What is Information? | Episode 1403 | Closer To Truth
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 фев 2025
- Donate to Closer To Truth and help us keep our content free and without paywalls: shorturl.at/OnyRq
What is information? Information is all the rage in science, changing how we think about fundamental questions. Information has many descriptions, some of them surprising. Why is Information so important to scientists and philosophers? Featuring interviews with Max Tegmark, Paul Davies, Seth Lloyd, Giulio Tononi, and Scott Aaronson.
Season 14, Episode 3 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#Information #Science
If you enjoyed this video, please consider showing your support for Closer To Truth by becoming a subscriber. And thank you for your curiosity!
Information theory and consciousness maybe on the right track, I suggest you take a look at this article on Big Think :Scientists achieve teleportation breakthrough. t.ly/TR9n
Also I remember the controversy of the thesis of the brothers Igor and Grichka Bogdanoff wich says exactly that (I quote in French) : l'« instanton », désignant l'univers de l'ère de Planck concentré dans un objet mathématique où matière, énergie et temps seraient remplacés par de l'information. Have a good day!
thanks, this is great! sounds like those that discuss "consciousness" as well- which I'm sure you know and probably deal with later- I'm only part way through. You guys should read this:
www.intendedevolution.com
And thanks for the other poster for his link!
Thanks for sharing, Lord-Jesus-Christ com
Why must scientists always think particle and information MUST BE Governed by a LAW? This thinking alone Constrained the possibilities. The Scientific Method is a Constrain to knowing the absolute truth
@@francoismorin8721 it gives scientists a means to continue being employed by universities. The truth may never ever be known
Out of all the intellectuals Robert has interviewed, Mr. Paul Davies is by far the wisest.
I would like to thank all involved in this channel. Even when is a subject that i'm not so interested, religion for example, you manage to make things interesting, with a calm and respectful approuch.
Ditto. Hate anything religious as it's just boring. Love the show though.
Me three. This channel is positively outstanding. I watch most episodes 2-3 times because it takes me a while to understand each subject. Often times I will go watch the interview subject’s other lectures or get their books from the library. Love love love this channel.
How boring and dull minded those uninterested in religion are
@@philo3838 Its a known fact that i'm boring.
@@philo3838 Truth is boring and unfortunately some long for truth than joy
My dream is to be successful enough in my physics career so I can be interviewed by this dude.
1x7 jajaj
Me too :)) In cognitive science
Hurry up! 😊
Wrong motivation to do physics at the highest levels. This is not about being a 'celebrity.'
@@reimannx33 who cares.
It blows my mind that the questions asked in this series seem so simple, yet few have concrete answers. Reality is so strange.
YouReadMyName A true scientist doesn’t believe either way. God or no God, we will accept things as they are. I hope there is a God, but wanting something to be true does not make it so. Science and idealism don’t contradict each other, neither do Science and God.
@@YouReadMyName mind is part of material world. It does not belong in spiritual realm.
@@sillymesilly
" mind is part of material world. It does not belong in spiritual realm."
Where is your evidence of such an extravagant claim, other than a presupposition of materialism.
We know thought and ideas are immaterial entities as are mathematical concepts that must be manifest to a material substrate to be realized or communicated.
We know the material brain is part of the material world, but nobody understands what the mind, let alone consciousness is or where it even resides.
We could be nothing more than chemical robots controlled by a resident immaterial consciousness. Destroy the body, the soul moves on is entirely possible, and would completely fit with observed phenomena.
Reality is the law of universe
@@johnyoutube6746
...for a materialist, I agree.
In a world where media and politicians have an incentive to make it chaotic . This channel offers a chance to breath and reminds us of the bigger picture and care about things that gives deep meaning to our lives ,it's humbling to understand our place in the universe and understand the reality we exist in .. great work by the whole team ❤️
Only half a year ago or so, I started thinking about consciousness (learnt of Giulio Tononi and integrated information theory). Then, more recently, I learnt of information and started thinking about it's relation to physical reality and consciousness (and learnt of Seth Lloyd). Whilst under the impression that I was early to the information party, Robert then uploads this. This channel is a goldmine
Lol, I love this ❤️ There are things about integrated information theory that if you logically follow where they lead will very much “bake your noodle” as they say in the “Matrix” movie 🍿 🥰👍🏻
I originally came up with the same theory as an undergraduate in the 80’s when I was studying random old psychological theories for my senior honors thesis and sea urchins. Not even joking... I stepped on one in Hawaii. My advice? Don’t do that. 😐
Anyway I didn’t stop to work on the math... Tononi is doing an awesome job of it. Much love and much needed.
