|
Author
|
Topic: Information really is matter/energy
|
Chronos
Member
Member # 693
|
posted 17. May 2003 23:14
As a general definition, we can conclude that information is either one of, or a collection of, facts, items or ideas, from which conclusions may be drawn.
Information has so inundated the new millennium that never before in our history have we experienced a trend of this magnitude:
One Sunday edition of the New York Times contains more information than was encountered in an entire lifetime in the 16th century.
In one week today the average person is faced with more decisions than they would have had to make in a lifetime in the 17th Century.
Information is doubling every 12 months.
We can catalog this concept into three categories. 1.) Passive information that is just there and is happened upon by an observer. Passive information can be as simple as a pebble lying beside the roadway. The existence of nothing more complicated than a rock is information? Yes, because it conveys meaning to the observer that something is lying by the roadway and that something is a pebble. When one discovers the pebble, they observe this information and record it into their memory.
2.) There is also active information. This is information that is formulated in such a way as to be useful when passed around as communication: computer bits and bytes, Morse code, flag signals, language and smoke signals as used by American Indians in the 1880s.
3.) When information is compiled and organized, it can be used by an organism for understanding, logic or completion of a task and it becomes known as knowledge.
This type of information is utilized in the form of intelligence: a. the intellect or astuteness of the mind. b. The ability to recognize and understand qualities and attributes of the physical world and of mankind. c. The ability to solve problems and engage in abstract thought processes.
When the human mind chooses to form a logical conclusion it gathers the facts relative to the conclusion it wishes to draw and then will examine each piece of this information to determine the veracity and applicability to the conclusion. If the information is judged to be true and holds value to draw that conclusion, the mind then does so. This conclusion then becomes new information to that organism.
This is, in fact, what logic is all about. When we look at a syllogism such as P1: All dogs are brown, P2: Spot is a dog, Conc: Spot is brown; we understand that if the premises are true then so is the conclusion and that conclusion can then be passed on as new information to another syllogism to be used as a premise.
Most of us use the terminology: information and knowledge, interchangeably. To be precise, this is incorrect but it seems to work for non-technical conversations. It is important that we understand the sometimes subtle differences between the three categories of information.
All categories of information can be considered as simple or complex. Even passive information can be simple or complex dependant on if it is a simple pebble lying on the side of the road or a hundred and fifty pebbles laid out in the shape of a Christmas tree.
Just to have some fun, let's toy with information to see if we can contrast the differences and similarities with the other two mega quantities in our universe, matter and energy.
Let's relate information directly to matter: We can look at our old friend H2O. In one structure, water is a liquid. But if we change the surrounding conditions it can become a solid. Change the conditions again, and H2O becomes a gas. But throughout these changes the basic compound remains the same. Only the conditions change. This seems similar to the way information is constructed: three separate categories, yet all being one entity: information.
Could we go so far as to muse: 'Is information tied to energy and matter much like energy is tied directly to matter?' Please remember that Einstein stated that matter and energy are the same entity and tied them together with the formula relating energy to the mass of matter: E = MC^2, where E is energy, M is the mass of matter, and C is the speed of light.
Information certainly seems to act like matter in our physical world. It has a tendency to go from concentrated------->diffused just as energy does.
If I light a match in my bedroom, the heat energy from that flame will not stay near the match, it will diffuse throughout the room as it seeks equilibrium. A bag of marbles will diffuse from a busted bag in which they were concentrated and a glass of water will always diffuse when I spill it.
Information is very similar in that when Longfellow composed a poem, he placed that information on a single document and if that single document were viewed as a single source of information, that information has one microstate.
But as that information is passed to different people along a population channel, the number of microstates, with one microstate being equated with every single person through which this information diffuses, increase dramatically.
Diffusion ---> concentration ----->diffusion is the very purpose of Dan Rather's newscast. The reporters go around the world to gather information, then concentrate it in the mind of Dan Rather or on a teleprompter in front of him and he then diffuses it around the world again.
This information goes through more diffusion as people begin to talk about what was on the six o'clock news the previous evening.
When we hark back to the days of Ludwig Boltzman we can see information directly relating to matter/energy. Boltzmann is famous in the field of thermodymanics for introducing the formula S = K log W into the field; where S is the thermodynamic entropy of a given system, K is Boltzmann's constant, 1.38 x 10^-23 and W is the number of microstates of the system (concentration/diffusion of atoms).
