Infinite information

[Moontanman]

Does it take an infinite amount of information to describe the universe? Can we ever hope to be able to know all the laws that govern the universe? Maybe more to the point can we ever know enough to say one thing can be done but another absolutely cannot be done?

[Thunderbird]

Our future can be described as a synchronization and amplification of our collective human experience. Once this self-organizing system crystallizes into a cohesive whole, it will emanate a coherent signaling that we have matured and can now take our place in the collective of the cosmos.

--------------------------------------

"There is a destination, a possible goal. That is the way of individuation. Individuation means becoming an "individual," and, insofar as "individuality" embraces our innermost, last, and incomparable uniqueness, it also implies becoming one's own self. We could therefore translate individuation as "coming to selfhood" or "self-realization." . The transcendent function does not proceed without aim and purpose, but leads to the revelation of the essential human. It is in the first place a purely natural process, which may in some cases pursue its course without the knowledge or assistance of the individual, and can sometimes forcibly accomplish itself in the face of opposition. The meaning and purpose of the process is the realization, in all of its aspects, of the personality originally hidden away in the embryonic germ-plasma; the production and unfolding of the original potential wholeness.

C. G. Jung, 1953,

[Thunderbird]

The term ‘dynamic system’ is used inclusively. It refers equally to three successive levels of organization: A simple dynamic system is a singular system like the whirlpool. A complex dynamic system is a group of dynamic systems, each interacting with the others. A complex adaptive system, for example a multicellular organism, represents the third level of organization. An organism’s body comprises a hierarchy of successive layers of complexity. Each layer is formed from an assembly of simpler systems, that is, each layer is itself a complex dynamic system. Thus an assembly of chemical systems forms a cell (a complex dynamic system) and then an assembly of cells forms an organ (also a complex dynamic system). For example, immune cells form a functioning immune system and nerve cells form a functioning brain. Organs, in turn, form an organism. Organisms, in their turn, form an ecosystem. This hierarchy of layered complex dynamic systems is the basis for emergence in life (Holland 1998, pp. 225-31).

 

Once we as humans achieve a cooperative collective consciousness “human kind” will become greater than the sum a man. Just as an organism is greater that any of its individual cells.

[Thunderbird]

Does it take an infinite amount of information to describe the universe? Can we ever hope to be able to know all the laws that govern the universe? Maybe more to the point can we ever know enough to say one thing can be done but another absolutely cannot be done?

To me its about expanding creativity and cooperation of complex systems, out of these new system's, emerge new possibilities spontaneously, without a prior prediction or direction.

But the failure to prestate the possible preadaptations is not slowing down the evolution of the biosphere where preadaptations are widely known. Thus, ever novel functionalities come to exist and proliferate in the biosphere. The fact that we cannot prestate them is essential, and an essential limitation to the way Newton taught us to do science: Prestate the relevant variables, forces acting among them, initial and boundary conditions, and calculate the future evolution of the system…say projectile. But we cannot prestate the relevant causal features of organisms in the biosphere. We do not know now the relevant variables! Thus we cannot write down a set of equations for the temporal evolution of these variables. We are profoundly precluded from the Newtonian move. In short, the evolution of the biosphere is radically unknowable, not due to quantum throws of the dice, or deterministic chaos, but because we cannot prestate the macroscopic relevant features of organisms and environments that will lead to the emergence of novel functions in the biosphere with their own causal properties that in turn alter the future evolution of the biosphere. Thus, the evolution of the biosphere is radically creative, ceaselessly creative, in way that cannot be foretold. I find this wonderful.

 

Stuart Kaffman

[jedaisoul]

Does it take an infinite amount of information to describe the universe? Can we ever hope to be able to know all the laws that govern the universe? Maybe more to the point can we ever know enough to say one thing can be done but another absolutely cannot be done?

The likely answer is that this depends on whether the universe itself is infinite. If, as I believe, the universe is finite but unbounded, there is no reason to believe that it should take an infinite amount of infiormation to describe it.

 

If the universe is infinite, then you have greater problems than how much information it taks to describe it. Like, why didn't the universe immediately collapse under it's own infinite gravitational attraction? For an infinite universe not to collapse, IMHO, you need some sort of event horizon which limits how much of the universe can interact at any one place. Therefore, the rest of the universe is unknowable. So how would you know that the universe is infinite in the first place?

 

So the question of how much information it would take to describe an infinite universe does not arise. You have no way of knowing that the universe is infinite, let alone how much information it would take to describe it!

[LaurieAG]

Does it take an infinite amount of information to describe the universe? Can we ever hope to be able to know all the laws that govern the universe? Maybe more to the point can we ever know enough to say one thing can be done but another absolutely cannot be done?

 

Hi Moontanman,

 

If DNA is encoded from 4 basic parts to produce the wonders of what we call life then surely the universe, where life came from, is similar?

[Moontanman]

Hi Moontanman,

 

If DNA is encoded from 4 basic parts to produce the wonders of what we call life then surely the universe, where life came from, is similar?

 

So what you are saying is that even a finite (small) amount of information can discribe an infinite system?

[LaurieAG]

So what you are saying is that even a finite (small) amount of information can discribe an infinite system?

 

Hi Moontanman,

 

Not quite, a finite amount of information can describe a system that appears to be infinite because we haven't yet learnt how to decrypt it.

