "math" are constructs of language or exist independently and only instantiate in language is irrelevant to his theory; Stern and I are at the beginning of the road arguing about the nature of the road itself, OC's a few miles down from us worrying about the view. :P

[Tenspace]

If a photon strikes a calcite crystal, does the reaction not produce two photons? If Nature is the playing field, bounded by the universe, then whether there is a calculating device or not is irrelevant, right? Are brains or turing machines necessary for the existence of entanglement (in this case), or are they simply giving a name to an absolute pairing?

[Tenspace]

If a photon strikes a calcite crystal, does the reaction not produce two photons? If Nature is the playing field, bounded by the universe, then whether there is a calculating device or not is irrelevant, right? Are brains or turing machines necessary for the existence of entanglement (in this case), or are they simply giving a name to an absolute pairing?

[Rhinoqulous]

If a photon strikes a calcite crystal, does the reaction not produce two photons? If Nature is the playing field, bounded by the universe, then whether there is a calculating device or not is irrelevant, right? Are brains or turing machines necessary for the existence of entanglement (in this case), or are they simply giving a name to an absolute pairing?
Physics is a description of the universe, not an explanation, so entanglement (and the like) is a construct of language that is used out of convenience and may or may not have anything to do with reality. So no, the process we label "entanglement" is not dependant on a conscious mind, but the concept of "entanglement" is.

[Rhinoqulous]

If a photon strikes a calcite crystal, does the reaction not produce two photons? If Nature is the playing field, bounded by the universe, then whether there is a calculating device or not is irrelevant, right? Are brains or turing machines necessary for the existence of entanglement (in this case), or are they simply giving a name to an absolute pairing?
Physics is a description of the universe, not an explanation, so entanglement (and the like) is a construct of language that is used out of convenience and may or may not have anything to do with reality. So no, the process we label "entanglement" is not dependant on a conscious mind, but the concept of "entanglement" is.

[Sternwallow]

Explain to me how the concept "2" exists outside of a conscious mind and I'll start listening to you.
Certainly "2" as a concept requires a concept processing mechanism. Any time a pair of similar objects appear in proximity to each other, they acquire the information attribute of being 2 things rather than just a thing and another thing. It doesn't need to be perceived to exist. This is why, at the logical extreme, the information itself does not require physical expression. It does imply, however, that "2" has no more importance or primacy than any other possible pattern of the configurable material or symbols. "00000000000010" is also a representation of "2". There is nothing spiritual or supernatural or even Platonic about the set of possible patterns in a system (material or not) consisting of a specific number of members each of which can have one of a specific number of states.
If the concept of "number" had never been created, in what sense are there "2" apples when you have an apple and another apple? Numbers are like the bunny in the cloud; they only exist as a linguistic system of convenience, they're not "out there" in the world. Mathematics is a language, and without a conscious mind, there is no language, and hence no numbers.

The language of the Piraha is interesting in this regard (read about the Piraha and their language here (http://www.jcrows.com/withoutnumbers.html), here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_people), and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_language)) in that their language completely lacks the concept of "numbers". There is no such thing as "one" or "two" in their language, and the Piraha people have been unable to learn even simple arithmetic (even 1+1=2). So, it would seem that the Piraha show that "number" is wholly linguistic, and not independent or a priori to learning the language of numbers.
Oh, I want to barter with these people. "I'll give you this fine heavy coin for your flimsy engraved paper (ignore the funny squiggles)".

[Sternwallow]

Explain to me how the concept "2" exists outside of a conscious mind and I'll start listening to you.
Certainly "2" as a concept requires a concept processing mechanism. Any time a pair of similar objects appear in proximity to each other, they acquire the information attribute of being 2 things rather than just a thing and another thing. It doesn't need to be perceived to exist. This is why, at the logical extreme, the information itself does not require physical expression. It does imply, however, that "2" has no more importance or primacy than any other possible pattern of the configurable material or symbols. "00000000000010" is also a representation of "2". There is nothing spiritual or supernatural or even Platonic about the set of possible patterns in a system (material or not) consisting of a specific number of members each of which can have one of a specific number of states.
If the concept of "number" had never been created, in what sense are there "2" apples when you have an apple and another apple? Numbers are like the bunny in the cloud; they only exist as a linguistic system of convenience, they're not "out there" in the world. Mathematics is a language, and without a conscious mind, there is no language, and hence no numbers.