I know a lot of famous people in the intellectual history, but I am pretty behind-the-scenes or “underground” like Laslow in “real genius” movie 😂🍿👍🏻 so you probably won’t recognize my name or anything but yeah.
I figured I wanted to talk with you since you resonated with Tononis stuff. It’s much more important than people currently know. Trust me. 😉
You keep spewing out so good content lately! Wow! Very very impressed by this channel!
I learned nothing.
Indeed!!!!
This was filmed for an episode of a US public television show way back in January of 2014.
"Spewing" has a pejorative connation. How about doling out?
@@innertubez That would make no sense.
What he should have said was _putting_ out, but the episode was many years old at the time anyway.
I don't know why so many people don't realize these are old episodes of a television show and _not_ videos made for RUclips.
Are these conferences open to the public? Would love to spend a week in the Caribbean listening to these guys and pondering the meaning of life on the beach : )
This is really best youTube channel i have ever seen, immensely knowledge sharing channel. Thanks for uploading.
It wasn't made for RUclips. It's an old episode from a TV show.
I am so happy to see that Close to True has 450 k subscribers, worldwide, like PEOPLE ARE ASKING QUESTIONS and not just watching kardashians and TLC all day long
In 2009 when I was writing a report on adult stem cells and realized they'd been found in every organ, but the studies, except for one, were all saying only one organ had them, I realized scientists were not talking to each other.
That was one of the best interview with Tononi ever. I wish there will be new one.
I love your channel. I cannot get enough of it. You are very open to new suggestions and ideas but still remain very objective.
These aren't made for this RUclips channel, they were made for a long running TV show.
I don't think the TV show is actually being made anymore though I never heard it was cancelled.
In the past 2 years or so Kuhn has to occasionally released videos for RUclips, but these aren't really Closer To Truth episodes. These are those one on one Zoom discussions.
Google a recent photo of Kuhn and you'll be able to infer how old a lot of these are by how much younger Kuhn and his guests look.
Incredible video, a 26min masterpiece, one of my recent faves! Thank you for all your work, to capture, filter, explain, express, bring to light, the essence of all that is! ⚛
Yes, an incredible video. Privileged minds that for 26 minutes talk about a topic without contributing anything.
@@guillermobrand8458 can’t wait to hear your deep insights
@@wmpx34 Since you ask me, Is there an "Evolutionary Course"?
The evidence suggests that this is the case, that a major evolutionary milestone is looming, and that Artificial Intelligence will “give life” to an entity that will be the next evolutionary leader.
docs.google.com/document/d/16BrZUvIYE_xHKF2EIjohL3zu_OtSK03A/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=102504490215995772235&rtpof=true&sd=true
If you are fascinated by this, James Gleick's "The Information" is a great primer to understand 'information". It starts with Claude Shannon and moves forward from there.
Yes, that was a good one! 🥰
Great recommendation! It doesn't start with Claude Shannon, it starts with one of the most underappreciated technological advances in history... African drummers. Centuries before we invented Morse code, they were passing complex information around the continent in hours.
@@NickMirro This maybe explains why Feynman was a drummer. Ringo Starr, Dave Grohl, Chad Smith, and Richard Feynman. :)
I got this book from a remainder bin, maybe information theory is too mundane for the average reader.
“Information is closer to truth” - what an interesting conclusion!!
This guy is really good at explaining complex ideas simply.
By far the most intelligent series anywhere on the internet today.
the content that the professional talking about is hard to understand because it cannot be apply in our daily life, but i enjoy this talk show!
Information is Energy .Energy is information which made all this we feel to know to recognize through our senses 🙏🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻
circular at best
Seth Lloyd, Paul Davies, Max Tegmark...this is a star studded lineup. Those three are among the smartest people in the world.
