4 ms·

I’ve always hated the use of the word “information” in relation to things like spin. Information and order are effects of human perception and preference. They

by BirAdam 3mo ago

I’ve always hated the use of the word “information” in relation to things like spin. Information and order are effects of human perception and preference. They exist as abstractions in the mind and not in reality.

ChrisGreenHeur 3mo ago
Best way to show this is to implement information in multiple physical substrates. Make a book out of paper and make it out of clay. Same information. The physical substrate doesn’t matter.
- lmpdev 3mo ago
  A parallel concept to this is from functionalism/theory of mind in Philosophy is that of Multiple Realisability
rdtsc 3mo ago
It’s not as simple as for example degrees of freedom and the states for a system is “information” and those one can argue are physical.
voidhorse 3mo ago
This. I'll never understand people who reify "information" as though it is some object with independent existence from man. No information without an interpretation. The "amount" of information is completely dependent on the observer. You'd think people who work constantly with abstraction wouldn't fall prey to reifying abstractions but they actually seem more susceptible to it than anyone else.
- aeonik 3mo ago
  I think you are prematurely dismissing something deeper here. The more I learn about the fundamental nature of the electron, probability in quantum mechanics, and the wave function in general... the more information being fundamental substrate makes sense. I'm not saying it is... just that it makes more sense the deeper you get.
  - voidhorse 3mo ago
    Yeah, but my point is that "information" is not really a substantive concept. It is an abstraction. It is a useful technical tool. For the record, I am a nominalist when it comes to mathematics. Thinking that information is some "real thing" with meaning independent of theoretical context and interpreters is a definitely Platonisist perspective (the idea that our mathematical representations are not merely useful technical models but that they correspond to some real substantive elements of the real). Claiming that "information" is the underlying basis of the real is the same as effectively saying that "stuff" is the underlying basis of existence. It's essentially Platonism. It is not informative. What is informative is the operational use of the mathematical concept of information as defined by Shannon to understand real things or to structure theories. But this is a very different thing than identifying a substance that exists, independently of us in the universe. This "making real" of what is ultimately a mathematical abstraction is precisely reification.
    - pegasus 3mo ago
      This stance is very tempting because it appears so straightforward and no-nonsense. But there are issues which undermine it in my mind. Because, at a closer inspection, it itself doesn't seem informative, in the end coming down to a question of semantics, i.e. how we define the word "reality". Which then determines whether it encompasses the realm of mathematics or not. I wonder what definition you favor, but the language you use points towards something like "the totality of all things" or "everything that's made from a physical substance". Yet platonists and other realists wouldn't argue that numbers are made from a substance as you imply. Physical reality is a slippery thing. Yes, at the level of our daily life it all seems very solid and obvious, but inspecting that foundation revealed a bewildering world of relativity and uncertainty. And one of the most intriguing ways out of this bewilderment seems to be the "it from bit" trend in physics, which makes information the fundamental reality. I personally don't feel the need to tie the notion of reality to physical phenomena. I prefer something more along the lines of Philip K. Dick's "reality is that which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it", or, as you put it, "something which exists independently of us". The fact that there are an infinite number of primes, is such a fact. Surely any alien civilization would know this fact. Maths doesn't go away when we look away, and neither does the notion of computation. Sure, Turing machines are a human construct, and there can be others as well. But the Church-Turing thesis speaks about how these constructs all ultimately describe the same underlying reality.
abc123abc123 3mo ago
This is the way. But what is interesting to contemplate is _why_ smart people try to reinvent religion. I think it reflects their deep need for meaning and immortality. Religion in the naive sense, a bunch of stories, myths and bearded gods, if obviously silly and childish. The modern rationalist who has not managed to shed his reflex/need for religion, then reifies (or perhaps better said... "deifies") information, and thus introduces all kinds of potential immortality and an ideal realm. Just like the myths of religion did, in a more naive sense, since time immemorial.
Robotbeat 3mo ago
Landauer’s Principle (a direct consequence of the Second Law of thermodynamics) shows there’s a very clear physical manifestation of information and information theory, it is not just human perception and preference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer's_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer's_principle

by BirAdam 3mo ago

ChrisGreenHeur 3mo ago

Best way to show this is to implement information in multiple physical substrates. Make a book out of paper and make it out of clay. Same information. The physical substrate doesn’t matter.