The language of the Piraha is interesting in this regard (read about the Piraha and their language here (http://www.jcrows.com/withoutnumbers.html), here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_people), and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_language)) in that their language completely lacks the concept of "numbers". There is no such thing as "one" or "two" in their language, and the Piraha people have been unable to learn even simple arithmetic (even 1+1=2). So, it would seem that the Piraha show that "number" is wholly linguistic, and not independent or a priori to learning the language of numbers.
Oh, I want to barter with these people. "I'll give you this fine heavy coin for your flimsy engraved paper (ignore the funny squiggles)".

[ocmpoma]

Actually, I don't think that my personal, coprighted Official Ocmpoma Dichotomy is completely tied up in the "concepts (especially number) only physical?" debate. The question certainly does have implications though, since if numbers are just as subjective as any other concept, the dichotomy vanishes. However, the dichotomy could survive a decision that concepts are physical: a number concept is still objective in that it does not rely on subjective, personal interpretation.

For example, postulate that humans are the only beings in existence at this point to have ever expressed the concept of number. Now let's assume that a large object smashes into Earth in the near future, eradicating all life. At some distant point in the future, another species arises which also eventually expresses the concept of number. This race also eventually detects some faint signals from Earth and learns about humanity, including about our own expressions of number. Regardless of the numbering system used, they would be able to identify, comprehend, and utilize our own mathematics. However, they would not be able to identify, comprehend, or utilize the concept of prostor, unless they received enough information to fully understand this Russian concept - and even then I doubt that they could grasp it as fully as a human native speaker of Russian could. Numbers are objective.

Now, as for the actual question of the non-physical existence of numbers and other concepts:
1) I really, really, wish I had my copy of Penrose's The Road to Reality, he has some very interesting things to say about numbers related to this discussion. But it's not handy right now. Oh well.
2) Taking my example above regarding number and prostor - in the intervening time between the extinction of humans and the birth of this new species, do the concepts cease to exist? Is their expression, storage, transmittal, etc. by means of thought and language the same as their existence? I realize that the existence of the radio waves, etc. are problematic, so let's tweak the example: humans die out before radio waves are transmitted - with the extinction of humanity, there is no stored record nor thoughts related to these concepts. Do they then cease to exist?
I personally don't really think so. I don't think that the expression of a concept (be it via storage, language, thought, etc.) is the same as a concept's very existence. However, that's a first inclination, and I'm going to have to think more about it as this discussion continues.

[ocmpoma]

Actually, I don't think that my personal, coprighted Official Ocmpoma Dichotomy is completely tied up in the "concepts (especially number) only physical?" debate. The question certainly does have implications though, since if numbers are just as subjective as any other concept, the dichotomy vanishes. However, the dichotomy could survive a decision that concepts are physical: a number concept is still objective in that it does not rely on subjective, personal interpretation.

For example, postulate that humans are the only beings in existence at this point to have ever expressed the concept of number. Now let's assume that a large object smashes into Earth in the near future, eradicating all life. At some distant point in the future, another species arises which also eventually expresses the concept of number. This race also eventually detects some faint signals from Earth and learns about humanity, including about our own expressions of number. Regardless of the numbering system used, they would be able to identify, comprehend, and utilize our own mathematics. However, they would not be able to identify, comprehend, or utilize the concept of prostor, unless they received enough information to fully understand this Russian concept - and even then I doubt that they could grasp it as fully as a human native speaker of Russian could. Numbers are objective.