And what did Boltzmann term this new entropy he came up with? He stated that entropy (disorder) is the opposite of information. A rather strange definition at first consideration but when we examine it closely, we can see that Boltzmann was indeed the great thinker he has the reputation of being.
I've already shown that the pebble I found beside the road is information. Is an atom, then, information?
Of course. Because when I examine them under an electron microscope I can grasp meaning that there is an atom there and I will file that fact into my memory.
I believe that Boltzmann was very aware that the atoms in his system were information and as this information diffuses from a state of concentration, the entropy of the system must increase and it does.
If I have 150 microstates in my system then I can figure the entropy of that system. S = K log W, however I’m going to change that formula as is commonly done today in thermodynamics to S = K ln(W). S = 1.38 x 10^-23 ln(150) = S = 6.914676705 -23 and we have a higher entropy of matter when we compare our number back to the constant.
But this is how we also calculate the diffusing of information and if I view those atoms as information rather than matter, this information will diffuse exactly the same and I will get exactly the same entropy for my information.
Hmmmm...it looks to me that information IS matter. And can you think of information that is not matter? I can't. My pebble is matter, my atom is matter, the chalk on the blackboard that communicates that information to me is matter, the ink on the paper of Longfellow's poem was matter, the information stored on my computer chips I am seeing on my computer monitor while I'm typing is matter, the photons hitting the nerve behind my eyeball telling me how cute that girl is, is matter; The sound waves in the form of moving air hitting my eardrums allowing me to place information into my brain via hearing is matter. And finally, all information that has been communicated to me is matter in the form of neurons and the firing process of those cells.
All that's left for me to do at this point is figure out how to mathematically tie matter, energy and information together via a tidy little formula representing the complexity of information.
I believe I can do this.
M. H. Emden tackles the issue: "complexity is the way in which a whole is different from the composition of its parts."
D. E. Berlyne defines complexity as "a pattern can be considered more complex the larger the number of independently selected elements it contains."
Very well, this sounds logical to me. If I could picture in my mind a bucket containing 500 marbles; and go with Berlyne's definition, then that bucket of marbles would grow in complexity every time I add a marble to the bucket and would decrease in complexity every time I take a marble out of the bucket.
All that I would need to calculate this changing information is to know the mass of the marbles. If I assume that each of my marbles mass on earth (weight) is 30 grams, or 0.030 kg, then I can tie the mass of my marble to the speed of light. Why not, Einstein tied his mass in with the speed of light and it works just fine in the lab.
Then I can use this formula to calculate the information contained in my marble because this information is nothing more than mass in the shape of a marble. So, here goes: I = MC^2 = I = .030(300,000,000 x 300,000,000) = I = 2,700,000,000,000,000 Joules.
That's enough energy in my information to blow up your entire neighborhood because those joules work out to be the equivalent energy to 270,000 gallons of gasoline!
I can also calculate my complexity as it changes when a single marble is either removed from, or added to the bucket: delta I = delta M(C)^2.
Finally I can see that my information is also matter/energy because now I know that I = E = MC^2.
So the paramount point to glean from this is: Don't be throwing around your information carelessly. You might just obliterate mankind in the process.
Strange stuff---Thoughts??
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 18. May 2003 10:41
It seems to me it is important to differentiate between 1)general speculation that there may exist some as yet unidentified mathematical, logical and/or physical relationship between energy, matter, and information, and 2)a scientifically precise, testable hypothesis of a specific relationship between energy and information.
A number of physicists have speculated that there may be some as yet unidentified physical force or energy which could explain the unique ‘teleological properties of biological systems. Others have speculated that some of the natural laws governing the preservation of matter and energy also apply to the creation and preservation of biological information.
To move the relationship between energy and information from speculation and science fiction to real science would require solutions to some major technical issues. At the very least, a scientific treatment of information as energy would require that information be precisely defined and it would require precise rules for quantification of information. The quantification rules, it seems reasonable, would have to make it possible to compare the volume of information in a DNA string with the information in a newspaper article.
A scientific treatment of information as energy would need to provide methods of explaining various types of transformations from energy to information and from one type of information to another.