I know, right? So freakin cool!!! ❤️👍🏻
This is a great channel. Thank you.
Absolutely LOVE your content! This is fantastic entertainment while learning, my fav.
I have such a crush on Max Tegmark...simply love his brain.
Information is clearly fundamental to the nature of reality. But, knowing what is information raises the more fundamental question of, "where did the information in the universe come from?" As far as is presently known, (functional) information is the product of only Mind/Consciousness. So, from whose Mind/Consciousness does all of the information in the universe come from?
from u..
@@MrAlipatik god
Information is eternal and self-existing, yet it is dynamic
Me.. (Sorry I know I have a messed up imagination)
Genetic Algorithms
Some physics seems to work by attempting to solve problems by inventing entities. So where time and space were ideas that became reified as things which have existence now information, which was once a term used to describe the properties of bodies (or matter) is now treated as an entity in itself. Once again, our newest technology has fed into a worldview and we all of a sudden believe that everything has to do with information processing. Paul Davies said that information has always been thought of as instantiated with matter but he implied that this has somehow changed. I'd be interested to hear a valid example of the existence of information pertinent to physics in the absence of some matter to which it pertains.
Good point
The best analogy I have is observing an object in a vacuum. Understand ‘vacuum’ here as being an environment free of relational potential. That is, a vacuum is somewhere where identity is isolated, a thing is itself only as it is not in relation to other things. That doesn’t mean it’s the only thing that exists period, but that it is beyond the range of interaction to other things that exist, making it artificially ‘a thing in itself’.
Now imagine we are an invisible observer. And let’s say we perceive this object in a vacuum to be moving. We would see the object both as a point in space and as a vector through space. The ‘object’ being the point in space, and ‘movement’ the vector through space. That would define the identity of the object as both a discrete thing (the object) and a contiguous thing (the movement). OR, that would define the identity of the object as a mass (the object) and a force (the movement). I say “define the identity” as the object must necessarily be described by both. To omit one would be to fail to refer to the object in question.
Now imagine BEING the object we were just observing. The ‘observer’ we had created in the paragraph above is invisible, and we are in a vacuum. Remember that means that we are in relation to nothing at all except our self. What is it like being this object?
Well, we are a huge contradiction! Remember to be what I am, I must both be location and movement (point/vector; mass/force; discrete/contiguous). But experientially, since I am in relation to nothing, I am all points simultaneously. I am actually alien to myself as I have no way to discern my own movement. I could only recognize that I’m moving when in relation to another object. But since I’m in a vacuum, I have no way to know that the location I occupy now is any different from the location I occupied a moment ago.
If this is true, then to have identity of 1 (to have existence AKA matter) is dependent upon relations with other identities. When our object in a vacuum is in contradiction and is a reference to all points simultaneous, it is just infinite potential. It is everything. The concept of '1', of a thing, of an atom doesn't make sense for the object in a vacuum.
In this weird way, space and matter would be the implication of to the existence of infinite potentials/information, and relations between them. The relation between them is what we refer to as 'matter' but it's more of an instantiation of existence than THE existence. Like if matter and space are just measurements of the interaction between continuous information.
Do you think this could be the case? Or am I thinking about it incorrectly?
@@nicolasargon1436 "I am in relation to nothing" What about your relation to the original observer, the one that was observing you? In addition, if you allow for quantum theory and its virtual particles, there is no such perfect vacuum as was described above, since everywhere in space virtual particles are constantly popping into and out of existence, in which case you are always going to be in relation to these virtual particles.
@@julianfogel5635 Its a thought experiment, trying to pin down where identity comes from. Obviously, as far we know at this time, its impossible to study a thing in relation to nothing at all. Still, the point is: what if we are to imagine this, and try to tease out what may be the case.
@@nicolasargon1436 I agree. A point-mass (a mass at a point in space), unchanging, in an infinite perfect vacuum cannot have any notion of space or time since space is always in relation to some other point whose distance away can be (indirectly or directly) measured, and time is always measured via change, so without change in the point-mass itself there is no time.
With mass though, we can define the mass of the point particle as having one unit, so there is that one bit of information. This single bit of information allows us to distinguish between an empty universe vs. one containing the point mass. In this sense, you don't need to be in relation to anything else in order to exist as a mass.