Now, as for the actual question of the non-physical existence of numbers and other concepts:
1) I really, really, wish I had my copy of Penrose's The Road to Reality, he has some very interesting things to say about numbers related to this discussion. But it's not handy right now. Oh well.
2) Taking my example above regarding number and prostor - in the intervening time between the extinction of humans and the birth of this new species, do the concepts cease to exist? Is their expression, storage, transmittal, etc. by means of thought and language the same as their existence? I realize that the existence of the radio waves, etc. are problematic, so let's tweak the example: humans die out before radio waves are transmitted - with the extinction of humanity, there is no stored record nor thoughts related to these concepts. Do they then cease to exist?
I personally don't really think so. I don't think that the expression of a concept (be it via storage, language, thought, etc.) is the same as a concept's very existence. However, that's a first inclination, and I'm going to have to think more about it as this discussion continues.

[rayce]

you can't touch smell or taste an electron, but it's state of existance is quite well described by a wavefunction.
what if ur a midget?could you touch it then?what if he crouched?

[Tenspace]

you can't touch smell or taste an electron, but it's state of existance is quite well described by a wavefunction.
what if ur a midget?could you touch it then?what if he crouched?
Better yet, what about a midget fetus? In the fetal position? He could at least smell it, right?

[postbicameral]

It seems to me that the entire universe can be defined as either:

1) fully expanded (full entropy/heat death)
2) fully collapsed (Einstein's singularity)
3) On the way to either 1 or 2.

On the one end we have infinite time and infinite space, and on the other we have the complete lack of time and space. Both of these conditions are functionally equivalent; if the universe is "dead" and fully expanded, there would be nothing with any energy outside of it, and nothing moving inside of it to give it any context. It might as well be the singularity.

Also, let's say that because time and space are infinite, anything that can happen, will happen, and not only that, but everything that can happen will not only happen, but will happen an infinite number of times.

So what the hell does this mean? As the universe expands and contracts an infinite number of times, every piece of that universe would interact with every other piece an infinite number of times, and in an infinite number of fashions. This means that every piece of "information" that could exist, would exist, and in every possible form and an infinite number of times.

[evident_enigma]

Information is not necessarily subject to the laws of thermodynamics. Any information theory practitioners out there? Care to discuss the 1st law of thermodynamics regarding how it applies to information?
Speaking of Info, doesn't all 'information' require some sort of 'medium' or some such thing to be 'attatched' to?

ee

[postbicameral]

I think when I was writing before, the idea that I was coming from is that the universe itself, by its very nature, houses an infinite amount of information.

[Tenspace]

I think when I was writing before, the idea that I was coming from is that the universe itself, by its very nature, houses an infinite amount of information.
How could it? Even if information was represented at a fundamental, unary level, such as spin states of electrons, there is only a finite number of particles in the universe.

Infinity is a human concept.

[Tenspace]

Information is not necessarily subject to the laws of thermodynamics. Any information theory practitioners out there? Care to discuss the 1st law of thermodynamics regarding how it applies to information?
Speaking of Info, doesn't all 'information' require some sort of 'medium' or some such thing to be 'attatched' to?

ee
That's the nature of information... information about __________ (fill in the blank with whatever subsystem you're studying)

The medium may be subject to entropy and conservation, but what about the actual information gleaned from the measurement? Isn't it always subject to entropy, whether in someone's head, writtin on piece of paper or stored on a disc.... could the information even be considered existant without an analyst? Sounds quite anthropic to me.

Rhino, OC.. help me out here.... I'm confused.

[Rat Bastard]

Information is not necessarily subject to the laws of thermodynamics. Any information theory practitioners out there? Care to discuss the 1st law of thermodynamics regarding how it applies to information?
Speaking of Info, doesn't all 'information' require some sort of 'medium' or some such thing to be 'attatched' to?

ee
That's the nature of information... information about __________ (fill in the blank with whatever subsystem you're studying)

The medium may be subject to entropy and conservation, but what about the actual information gleaned from the measurement? Isn't it always subject to entropy, whether in someone's head, writtin on piece of paper or stored on a disc.... could the information even be considered existant without an analyst? Sounds quite anthropic to me.

Rhino, OC.. help me out here.... I'm confused.
Man, Ten, watchoo smokin' (or otherwise ingesting) today? If I was interested in consuming something to make me get into an altered state, whatever you are using would be the ticket.

[postbicameral]

I think when I was writing before, the idea that I was coming from is that the universe itself, by its very nature, houses an infinite amount of information.
How could it? Even if information was represented at a fundamental, unary level, such as spin states of electrons, there is only a finite number of particles in the universe.

Infinity is a human concept.
If we speak of the universe as never have been created (it was always here), than infinity is more than just a concept. True, it is a concept when we hang the word "infinity" on it, but the reality of it is still there.

The point I was making before is that information is stored exactly where you would expect it to be. In people's heads, on hard drives and newspapers. In unobserved phenomena and obscure analogies. These things are products of an eternal universe, and because the universe never began, nor will it end, these things will always be products of it, and in some way, shape, or form will always be part of it.

[ocmpoma]

"Sounds quite anthropic to me."

Here's (http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/03/introduction-to-information-theory.html) a bit about IT and Entropy - it's not the same entropy. (Found the blog via Pharyngula, by the way.)

As I said before, I'm still thinking about the physical existence of a concept... I've dug my copy of The Road to Reality (Penrose, 1st Am. Ed.) out of the moving boxees and here is a snippet on the existence of numbers (Penrose talks througout the book about "three worlds", one of which is a "Platonic world" - it's very, very interesting stuff and I highly recommend the opening parts of the book to everyone, regardless of their interest in physics and math, because of it):The point that I wish to make is that no one, not even Benoit Mendelbrot himself when he first caught sight of the incredible complications in the fine details of the set (the Mandelbrot Set (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandlebrot_set) -oc), had any real preconception of the set's extraordinary richness. The Mandelbrot set was certainly no invention of any human mind. The set is just objectively there in the mathematics itself. If it has meaning to assign an actual existence to the Mandelbrot set, then that existence is not within our minds, for no one can fully comprehend the set's endless variety and unlimited complication. Nor can its existence lie within the multitude of computer printouts that begin to capture some of its incredible sophistication and detail, for at best those printouts capture but a shadow of an approximation to the set itself. Yet it has a robustness that is beyond any doubt; for the same structure is revealed - in all its perceivable details, to greater and greater fineness the more closely it is examined - independently of the mathematician or computer that examines it. Its existence can only be within the Platonic world of mathematical forms.

[evident_enigma]

Information is not necessarily subject to the laws of thermodynamics. Any information theory practitioners out there? Care to discuss the 1st law of thermodynamics regarding how it applies to information?
Speaking of Info, doesn't all 'information' require some sort of 'medium' or some such thing to be 'attatched' to?

ee
That's the nature of information... information about __________ (fill in the blank with whatever subsystem you're studying)

The medium may be subject to entropy and conservation, but what about the actual information gleaned from the measurement? Isn't it always subject to entropy, whether in someone's head, writtin on piece of paper or stored on a disc.... could the information even be considered existant without an analyst? Sounds quite anthropic to me.

Rhino, OC.. help me out here.... I'm confused.
Maybe "information" is a biproduct of sentient things trying to make sense of other things...:/



E_E

[postbicameral]

I guess too, after thinking about it for awhile, that the amount of information in the universe would be finite, because there is a finite number of ways that things could interact. Ultimately though, the universe in its entirety would have to be closed system (or else we wouldn't have included something that we should have), which would mean that these finite interactions would occur an infinite number of times, or rather the same "information" would be expressed a zillion different ways.

I remember reading some Robert Pirsig books (you know'em, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Lila) when I was a kid, he seemed to be obsessed with finding that original "piece of information" that governs everything. In Lila, he arrives at the idea of "Force and Form" or "Static vs. Dynamic". I don't know, those books were boring... he should have just called it "Yin and Yang" and pointed us to another book...



EDIT: I'm always screwing up these tags...

[Philboid Studge]

"Sounds quite anthropic to me."

Here's (http://goodmath.blogspot.com/2006/03/introduction-to-information-theory.html) a bit about IT and Entropy - it's not the same entropy. (Found the blog via Pharyngula, by the way.)