A scientific treatment of information as energy would have to address the many apparent, obvious, or intuitive differences between energy and information. Information, for example, appears to be context dependent. Information on how to properly hit a golf ball, or on how to adapt to a new virus has no apparent relationship/value to the price of tea in China or the best song on the pop charts. As was pointed out, the amount of information available and used by humans appears to be increasing at a dramatic rate. A scientific explanation of information as energy would need to be able to explain this phenomena.
IP: Logged
|
|
Chronos
Member
Member # 693
|
posted 18. May 2003 17:16
I couldn’t agree more it is most important to establish a testable working hypothesis of the relationship between matter/energy and information. And the first step toward that goal would be to define information in this vein.
I defined information in my opening post as: “As a general definition, we can conclude that information is either one of, or a collection of, facts, items or ideas, from which conclusions may be drawn.”
How far off would I be to define this somewhat differently: ‘Information is matter /energy that conveys a message.’
Then we would wonder if those rocks lying in a pattern in some dense woods is still information if there was nothing there to communicate a message to, reminiscent of the old adage if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one around to hear it, does is make a noise?
If information can be defined as matter/energy then we can extrapolate that the physical laws that govern one, also govern the other.
We of the weird mind-set that tend to spend our Sunday afternoons musing on these things that everyone else could care less about, can come to one conclusion we’ve often pondered: The first law of thermodynamics most certainly governs the actions of information. The law of conservation of energy must now be changed to include: Information cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed.
With the above said, you open up a most powerful can of worms. How does one deal with context dependent information?
I think I could safely call this phenomenon ‘content specificity.’ I also think I’m safe in saying that a content specificity over a certain quantity is CSI.
Your examples on information designed to communicate how to properly hit a golf ball or adapt to a new virus are good examples of content specificity that is CSI. A stop sign might be an example of simple content specificity.
But how do I relate CSI content specificity to matter/energy?
There might be several ways to do this. The first involves paradigm. Could I look at this content specificity as being conserved if I take the words in your golf book and redesign them into another book on quilting?
The second would be to calculate the actual energy exchanges in the brain that it took to create that CSI and then add in the energy exchanges of the readers. That might work.
For the readers, what we are doing is musing the merge of the field of ‘infonomics’ with Dembskinian thought. Many of these guys that are into infonomics believe that information is matter/energy.
Here for a quick definition:
http://www.heyertech.com/html/Publications.html
Mayers introduced this concept. I have not read the book, but from a paper he wrote, he very firmly asserts that information is matter/energy. But he seems a bit math shy which will never work in ID science. Perhaps we can help him.
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 19. May 2003 14:44
Quote: The first law of thermodynamics most certainly governs the actions of information. The law of conservation of energy must now be changed to include: Information cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed.
IMO, it is backwards to first suggest that a law of conservation applies to information before providing a usable definition that makes it possible to measure or quantify both information and change in information. Again, IMO, a mathematical/logical definition of information should be developed which is compatible with our intuitive or common sense understanding of information.
I have proposed defining information in terms of input-output or stimulus response algorithms. Using this approach, the volume of information in a system at a point in time would be quantified in terms of teleological complexity- [(the ratio of (possible algorithms defined by the set of potential input elements and output elements) divided by (the number of algorithms that support the goal of survival)] . Using this definition, the volume of information in a system could increase and decrease and there would be no conservation of information. Note that this would be a potentially useful, externally imposed concept or definition of information and information volume. Also note that with the definition I offer is consistent with the concept that information is always context specific.
Again IMO, scientific analysis and the development of predictive scientific hypotheses begins with defining and quantifying the variables involved. You can not have a scientific hypotheses concerning information until you define and quantify information. You can not have a predictive hypotheses of evolutionary change until you define and quantify what and how much is evolving and how fast. By traditional scientific standards, you can not have a scientific theory until the variables of the theory are defined and quantified. Clearly, my views on this issue are more conservative than current practice.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 19. May 2003 15:15
It may be better to approach the similarity between thermodynamics and information from the second law of thermodynamics.
Tom Schneider has approached this topic in a very interesting manner linking Boltzman and Shannon entropy via the SLOT. (Schneider eqn 15)
IP: Logged
|
|
Chronos
Member
Member # 693
|
posted 19. May 2003 20:58
If I have done so properly, I believe I have provided a usable definition in that ‘Information is matter/energy that conveys a message.’
I also believe I’ve mathematically defined it, proposed a way to quantify it and proffered a way to measure its change in state.
If energy is matter/energy (IF), then I don’t see why we could not just use the mass of that matter to quantify it and also to measure its change in state.