This begs the question though of how to measure this mass since it doesn't push against anything or influence anything, and so it's reasonable to say that since we can't tell the difference between an empty universe and one with a single unchanging point mass, because there's no way to measure the mass, that there cannot be a difference. Thus in this case I would agree with you that a universe with a single unchanging point-mass in an otherwise empty universe is in practice indistinguishable from a completely empty universe.
Unless... the point-mass can somehow detect its own existence. Getting into the realm of speculation now, if the point-mass had some kind of minimal amount of conciousness, just enough say to be consciously aware that it exists, then there would be a detectable difference. In the empty universe, there is no awareness whatsoever, but in the one with a "conscious" point-mass there is awareness of the existence of the point-mass. In other words, in the empty universe there are no observers, but in the universe with a point-mass, there is an observer (the point-mass itself) that can observe its own existence. Although it cannot observe any distance or time or mass, nonetheless just like Descartes put it it experiences some kind of conciousness which is also a kind of (subjective) observation.
"Every time we see information it's instantiated in matter." That can't be right.
I personally believe that information is the most valuable thing in the entire universe.
That's cool, but the universe does not share that religion with you. ;-)
It still leaves us with the question, "Where does information come from?", which is the same as asking how and why the universe.
it's a special form of nothing. Like plus and minus equal nothing. And the moment somebody or something understands it completely, it disintegrates : )
Information is a necessity to have dis-order; dis-order is entropy (more entropy means more information is required to describe and record the state of a system) and entropy is the origin of the arrow of time. In this sense, information comes into being because it must; and this implies (though this is hard to derive and would be even harder to prove) that everything that is is a pure mathematical construct, and exists because it is possible for it to exist - entropy, or the amount of information, in this sense is what enables all mathematical structures to exist eventually. It is a sine qua non necessity for anything to exist at all.
Special form of nothing. Haha
@@lucemiserlohn Entropy is just a secondary result of matter/energy being acted upon by the laws of physics, and not a "thing in itself". Time is a mental construct with no innate reality. Far out? Yes! But more scientists are beginning to question the reality of time. Information popping up out of nowhere is good for explaining a universe popping out of nowhere, but the question still remains.
@@woofie8647 Arrow of time, not time itself; entropy is the reason time is not reversible, it does not relate to an abstract origin of time as a phenomenon, fundamental or emerging. You can argue about the origin of time all you want, that does not change that the second law of thermodynamics describes the mechanism by which events in spacetime are ordered and gives rise to the concepts of past, present and future - with the constant maximum speed of information transmission across spacetime being c, without which also there would not be an order of events (with c unlimited, there would be no differentiation between cause and effect, as everything would be simultaneous).
Entropy is a statistical physical observation and is regarded a fundamental law of physics; there is nothing to suggest that entropy would be an emergent phenomenon.
Now, while metaphysical philosophical theories are entertaining, we must always remind ourselves that our observations are the facts and that any theory must be falsifiable in observation and/or experiment; your claim that time is not real or not fundamental is, with the current body of knowledge and on the basis of tested theories, is not falsifiable, not testable and makes no inherent predictions. As such, it cannot be taken seriously as a scientific possibility, or what you aptly describe as "far out".
As for "information popping in and out of nowhere", that is a consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which has been tested and so far no experiment suggests it to be wrong; uncertainty makes the prediction of "stuff" appearing and disappearing everywhere and all the time, and real phenomena like the Casimir effect support this prediction.
When you look for explanation instead of description, you might surprise yourself.
Science is the useful religion of description.
@Psychiatrysts It's all food for thought though.
@@TheWorldTeacher I agree. Man needs both. That would be the philosophical point of view which relies on reasonable assumption which is the best we can do. Absolute makes war in the name of its ideal or God. Can we not realize that the source of our being is in us all to begin with? Do we not know by now that balance is key to all things?
@@TheWorldTeacher Ah! Excellent! Intelligent food for thought. Thank you. And I wish you well, as well as I look forward to further understanding towards further entertainment 😊
@@TheWorldTeacher Thank you, RE. I agree that all is (was) put forth by design, but through accident by means of chaos itself, thus keeping the ultimate challenge available in the game. To answer all in attitude with an eye to balance, thus becoming an elite of the game - able to guide from one's own place of choice. After all, Source, I think, knows how to live better than most, wouldn't you say?
