◄ BACK
OPPOSING VIEWS - IDEAS ARE NOT ENERGY
Tony Giovia
www.geometryofideas.com
Tony,
<<But these concepts themselves are ultimately composed of energy - so you have energy constructs "describing" other energy constructs.>>
I believe it to be a fallacy to assume that ideas are ultimately composed of energy, I have thought long and hard about this, ideas are a measure of order or Disentropy, whose physical units clearly not energy.
I agree it feels as though information should be a from of energy but I fear it is not.
Energy is dependant upon frame of reference, maybe order is not.
Comments?
Richard
Richard,
>>I believe it to be a fallacy to assume that ideas are ultimately composed of energy, I have thought long and hard about this, ideas are a measure of order or Disentropy, whose physical units clearly not energy..I agree it feels as though information should be a from of energy but I fear it is not..Energy is dependant upon frame of reference, maybe order is not.<<
The word information, as I recall, comes from the Latin word informatio, meaning 'to weave'.
I don't think you'll find ANY word or concept to have such specialness or absolute nonequivalence as you imply.
- Paul
> 1) This "describing" is the actual reproduction of the reality as a design whose physical structure mirrors the mathematical relationship being described (ie, form = function);
You are not alone in that thought... a (so far excellent) book I have just started makes exactly this point:
"If mind and matter are aspects of a whole, then the two fields muist at some point converge. The convergence, I propose, occurs as neural fields of our brain translate such groups of potential according to resonance. When the frequencies between neuron and potential-wave match, or can... come into sync without too much trouble, that potential actualizes. That actualization is our experience..."
"If scientists analyze physical matter minutely enough, sooner or later they will come full circle and be looking at their own internal processes without realizing it. So it just may be that quantum physics, our current yardstick for almost everything, is _also_ and possibly no more than, an expression of translations going on in those neural fields. And this may be why a correspondence between quantum physics and consciousness is so popular a subject today. Perhpas the mind has finally turned on and is looking at itself."
Joseph C. Pearce, "Evolution's End" pp 26-27
Richard,
>>> I believe it to be a fallacy to assume that ideas are ultimately composed of energy, I have thought long and hard about this, ideas are a measure of order or Disentropy, whose physical units clearly not energy.
I agree it feels as though information should be a from of energy but I fear it is not.
Energy is dependant upon frame of reference, maybe order is not. <<<
I have a lot of respect for your views, and I would rather get it right than be right. But I have to be convinced that I am wrong before I will change my mind.
My statement that ideas are composed of energy is based on two assumptions: (1) The Big Bang (or some other "starting time or times" vitalized by energy) is valid; and (2) E=MCC. Then:
1) The Big Bang created a Universe of energy;
2) Each thing that exists in the Universe is composed of energy;
3) Ideas exist in the Universe, and are composed of energy;
4) Energy can be viewed as matter;
5) Ideas can be viewed as matter;
6) Ideas are defined in terms of other ideas;
7) A Geometry of Ideas follows.
1) Are you disputing either of my two assumptions?
2) Are you disputing 1,2,4,6 above?
3) I know you are disputing # 3,5,7 above. Are you proposing a new form of existence, apart from energy in all its forms? If so, could you describe how the substance composing ideas is different from energy? And can you tell me where this substance came from?
If it's OK with you, I'd like to see if we can come to a final conclusion on this. If we can prove that ideas have a physical aspect then we can bring down the barriers between the physical and social sciences - because energy relationships will be the common denominator to every knowledge discipline. If we disprove it, then no harm done - we are just back where we started.
Tony
Tony,
Of your assumptions it is number 2 that I would disagree with, In that I believe that information about the Universe could exist outside the Universe, in another Universe.
(If only that the information exists inside the mind of a creator).
If you can define the precise substance of information then I will of course reconsider, but at a very minimum a bit of information is a measurable difference between two possible states. Information requires an observer I suggest.
Richard
Richard,
>>> Of your assumptions it is number 2 that I would disagree with, In that I believe that information about the Universe could exist outside the Universe, in another Universe.
(If only that the information exists inside the mind of a creator). <<<
I grant your premise. I am only talking about the consistency of information in this universe. Introducing another universe changes the ultimate nature of information, but not the consistency of information in this universe (when viewed only from this universe).
>>> If you can define the precise substance of information then I will of course reconsider... <<<
The relationships among energy particles, with each unique idea composed of different particles and/or relationships. Increasing the number of particles is equivaIent to joining more ideas together. Since the joining of particles is governed by forces measurable by mathematics, and insofar as mathematics is a subset of logic (or vice-versa ! ), then this joining is what we call logical thinking. I don't know how else to explain it.
From other messages I think you are saying that putting this in terms of entropy would clarify the actual mechanics. I agree with you. But not having this piece (yet) does not directly attack the logic that ideas exist as physical entities. It just means there is more work to be done.
If you are stuck on this point we will just have to agree to disagree until the point is resolved one way or another.
>>> but at a very minimum a bit of information is a measurable difference between two possible states. <<<
A "relationship" of any kind implies measurable differences or identities.
?>> Information requires an observer I suggest.<<<
Since we are speaking of bits, does a cpu fit your definition of an observer? Does an operating system? For me, energy designs (/systems) that include other energy designs sufficiently describe an "observer" at a mechanical level; that is, an observer is part of the design when speaking in a purely mechanical context. An observer affects and is affected by other parts of the system in degrees proportionate to its mechanical influence on the other parts of the system. If the radiator hose of your car bursts, your engine "observes" this and overheats.
If we ever come to a conclusion that ideas have a physical design, this is the type of analogy we can apply to the interaction of ideas.
Tony
◄ BACK