If I have a mass of marbles containing 10 marbles and each marble’s mass is 30 grams or = 0.030 kg, then my overall mass is 10(.030) = .30 kg. Why can’t I just use I = MC^2 in order to calculate the energy of marbles: .30 x (300,000,000 x 300,000,000) = 27000000000000000 Joules and now my information is relational to matter/energy and expressed in joules.
If want to calculate the change in state I could probably go one of two ways. I might use delta I = E2 – E1, where E2 is the energy state the system is in after the change and E1 is the state of the system before the change. We already know that E= 27000000000000000 joules. But say the mass of my information changed because one marble was added to my system. If that marble’s mass is .030 kg, then the total mass of the system is now .30 + .030 = .33. So my E2 will be 29700000000000000 J and I can now calculate delta I from E2 – E1. Delta I = 56500000000000000 J.
Or I might express this addition of information entropically using probability entropy. Delta S = ln(W) where W is the total number of possible microstates. Or we could chose to consider the entropy of this system as a before and after state of the system as we did with J above.
I would have no problem with viewing input-output of stimulus response algorithms either. I would have to do some reading in that area, as I’m unfamiliar with how it could be done. Tell me, is teleological complexity measurable mathematically? But if there would be no conservation of information, then this would not be a form of energy. Of course, that would be OK too, I guess. More than one way to skin a cat.
I must admit that I seem to be having some trouble with expressing content specificity mathematically.
IP: Logged
|
|
Claire
Member
Member # 725
|
posted 19. May 2003 20:59
Chronos,
I like your posted ideas and in relation to them I say that information is related to complexity. I also say that the complexity invloved in quantifying information for "scientific predictive type" science (only) is directly proportional to its undefinability in the very language of that science doing the quantifying. This is why a certain type of science is having problems with information and complexity when another type of science might not. The other type of definate science (of first principles) that might not, need not have emphasis on "mathematical/logical definition" and therefore could be a clue as to what information really is and consequently what complexity is really all about.
Claire
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 19. May 2003 22:11
Claire,
Personally I am very interested in the links between information and complexity but it is important that we find a way to define these terms in a mathematically sound manner.
So far the various definitions of complexity and information seem to be often contradictory or unworkably vague.
Complexity has been defined in various ways: probabilistic ([url=Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information]Dembski[/url]), informational (Shannon), algorithmically (Kolmogorov/Chaitin).
Whichever definition one ends up using, as long as one uses it consistently, may help us resolve some of these issues of information/complexity.
For example: Under Dembski's formulation of complexity any bit string of lenght N would have complexity of log(2)(2^N)=N. Dembski's definition of complexity seems to be similar to Shannon's but with two major differences: 1) Dembski assumes uniform distribution function 2) Dembski's concept of complexity is more similar to Shannon entropy than Shannon information although these concepts are often used in a non-consistent manner. Shannon entropy is defined as sum of -p_i*log(p_i), over all the i from 1 to N while Shannon information can be expressed as the difference in entropy before or for the example of Dembski or assuming p_i=1/2 before
N- sum of -p_i*log(p_i)
Kolgomorov information shows how random the information is.
quote:
Kolmogorov Complexity is a measure of descriptive
complexity contained in an object. It refers to the minimum length of a program such that a universal computer can generate a specific sequence. A good introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity is contained in [3] with a solid treatment in [4]. Kolmogorov Complexity is related to Shannon entropy, in that the expected value of K(x) for a random sequence is approximately the entropy of the source distribution for the process generating the sequence [3]. However, Kolmogorov Complexity differs from entropy in that it relates to the specific string being considered rather than the source distribution.
Source
Applications in biology
Adami
Biocomplexity and digital life
Adami defines complexity as
Average mutual Kolmogorov complexity is “information about the environment”
Adami papers
quote:
for that site according to Eq. (2). The amount of information per site is thus (see, e.g., Ref. [23])
I(i) = Hmax - H(i)
Source
Matin Henz: Artificial life
Schneider: Evolution of biological information
"The information in the binding sites is measured as the decrease in uncertainty from before binding to after binding"
More useful sites
1DL108: Kolmogorov Complexity and its Applications, Autumn 2000
Information theory
A survey of complexity measures
Information Content, Compressibility and Meaning
by Gert Korthof
SubIndex on INFORMATION (BibTex)
[ 19. May 2003, 22:13: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 19. May 2003 22:31
Chronos: An interesting idea to apply E=Mc^2 to the idea of information but a few questions
Why do you use the term E=Mc^2 for the energy in the marble, in fact no matter where the marble is located, this will remain the energy of the marble.