@@TheWorldTeacher In my world, there is always more to be found. Maybe you'll be one of my teachers there. My definition of friend is both teacher and student 😊
Namaste
Wow! This episode was more difficult for me to wrap my mind around than others in this series, especially with what Aronson had to say at the end. I'm also intrigued by the intrinsic information piece, but I'm not quite sure how to make sense of it. Can some one offer some metaphors that may be more accessible to explain intrinsic information or how information is dealt with from a quantum perspective?
Dear Robert, as long as you continue to try to understand consciousness, or "truth", by the use of words, you'll be forever lost in the quest. Reality is not made of words, numbers or any other 'concept'. Reality just IS. Be silent and you'll realize it.
Anyway, I love your series. You seem to be genuinely on the right path, just remember that this is all just words. And words - like mathematics - are useful tools of human creation. But, how would a brain explain its own existence by means of words itself created? :)
I wish you the best
@@merlin6234 Yes!
Thanks man. All the best in your journey.
You claim that reality is just is, by what does it truly mean to be? What does it mean to ontologically exist?
If you doubt the ability of words to decipher meaning and produce logical inferences, your own claims and conclusions become of no value. In other words, if words are limited and ultimately unable to provide explanations, what makes you think that they are to be relied upon when it comes to reaching this very conclusion?
thank you very much closer to truth
Robert looks like the result of Jeff Goldblum and Albert Einstein having a child
Sounds like it
The unreasonable effectiveness of information.
"this channal is a storehouse of knowledge"
Excellent presentation, thank you!!
The interesting thing about information is that it doesn't seem to be an inherent property of space and matter.
Nothing can exist without carrying information, and information can't exist without something to carry it. There isn't necessarily a 'single' fundamental thing.
@Psychiatrysts delusion?
Finally a step closer I’ve always been curious about how something immaterial can only be identified in a material field unless it itself is the fundamental material
Please do an episode on " Intelligent Design " interviewing Dr. Meyer and Dr. Behe. Thanks
26:27 "information is closer to truth" that's magical, soon we shall be talking about "truth" I know where this is going 😊
Information is the description of the action of being. The interaction is fundamental, the information is the observation.
If Rockefeller were a skeptic:
"How much quantum information is enough?"
"Just a little BIT more" 😏
Great episode by the way
Skeptic? A _Rockefeller?_ That doesn't make sense. They decide what MSM puts out lol
@@iamwhoyousayiam6773 no, LOL I was just trying to be clever with a play on words. Rockefeller is famous for responding to the question "how much money is enough?" with "just a little bit more"
-get it? *elbow nudge* 😉
A walk of brilliant minds through the valley of ignorance. Beautiful vacation in any case.
What Mr. Kuhn is struggling with here, is the dichotomy between matter BEING or REPRESENTING information. He asks this question in various forms and doesn't really get a consistent answer. To overcome this dichotomy lies at the heart of our quest to understand ultimate reality.
Paul Davis once stated: "How did stupid atoms write their own software?"
A very good question.
The fact is "stupid atoms" (i.e. undirected, ungoverned) energy or force cannot write anything (anything sensible, that is). To write something you need a Mind.
And you know that mind, WOW you rigligous folks always put God in, whenever there's a gap in our knowledge, remember Galileo, Spinoza,and Giordano Bruno,they were all right, rigligion claims to have information it can't possibly have, that's arogance,not humility
So who wrote the software of that 'mind'
Luciano Floridi could be a good person to talk about of this topic. I will appreciate a future (very future considering Covid-19 present situation) video with him talking about information and the digital revolution.
so much infortmation information overload!
Thermodynamics is related to the traditional theory of information, both are based on statistics.
Algorithm information theory is not statistically based, it is based on reducing a string as much as possible by finding the minimal length rule that expresses that string.
Information is the way the energy is organised in the universe . It’s the fundamental property of reality.