 

If you look at encryption systems you can see that if you have a system based on alphabet length, encryption blocks, the number of iterations for each character in the encryption block and varying permutation sets for each character during each iteration you will find that you can come up with a quite complex system based on a small set of variables. i.e. 20 Iterations on a 20 character block of a 20 character alphabet will give you 20*20*20*20*20*20*20*20*20*20*20*20*20*20*20*20*20*20*20*20 possible permutations per block (20^20). While many permutations will be exactly the same (because of the alphabet length) they can only be successfully decrypted or encrypted if you know their position in the block, the iteration number (along with total iterations) and the key for determining which character permutations is used for each iteration.

 

Cellular Automata would be a good description for the basic process involved.

 

Cellular automaton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[HydrogenBond]

Nature appears to use 3-D laws, which humans model in 2-D. For example, ecosystems are 3-D in the sense they are highly integrated, with one part often directly or indirectly affecting all the other parts. We do not describe such systems with 3-D logic, since we don't know to model 3-D logic even though the system is 3-D. We use cause and affect which is 2-D to give us a good approximation.

 

In terms of an visual analogy, 3-D logic is a solid ball. We can approximate this ball with 2-D planes of logic, if we use an infinite number of planes, with a common origin, all overlapping at different angles. If we were trying to logically express how one change in a 3-D ecosystem will affect another, the ecosystem is the ball, while our logic jumps between some of the 2-D planes within the ball.

 

In terms of the interaction of two 3-D balls, the volumes are interacting, which means the interaction does not have to go plane by plane. Logic plane by logic plane is connected to the practical limitation of 2-D. For example, the interaction between two 3-D balls could use data on many planes at the same time since it using volume instead of area. It may looks like cause and affect is breaking down since we appear to be skipping 2-D logic steps. The impression we get is the requirement of more laws or random.

 

Let me give a visual example. We have two 3-D balls. The two balls are interacting via two small hollow cubes in the center of each ball. If we count the number of planes, we have 6 surface planes, 4 full diagonal planes that touch the center, and 4 oblique planes that also touch center. This simple 3-D cube interaction can do a 14 logic steps at the same time. It appears to have 8 logic planes touching center and 6 irrational surface planes not touching center, that we may try to model with reason and an overlap of a random affect.

 

Some aspects of the brain appear to use 3-D logic. One possible example is coordinated muscle movement, such as walking. This simple activity has to simultaneously flex and relax of a wide range of muscles from the feet to the face in alternating fashion. The interaction of 3-D memories can do this with ease, since it can send out a very large number of logic planes, simultaneously, with two 3-D vibrations (as a simple model). The synapses and the brain waves is slow compared to computer memory speeds and CPU's, but the way it handles some types of data more efficiently. The speed of the computer can use an elaborate 2-D control system and try to make up with speed what it lacks in terms of 3-D efficiency. But even so, robots still look stiff.

 

The idea of infinite information gets compressed at 3-D. While the idea of 3-D laws of nature is not something that will be easy to address until we can better understand how 3-D logic is able to work so efficiently.

[Moontanman]

Nature appears to use 3-D laws, which humans model in 2-D. For example, ecosystems are 3-D in the sense they are highly integrated, with one part often directly or indirectly affecting all the other parts. We do not describe such systems with 3-D logic, since we don't know to model 3-D logic even though the system is 3-D. We use cause and affect which is 2-D to give us a good approximation.

 

In terms of an visual analogy, 3-D logic is a solid ball. We can approximate this ball with 2-D planes of logic, if we use an infinite number of planes, with a common origin, all overlapping at different angles. If we were trying to logically express how one change in a 3-D ecosystem will affect another, the ecosystem is the ball, while our logic jumps between some of the 2-D planes within the ball.

 

In terms of the interaction of two 3-D balls, the volumes are interacting, which means the interaction does not have to go plane by plane. Logic plane by logic plane is connected to the practical limitation of 2-D. For example, the interaction between two 3-D balls could use data on many planes at the same time since it using volume instead of area. It may looks like cause and affect is breaking down since we appear to be skipping 2-D logic steps. The impression we get is the requirement of more laws or random.

 

Let me give a visual example. We have two 3-D balls. The two balls are interacting via two small hollow cubes in the center of each ball. If we count the number of planes, we have 6 surface planes, 4 full diagonal planes that touch the center, and 4 oblique planes that also touch center. This simple 3-D cube interaction can do a 14 logic steps at the same time. It appears to have 8 logic planes touching center and 6 irrational surface planes not touching center, that we may try to model with reason and an overlap of a random affect.

 

Some aspects of the brain appear to use 3-D logic. One possible example is coordinated muscle movement, such as walking. This simple activity has to simultaneously flex and relax of a wide range of muscles from the feet to the face in alternating fashion. The interaction of 3-D memories can do this with ease, since it can send out a very large number of logic planes, simultaneously, with two 3-D vibrations (as a simple model). The synapses and the brain waves is slow compared to computer memory speeds and CPU's, but the way it handles some types of data more efficiently. The speed of the computer can use an elaborate 2-D control system and try to make up with speed what it lacks in terms of 3-D efficiency. But even so, robots still look stiff.

 

The idea of infinite information gets compressed at 3-D. While the idea of 3-D laws of nature is not something that will be easy to address until we can better understand how 3-D logic is able to work so efficiently.

 

I think it is probable that what you describe is beyond me HB. I'm not sure how it connects with my idea of infinite or finite information describing the universe, can you simplify this somewhat?