Certainly such a definition seems to preclude information from really changing? Schneider's approach seems more useful in that it links the two forms of entropy, Boltzman and Shannon to show the minimum energy needed.
Certainly the large size of your 'energy' should have been an indication that there may not be a mathematical/physical relationship between information and E=Mc^2?
In other words you have claimed that there is a relationship between information and E=Mc^2, does this mean that twice as heavy marbles contain twice as much information? Surely the same number of states still exist thus the amount of information seems to have remained the same and yet...
Btw the equation E=mc^2 has led to much a confusion. Since m is not the rest mass one has to convert to m0 through E=mo gamma c^2 where gamma =1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) Would the information in a bucket of marbles be larger in a moving bucket?
These are important issues to consider
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 20. May 2003 08:49
Chronos,
It might be useful to note that there is a big difference between the claim 1) ‘It takes energy and matter to express information’ and 2) ‘there exists a universal transformation rule by which energy can transform to information and information can transform to energy’. The first type of claim is essentially trivial and obvious. The second claim would be a rather major ‘discovery’ in the field of physics. If you are advocating the first type of claim then you need to specify the relationships you are suggesting and how they would be used in analysis. If you are making the second type of claim then you need to identify the transformation rule and the type of evidence that would support the existence of such a universal transformation rule.
As Pim points out, any number of individuals have developed definitions of information. Many of these definitions have uses in addressing specific narrowly defined practical information processing problems. None of the definitions currently available has proved useful in developing general models of biological information processing.
Another important issue to address in formulating your hypotheses is whether you are 1)defining ‘information’ as a mathematical or topological property of the mathematical universe used in modeling, or 2)defining information as a real world ‘physical’ phenomena. If information is viewed as a mathematical property, then developing models and hypotheses would, IMO, require that you first define the structure or topology of the mathematical universe being used. If you view information as a ‘physical phenomena’ then you can use one of the standard topologies developed in physics.
There is a substantial and fundamental difference between the precisely defined predictive hypotheses and models developed in physics and engineering and ‘descriptive generalities’ that pass for scientific hypotheses in most of the life sciences including biology. If you are attempting to formulate a ‘hard science’ hypothesis, then, IMO, you still have a number of difficult issues to address.
IP: Logged
|
|
Chronos
Member
Member # 693
|
posted 20. May 2003 15:25
Clair’s observation that the diversity of the different fields of science might create a difficulty in expressing and identifying complex information relevant to any particular science is certainly true.
To all of you, I would ask you to understand that this is new thought (at least in the manner I am expressing it) and as such; there are many areas of it that still must be worked out and I will happily be the first to admit that it might not work out at all. We’ll see.
In response to Pim’s points: I agree that there are many important areas that are yet to be considered.
I used I = MC^2 because of the credibility that this formula has earned. I don’t believe I can find any knowledgeable scientist that will assert this does not apply to my marbles.
One (very legitimate) problem that Pim points out is that bigger marbles will show higher information content than smaller ones even though the same amount of information is being expressed. I’m working on a constant that will fix this, if I can get it all to come together, I will post it.
Another glaring problem is that the content specificity is going to have be shown somewhere in the formula.
And will the mass of the marbles change if the bucket is moving? Yes, and this mass will approach infinity as speed approaches the speed of light. However, this change is so infinitesimal at the speed humans have the ability to move the marbles that I believe it need not be considered.
Further, this is not nuclear physics really, and I would see no need to overcomplicate it by infusing this math involving velocity: E=mo gamma c^2 where gamma =1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). Please see above. The gentleman on this page puts it well:
http://www.geocities.com/thesciencefiles/emc2/emc2.html
Warren’s post a little later.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 20. May 2003 17:34
ChronosL One (very legitimate) problem that Pim points out is that bigger marbles will show higher information content than smaller ones even though the same amount of information is being expressed. I’m working on a constant that will fix this, if I can get it all to come together, I will post it.
You may consider dividing it by the (moving) mass of the marble m or gamma m_0? That would also fix the problem of moving marbles.