lmpdev 3mo ago
A parallel concept to this is from functionalism/theory of mind in Philosophy is that of Multiple Realisability

rdtsc 3mo ago

It’s not as simple as for example degrees of freedom and the states for a system is “information” and those one can argue are physical.

voidhorse 3mo ago

This. I'll never understand people who reify "information" as though it is some object with independent existence from man. No information without an interpretation. The "amount" of information is completely dependent on the observer. You'd think people who work constantly with abstraction wouldn't fall prey to reifying abstractions but they actually seem more susceptible to it than anyone else.

aeonik 3mo ago
I think you are prematurely dismissing something deeper here. The more I learn about the fundamental nature of the electron, probability in quantum mechanics, and the wave function in general... the more information being fundamental substrate makes sense. I'm not saying it is... just that it makes more sense the deeper you get.
- voidhorse 3mo ago
  Yeah, but my point is that "information" is not really a substantive concept. It is an abstraction. It is a useful technical tool. For the record, I am a nominalist when it comes to mathematics. Thinking that information is some "real thing" with meaning independent of theoretical context and interpreters is a definitely Platonisist perspective (the idea that our mathematical representations are not merely useful technical models but that they correspond to some real substantive elements of the real). Claiming that "information" is the underlying basis of the real is the same as effectively saying that "stuff" is the underlying basis of existence. It's essentially Platonism. It is not informative. What is informative is the operational use of the mathematical concept of information as defined by Shannon to understand real things or to structure theories. But this is a very different thing than identifying a substance that exists, independently of us in the universe. This "making real" of what is ultimately a mathematical abstraction is precisely reification.
  - pegasus 3mo ago
    This stance is very tempting because it appears so straightforward and no-nonsense. But there are issues which undermine it in my mind. Because, at a closer inspection, it itself doesn't seem informative, in the end coming down to a question of semantics, i.e. how we define the word "reality". Which then determines whether it encompasses the realm of mathematics or not. I wonder what definition you favor, but the language you use points towards something like "the totality of all things" or "everything that's made from a physical substance". Yet platonists and other realists wouldn't argue that numbers are made from a substance as you imply. Physical reality is a slippery thing. Yes, at the level of our daily life it all seems very solid and obvious, but inspecting that foundation revealed a bewildering world of relativity and uncertainty. And one of the most intriguing ways out of this bewilderment seems to be the "it from bit" trend in physics, which makes information the fundamental reality. I personally don't feel the need to tie the notion of reality to physical phenomena. I prefer something more along the lines of Philip K. Dick's "reality is that which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it", or, as you put it, "something which exists independently of us". The fact that there are an infinite number of primes, is such a fact. Surely any alien civilization would know this fact. Maths doesn't go away when we look away, and neither does the notion of computation. Sure, Turing machines are a human construct, and there can be others as well. But the Church-Turing thesis speaks about how these constructs all ultimately describe the same underlying reality.

abc123abc123 3mo ago

This is the way. But what is interesting to contemplate is _why_ smart people try to reinvent religion. I think it reflects their deep need for meaning and immortality. Religion in the naive sense, a bunch of stories, myths and bearded gods, if obviously silly and childish. The modern rationalist who has not managed to shed his reflex/need for religion, then reifies (or perhaps better said... "deifies") information, and thus introduces all kinds of potential immortality and an ideal realm. Just like the myths of religion did, in a more naive sense, since time immemorial.

Robotbeat 3mo ago

Landauer’s Principle (a direct consequence of the Second Law of thermodynamics) shows there’s a very clear physical manifestation of information and information theory, it is not just human perception and preference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer's_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer's_principle