As I said before, I'm still thinking about the physical existence of a concept... I've dug my copy of The Road to Reality (Penrose, 1st Am. Ed.) out of the moving boxees and here is a snippet on the existence of numbers (Penrose talks througout the book about "three worlds", one of which is a "Platonic world" - it's very, very interesting stuff and I highly recommend the opening parts of the book to everyone, regardless of their interest in physics and math, because of it):The point that I wish to make is that no one, not even Benoit Mendelbrot himself when he first caught sight of the incredible complications in the fine details of the set (the Mandelbrot Set (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandlebrot_set) -oc), had any real preconception of the set's extraordinary richness. The Mandelbrot set was certainly no invention of any human mind. The set is just objectively there in the mathematics itself. If it has meaning to assign an actual existence to the Mandelbrot set, then that existence is not within our minds, for no one can fully comprehend the set's endless variety and unlimited complication. Nor can its existence lie within the multitude of computer printouts that begin to capture some of its incredible sophistication and detail, for at best those printouts capture but a shadow of an approximation to the set itself. Yet it has a robustness that is beyond any doubt; for the same structure is revealed - in all its perceivable details, to greater and greater fineness the more closely it is examined - independently of the mathematician or computer that examines it. Its existence can only be within the Platonic world of mathematical forms.

I'm just getting my teeth into a book (Where Mathematics Comes From, (Lakoff & Núñez) that I think challenges much of this Penrose passage.
E.g., "All mathematical knowledge that we have or can have is knowledge within human mathematics. There is no way to know whether theorems proved by human mathematics have any objective truth, external to human beings or any other beings. The question of the existence of a Platonic mathematics cannot be addressed scientifically [emphasis theirs]. At best, it can only be a matter of faith, much like faith in God." [emphasis mine](p.2) "Human mathematics cannot be a part of a transcendent Platonic mathematics, if such exists." (p.4)

They would take issue with the statement, "The Mandelbrot set was certainly no invention of any human mind." I'm pretty sure that Lakoff and Núñez would chalk up the Mandelbrot set to just another abstraction that humans deal with as a metaphorical concept, and is no different than trying to wrap one's brain around any infinite set, albeit with more complexity. (No one could ever 'fully comprehend' pi either.)

I for one would like to hear Penrose demonstrate the last part of this statement: "Yet it has a robustness that is beyond any doubt; for the same structure is revealed - in all its perceivable details, to greater and greater fineness the more closely it is examined - independently of the mathematician or computer that examines it."

As I say I just started L & N's book, but I'll keep you abreast. (non-lactating)

[Bighead]

"Can any of you think of something that doesn't have any physcial properties, or can' be measured that exists?"

Concepts:
Freedom, hatred, courage, rudeness, простор...
I hate you for making me look that up

[Choobus]

I think when I was writing before, the idea that I was coming from is that the universe itself, by its very nature, houses an infinite amount of information.
you're getting your infinities mixed up. What type of infinity are you ascribing to this information?. An infinite universe makes no sense at all.

[calpurnpiso]

" Is existance a physical property?"

Of course since it is composed of atoms and atoms create the illusions that confuse so many believing they are real!. So existence is nothing more than physical...:cool:

[postbicameral]

I think when I was writing before, the idea that I was coming from is that the universe itself, by its very nature, houses an infinite amount of information.
you're getting your infinities mixed up. What type of infinity are you ascribing to this information?. An infinite universe makes no sense at all.
You're prolly right Choobus, I was kind of hashing this whole thing out as I was writing it... I think when I said infinite universe, I meant infinite in the sense that it did not simply pop out of nothingness, and will not pop back into nothingness (infinitely existing, as the ultimate closed system). I actually went back a couple posts later later and said that the universe itself is finite, and as such the products of the universe are finite.

[Choobus]

fair enough los pepes.

[postbicameral]

fair enough los pepes.
My background is computer science, not physics. It kind of frustrates me sometimes because I read a lot about this stuff, and make a sincere effort to sort it out in my head, but I know that there are concepts and words out there that much better suite what I'm trying to communicate. I also know that I fall short in a few (probably key) areas.

But on the other hand, when Oz starts slingin propositional logic, it makes me smile. It's nice to know that I sat through those classes for something...