Paul Davies, genius . I suppose the only one who approached the topic rationally
Great editing of the images, text and music at the end! 👌
Information: a difference that makes a difference.
Very good documentary 👍. Thank you
Information is what science discover time to time in the universe, is that energy thinking in side your body and everywhere in the universe. In this life and the next one stay in the light.
Our information will become our experiences, and our experiences, causes our consciousness, and when you get conscious, then creation starts in the most areas in science, and we find meaning for most objects in our nature’s, and this was the ways, we came forward as a human being !
I have been pondering a thought for a while, if I write a sentence on paper with a pen, you could say the sentence weighs the amount of ink used to write it. I I carve that same sentence into a cliff face, the weight of the sentence becomes a negative as I have now removed instead of added material, yet the meaning of the sentence remains the same.
They say information is tied to physical reality, but has this thought, after being the movement of my fingers causing a series of button impressions, then becoming a vast serious of electrons and photons moving through a global network of wires and fiber-optics, compressed and manipulated through vast ranges of mathematics and languages, finally becoming a series of pixels on your screen and transferred to your brain via photons impressed upon the retinas of your eyes, has this thought caused you to gain or loose any mass within the confines of your body?
I would conjecture that no it has not, and whats crazy is the many forms of physical reality this thought has taken while traveling from my mind to yours is meaningless without the equal levels of knowledge our minds posses, the understanding of the written English language and use of computers. This thought transcends space and time and in essence is not physical at all, I have pushed these buttons in your past in a place in spacetime where you never will be yet my mind has touched yours. What does this imply?
Modern science takes for granted the idea that matter precedes mind, as shown in this video, hence humanities frantic search to understand how consciousness can arise from a physical brain. I think the little thought experiment above is proof that mind in fact precedes matter and that we are realy compound beings being composed of both body and mind or more specifically spirit. I think the practice of science is in fact a spiritual exercise for the immaterial mind to make sense of physical reality. Science is but one tool in a vast immaterial toolbox created and used by and for the wonder of the spiritual man. Which is bigger, a galaxy a billion light years away or the mind which peers across the universe and contemplates it?
Highly underrated comment
Every atom of this universe has the information about how it is suppose to behave.. this information makes it what it is.. every living as well as non living thing exist because of information in them.. there has to be a source definitely
The secret is in language with every way to decode any word sound and lows and regulations to use them 🙏🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻
It all started with the word. Words were spoken and things started to emerge.
... I've heard that somewhere before... "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος ...", "וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי אוֹר; וַיְהִי-אוֹר"
"In the beginning was the Word ..." Thanks for sharing. Best wishes, Lord-Jesus-Christ com
When something cannot be explained, it is easiest to just claim "the god(s) did it."
Humanity closing the circle back to occult knowledge and the answers to current day questions. Soon science will start avidly studying the occult and then we will have the world all latest generations have lived and died longing for.
I very much enjoy content like this, which makes CTT easily among my favorite avenues for learning about this _very_ interesting, albeit often confounding, world. This episode is among the very best of what are, far more often than not, very good discussions. Plus, Wittgenstein +1 :-)
I wish he had talked to a philosopher or two. When physicists talk about information, they seem to be talking about data (e.g., the letters in a news article) not about the understanding one acquires when they consume that data (e.g., read a news article), and these two things seem fundamentally different to me. One's objective; the other's subjective. One's made of bits; the other's made of experience. Saying they're both a product of math doesn't explain this deep difference.
Yes I agree. The subjective experience can't be satisfactorily defined in terms of physics and maths and yet that must, in some way, be included in the total information of the universe.
Don't conflate the everyday use of the word 'information' (i.e. in your second sentence) with that they're talking about here, which isn't subjective, but mathematically precise
@@ASLUHLUHC3 That's part of what I'm saying. There are at least two kinds of information and no distinction was made between them. Maybe the subjective kind I'm referring to, which is comprised of experience and understanding, should have its own episode (and maybe it already does).
@@GumbyTheGreen1 A distinction wasn't made because by "information" they're only talking about the mathematically well-defined Shannon information, quantum information, and integrated information theory. The subjective sense of the word isn't being discussed or is relevant
Information is bits of reality in the form of energy, particles and matter.