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 20. May 2003 18:40
The quotes about information in the first post are highly debatable if not blatantly false; for example I can only assume that one Sunday edition of the New York Times contains more declarative statements than an illiterate 16th century peasant would have encountered, excepting those about mundane tasks. ("I'm hungry.") Luckily, the veracity of the quotes isn't relevant to the validity of the rest of the suggestions.
What I wonder, though, is what is wrong with the typical statistical mechanics view of coupling information and energy via Helmholtz Free Energy. I don't have space to go into detail here, but these three pages do a fairly nice job of explaining what Helmholtz Free Energy is, how it relates to the partition function, and so on. It doesn't make explicit the connection to entropy/information, but hopefully that will be apparent from the formulae and consequences of altering the number of microstates.
[ 20. May 2003, 18:43: Message edited by: Rex Kerr ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Chronos
Member
Member # 693
|
posted 20. May 2003 21:20
“It might be useful to note that there is a big difference between the claim 1) ‘It takes energy and matter to express information’ and 2) ‘there exists a universal transformation rule by which energy can transform to information and information can transform to energy’. The first type of claim is essentially trivial and obvious. The second claim would be a rather major ‘discovery’ in the field of physics. If you are advocating the first type of claim then you need to specify the relationships you are suggesting and how they would be used in analysis. If you are making the second type of claim then you need to identify the transformation rule and the type of evidence that would support the existence of such a universal transformation rule.”
JEP: I will go with the latter. If this is something that can be viewed as a ‘major’ discovery. Then chalk one up for ID. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
CHRONOS’ FORMULA:
I = ([SE]/M)Omega
Where I = information
S = Complex specificity as expressed in Bits of the system under study and is: ln(W) where W is the total possible microstates.
M = the mass of a single microstate.
E = Energy expressed as the mass of a single microstate times the speed of light squared.
Omega being expressed as Chronos’ constant = 1.11e-17
Our initial formula will be M= Mass of one microstate = .030
Speed of Light = 9^16
(MC^2) = 2700000000000000
We will go with a concentrated state of 10^216 state of these objects to see this system get the Complex Specificity of 500 bits = ln of total microstates: ln(10^216) = 500
(MC^2)(ln[W]) = E(S) = (2700000000000000)(500)=1350000000000000000
[E(S)]/M = 1350000000000000000 / .030 = 45000000000000000000
Omega = Chronos’ constant 1.11e-17=. (45000000000000000000) 1.11e-17 = 500 so we know that I = 500 = CSI.
So, several things become apparent when we use this formula. We can find the complex specificity of the system at a single glance, we have information expressed as ‘I,’ we see the mass of each microstate (atom, molecules, or whatever we are studying), We have the microstate energy calculated and can multiply E by our total number of microstates and see total energy expressed in Joules.
This formula also takes in the size of the microstates. For example, Pim asked me what if I were using larger marbles in my first example. If I had the same amount of them, my energy would be different and my information would be as well. But not in this formula.
Say I now have larger objects that weigh more, but the same amount of them: M = .80
I = ([SE]/M)Omega
S = 500
E = .80(9^16) = 72000000000000000
[SE] = 72000000000000000(500) = 36000000000000000000
[SE]/M = 36000000000000000000/.80 = 45000000000000000000
And ([SE]/M)(Omega) = 500 = I
Our mass and energy changed but ‘I’ did not. We still have the same amount of information.
So. Can’t we now use this on about anything we want? Let’s go back to a collection of marbles in a bucket. We have 500 of them concentrated in the bucket. Each mass is .62 kg. Now let’s see what we get:
I = ([SE]/M)Omega
S = ln(500) = 6.2146080984221917426367422425949
E= (.62)(9^16) = 55800000000000000
([SE]/M = 559314728857997256.83730680183346
And ([SE]/M)Omega = 6.208 = I. This system is not even complex information in my opinion.
”There is a substantial and fundamental difference between the precisely defined predictive hypotheses and models developed in physics and engineering and ‘descriptive generalities’ that pass for scientific hypotheses in most of the life sciences including biology. If you are attempting to formulate a ‘hard science’ hypothesis, then, IMO, you still have a number of difficult issues to address.”
JEP: Did that address them? Remember, we're brainstorming.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 20. May 2003 21:28
So now you divided energy by mass to be left with c^2, while this does resolve my objections, the link between information and energy seems to have disappeared.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic