Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Russell E. Rierson · 12-25-2002, 06:39 PM

"Reality at Resonance" is my initial hypothesis, resulting from the research of various physics topics, and "chaos theory".

The phenomena of "stochastic resonance" tentatively confirms my hypothesis. Also, possibly in agreement with the CTMU of Chris Langan.

<a href="http://mathworld.wolfram.com/StochasticResonance.html" target="_blank">http://mathworld.wolfram.com/StochasticResonance.html</a>

Quote:

A stochastic resonance is a phenomenon in which a nonlinear system is subjected to a periodic modulated signal so weak as to be normally undetectable, but it becomes detectable due to resonance between the weak deterministic signal and stochastic noise. The earliest definition of stochastic resonance was the maximum of the output signal strength as a function of noise (Bulsara and Gammaitoni 1996).

Adrian Selby · 12-27-2002, 12:34 AM

what information is transduced by rocks?

how do you know rocks transduce information. I thought information was what a conscious system processed from data, commonly at least. Do you differentiate between data and information. Information has meaning. Do rocks process things meaningfully?

I think the way you use the word information needs elucidation as it appears to be quite at variance with more common usage.

excreationist · 12-27-2002, 05:49 AM

Russell E. Rierson:
I agree with Adrian Selby's statement that "Information has meaning". In other words, it represents something - something that is probably totally unrelated to the medium it is stored or travelling on. e.g. shapes (letters) on some paper or air vibrations (speech) can represent many different things.
Some quotes from some links:
from http://ijgj229.infj.ulst.ac.uk/Bills...hatisinfo.html

Quote:

...The apparent confusion over the nature of information has probably been exacerbated through the use of the term by communication engineers. To them, information is used to denote a mathematical concept related to the transmission of electrical or optical signals through some medium, and of the capacity of media for carrying such signals. They are not concerned with any notion of these signals containing any 'meaning', which is something we would associate with information in the everyday sense of the word....

...information technology can help (or hinder) with the storage, retrieval, processing and transmission of information. [can rocks do that?]

...In everyday use it probably doesn't matter if the terms are used interchangeably and the meaning will usually be understood. Sometimes, however, people may use one of the terms in a more specific manner, where they might consider it important that a distinction be perceived between, say, data and information. Many texts on simple databases, for example, make such a distinction when they might include a definition such as :

"Information is produced when data are processed so that they are placed within some context in order to convey meaning to a recipient."

The idea here is that the term data refers to a collection of text labels (such as names) and/or figures which, by themselves, may not convey any meaning. The necessity of context is emphasised if one is to 'understand the meaning' of the data. In the case of a simple database (ie a table with rows and columns containing text or figures) one needs to know the meaning of the field names, and know something about the kind of entity (eg pupils, customers, stock items, or whatever) to which the fields of data refer before one can make any sense of the data contained within the database. If this context is not known, or is perceived differently by different people, or if a different context is given to different people, then there are going to be several alternative interpretations (none, some or all of which may be 'true') placed on the data.....

from http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cogn/CognChmi.htm

Quote:

....The fundamental feature of animate systems (which are all informational systems) is their ability to discriminate and select. From single cells to plants to animals and human beings the behavior of animate systems depends on what they can discriminate, be it the concentration of certain substances, or the magnitude of physical parameters like temperature, humidity, or shape. What counts here is thus some detected difference between things that can be distinguished by a system. "Difference" and "detection" are thus two key words in our enterprise of grasping what information is. Information is, roughly speaking, any detected difference. (1)

To arrive at a more precise definition I shall define some auxiliary concepts as follows:

Collection = a spatiotemporally ordered (and thus taken in a collective, rather than a distributive sense) subset of any set, whose elements can be repeated in the collection many times. (2)

Alphabet = a set of physical states which can be realized in, and discriminated by, some system. (3)

Code = an alphabet's collection realized somewhere in the system (=the inner code). Also � any collection of physical states outside the system which can be transformed into the first one or into which the first one can be transformed (=the outer code). (4)

Repertoire = a set of differences in code which can be detected by the system. (5)

And finally,

Information = a repertoire's collection detected somewhere within the system.

...The three types of information � parainformation, structural information and metainformation � emerged stepwise during the evolutionary process, which started with organisms able to handle parainformation only (cells, multicellular organisms, plants, primitive animals), then developed creatures able to deal with structural information (more advanced animals like insects, with central nervous system but without plastic memory yet), and finally produced creatures capable of making use of metainformation (of which a prerequisite is having a RAM-type memory)....

Anyway, I don't think that two particles interacting involves information... (and a rock is just like one big particle). Many particles could be used to make up a larger system that does process information though. It's kind of like how a tube is made out of atoms but one or two atoms aren't a tube...
But as the first link said, communication engineers can call signals "information"... though remember that these signals are encoded and decoded by information processing systems such as computers and people... when they decode (or manipulate or transform) the signals they use an internal system that tells them what the signals represent - e.g. in DNA, the triplets of basepairs represent one of 20 amino acids (I think). There would be some kind of "dictionary" that detects and classifies the basepair input and then it sends a message for the appropriate amino acid to be created. And those mechanisms are above simple physics - like a simple collision with a rock. When a rock is hit by something it doesn't have a "dictionary" about what courses of action it should take in each instance... the rules of the universe work it out... the rock doesn't really...

Russell E. Rierson · 12-27-2002, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Anyway, I don't think that two particles interacting involves information... (and a rock is just like one big particle). Many particles could be used to make up a larger system that does process information though. It's kind of like how a tube is made out of atoms but one or two atoms aren't a tube...
But as the first link said, communication engineers can call signals "information"... though remember that these signals are encoded and decoded by information processing systems such as computers and people... when they decode (or manipulate or transform) the signals they use an internal system that tells them what the signals represent - e.g. in DNA, the triplets of basepairs represent one of 20 amino acids (I think). There would be some kind of "dictionary" that detects and classifies the basepair input and then it sends a message for the appropriate amino acid to be created. And those mechanisms are above simple physics - like a simple collision with a rock. When a rock is hit by something it doesn't have a "dictionary" about what courses of action it should take in each instance... the rules of the universe work it out... the rock doesn't really...

:banghead:

Yes, the universe is an information processing system. Time is a process of bifurication. The rock being a subprocessor.

This is not Biblical creation.

DNA ia the basis for all life on Earth. It has a double helix structure, similar to a spiral staircase. The two strands of the double helix structure are linked by pairs of bases. There are four bases in DNA: adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine. The order in which they occur along the double helix carries the genetic information that enables DNA to assemble an organism around it. As it makes copies of itself, there are occasional errors in the proportion or order of bases along the double helix-spiral. These errors for the most part make the DNA less likely to reproduce itself such that these "mutations" will die out. But sometimes there are a few cases the mutation will increase the chances of the DNA surviving and reproducing.

Such changes in the genetic code will be favored.

This is how the DNA information "evolves" and increases complexity.

This process of increasing information has been very slow. But now we have the information age , with written language.

The process of evolution will be accelerated.

Russ

Russell E. Rierson · 12-27-2002, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Adrian Selby
what information is transduced by rocks?

how do you know rocks transduce information. I thought information was what a conscious system processed from data, commonly at least. Do you differentiate between data and information. Information has meaning. Do rocks process things meaningfully?

I think the way you use the word information needs elucidation as it appears to be quite at variance with more common usage.

:banghead: :boohoo: :banghead:

To you information apparently means: abstract symbols interpreted by a human mind.

Information relates to the structure of a thing. Any non-random structure represents some information. A leaf or a footprint in the sand contains information. The more complex its structure, the more information a thing contains. Structure is the objective dimension of information.

Like you say, the human concept of information has a subjective dimension, which raises the question of information content and what is the meaning of this content to "us".

Since information has both an objective and subjective dimension, it probably holds the key to the "mind-body" problem? Subjectively we are aware of our own thoughts, perceptions, understandings and all actions which have an information content.

Objectively, the neural wiring of our brains can process information similarly to the microchips within a computer, can be said to process information.

Reality is the processing of information, in this basic sense.

The question then becomes: "Is reality also a conscious entity?"

Russ

Adrian Selby · 12-27-2002, 01:11 PM

How do you get from brains processing information to reality processing information. This is your category mistake again. I can see how you're using the term, thanks for the elucidation, but as with consciousness, because there are instances of information being processed, and these instances could be, in your view, spread across the universe, it does not follow that the universe itself is processing information.

It's possible brains process data, and act according to how the brain interprets that data. It does not process information as such. Information is subjective in the sense that it is derived from data. This is a subjective process in things that get data and manipulate the data according to a set of 'values'.

I am not sure how to proceed with regard to the usage of the terms data and information in our posts. It is hard to conclude that one is more right than another, yet both have ramifications for either.

I'm curious, what information does a footprint in the sand contain?

Keith Russell · 12-27-2002, 02:38 PM

Adrian:

The accuracy of your response hinges upon your use of the words 'information' and 'data'.

I generally use the words as near-exact synonyms, though I suppose they need not be used thus.

What, IYO, is the essential characteristic that determines whether something should be called 'data' or 'information'?

Keith.

excreationist · 12-27-2002, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Russell E. Rierson
....The question then becomes: "Is reality also a conscious entity?"...

You said earlier "there are different "levels" of consciousness." So for you, a rock reacting to a collision would have a lower level of "consciousness" than a philosopher.
BTW, would you say that a totally brain-dead person on life-support is "conscious"? The cells that make up their body would still be alive and some larger parts of their body might still be functioning properly...
What about parts of the universe that are unobserved by any lifeforms that just contain things like rocks? I guess you'd say they are "conscious" - they have a very low level of consciousness (they react to collisions, etc). I would agree with that. You should be pointing out whether you are talking about "high level consciousness" or "low level consciousness" - if you just call them by the same name (consciousness) it implies that rocks have a consciousness kind of like humans or animals (e.g. they have thoughts, etc).

Russell E. Rierson · 12-27-2002, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by excreationist
You said earlier "there are different "levels" of consciousness." So for you, a rock reacting to a collision would have a lower level of "consciousness" than a philosopher.
BTW, would you say that a totally brain-dead person on life-support is "conscious"? The cells that make up their body would still be alive and some larger parts of their body might still be functioning properly...
What about parts of the universe that are unobserved by any lifeforms that just contain things like rocks? I guess you'd say they are "conscious" - they have a very low level of consciousness (they react to collisions, etc). I would agree with that. You should be pointing out whether you are talking about "high level consciousness" or "low level consciousness" - if you just call them by the same name (consciousness) it implies that rocks have a consciousness kind of like humans or animals (e.g. they have thoughts, etc).

Good point excreationist. I was trying to think of consciousness in general terms I suppose, analogous to how the equation for energy is
E= mc^2

Similar also to a resonating ubiquitous field, though I admit it could be a leap in reasoning to do so.

Russ

Adrian Selby · 12-28-2002, 01:22 AM

Well Keith, an example would be a database. It contains lots of data, e.g. names addresses, job specs, salary details and so on.

Information is what you extract from all this data depending on your purpose. The data itself isn't information, a person (in this example) needs information and all or part of the data is 'informational' only insofar as there is a purpose required of it. On its own its just a list of words and numbers. It is not information as such, it or components of it become information depending on the who or what's needs and values in relation to it.

Aside from this, I still have these category problems with Russell's position, interesting though it is. I'm all for explanations of the universe that make sense that don't invoke a God, however, if it has any identification with Langan's idea (and this might be mischaracterised) that the universe instantiated itself, well, I'm not at all sure about that. Perhaps the universe was instantiated, perhaps its eternal, but there being an 'it' before the 'it' exists seems a little odd to me.

What does your explanation of reality have to say about its own origin Russ?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-27-2002, 12:34 AM	#22
Adrian Selby Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Farnham, UK Posts: 859	what information is transduced by rocks? how do you know rocks transduce information. I thought information was what a conscious system processed from data, commonly at least. Do you differentiate between data and information. Information has meaning. Do rocks process things meaningfully? I think the way you use the word information needs elucidation as it appears to be quite at variance with more common usage.

12-27-2002, 01:11 PM	#26
Adrian Selby Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Farnham, UK Posts: 859	How do you get from brains processing information to reality processing information. This is your category mistake again. I can see how you're using the term, thanks for the elucidation, but as with consciousness, because there are instances of information being processed, and these instances could be, in your view, spread across the universe, it does not follow that the universe itself is processing information. It's possible brains process data, and act according to how the brain interprets that data. It does not process information as such. Information is subjective in the sense that it is derived from data. This is a subjective process in things that get data and manipulate the data according to a set of 'values'. I am not sure how to proceed with regard to the usage of the terms data and information in our posts. It is hard to conclude that one is more right than another, yet both have ramifications for either. I'm curious, what information does a footprint in the sand contain?

12-27-2002, 02:38 PM	#27
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Adrian: The accuracy of your response hinges upon your use of the words 'information' and 'data'. I generally use the words as near-exact synonyms, though I suppose they need not be used thus. What, IYO, is the essential characteristic that determines whether something should be called 'data' or 'information'? Keith.

12-28-2002, 01:22 AM	#30
Adrian Selby Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Farnham, UK Posts: 859	Well Keith, an example would be a database. It contains lots of data, e.g. names addresses, job specs, salary details and so on. Information is what you extract from all this data depending on your purpose. The data itself isn't information, a person (in this example) needs information and all or part of the data is 'informational' only insofar as there is a purpose required of it. On its own its just a list of words and numbers. It is not information as such, it or components of it become information depending on the who or what's needs and values in relation to it. Aside from this, I still have these category problems with Russell's position, interesting though it is. I'm all for explanations of the universe that make sense that don't invoke a God, however, if it has any identification with Langan's idea (and this might be mischaracterised) that the universe instantiated itself, well, I'm not at all sure about that. Perhaps the universe was instantiated, perhaps its eternal, but there being an 'it' before the 'it' exists seems a little odd to me. What does your explanation of reality have to say about its own origin Russ?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.