16:17 Mr Kuhn asks himself "But am I being persuaded that reality is information is more than metaphor? I can't tell, I don't have enough information." (Genius!)
Mr Kuhn, you can always fall back on insight.. at least you will get understanding! Use your empathy too, because Seth Lloyd earnestly believes this worldview. Personally, I'd stick with the historical sense of what information is useful for. This will at least still give 'meaning' a foothold...
Lovely show, once again. This channel is a true gem. I would like to hear more about the boundary condition-like role played by "context" as the dynamics of information and information exchange play out. I sense that the occasional over-sell of "it from bit" which i see thrown around has to do with the slippery role of context (possibly akin to the slippery role of "environment-vs-system" type concerns in Schroedinger Cat-based discussions).
This isn't new. It's an old episode of his TV show, not a RUclips video.
If it is true that information is the "primary stuff" that literally shapes our reality, which is more than likely, then some of today's assumptions are in urgent need of revision.
I'd argue that ANY physical medium ONLY ever contains "data"(code symbols/bits/q-bits etc.) & that even goes for brains(neurons/impulses etc.). & that a "conscious agent" is indeed REQUIRED to interpret that data into "information"(the actual meaning), which btw storage, transfer & even display/visualization etc. are NOT. & somewhat ironically its actually physical realism that practically demands that distinction, even more so than most any other view imo, at least for the time being, until the "hard problem" is COMPLETELY "cracked". After all, its materialism that says the beautiful colors(information?) of a rainbow(for instance) are anything BUT beautiful colors(in themselves) & can ONLY be a projection(or even an illusion) of perceptions of abstract quantities(data?) like frequency/wavelength/intensity etc.
Correct.. in fact 'information' is always a 'communication' with meaning and purpose from a mind to a mind in a language both can understand (ie that is the intent of the sender encapsulated by their purpose). Not all communication however is information because while communication always has a purpose it may not always have a meaning. The bit is also NOT a measure of the quantity of information because there is no quantitative measure of meaning. The bit is a measure of the signal capacity of a channel of communication.
Very interesting topic. I never thought one could think of information to such a fine level. It makes me wonder, though, what would then be the difference with data. My sense is that we collect data to create information to generate knowledge; there is something very subjective in this process. Yet, bu listening to these researchers, it seems that on the contrary information is very objective and the data collection process is subjective.
If you need data to generate information, it raises another question. Where does data come from? But data is information.
@@naturalLin This is where I disagree: I don't think data is information. Data is an element that one picks to identify an element of a given phenomena/entity, which is then interpreted to derive information. So, if information is inherently contained in anything, data is the only way to access this information. One can't create information without data, but then data is meaningless without information to be derived.
In a point of view, according to storage or computation processes, there are clear progressive definitions of building blocks from data to information to knowledge to understanding to wisdom. In the video's point of view, information is treated as the minimal data unit stored or computed.
Brilliantly created videos. Thanks
a relaxed scene, like the beginning of the docu with relaxed people is not tinkable now.
Thank you for the channel
Not only is information everywhere but "everything" IS information. ✅ Infact, the word 'inform' etymologically is from the Latin 'formare' meaning to change, to form, to train, to instruct, to educate the "mind" into hopefully something new n constructive.
The clue is in the "in" in inform, to form 'within' one's mind, an internal process.
Most peoples information of things is minimal, basic n generalised and limited to name, form & function.
How much information is imbued, anslysed n understood is wholly dependent on the cognitive intelligence of the person or in the case of a computer its general spec etc etc.
I love your show! Can your told share which company provides your music at 1.59 minutes? Thanks
What is Information? I would define information as ... convey-able knowledge.
Fantastic video. Earned a new subscription!
Sun is one of the best carrier of information 🙏🌻🌻🌻🌻🌻
In Bhagavad Gita, Sun thought yoga to mankind first before it was forgotten and rediscovered again.
Too good 👍
Really enjoyed the mind walk. Thanks.
Possibilities,variations
The ultimate truth is that everything is information
Information describes something which exists. The one that exists is more fundamental, which gives rise to information..
I feel information can best be explained by not what it is but what it isn’t, what is not there..
Every information entangled in a single point.
Information theory is great as long as they don't lose their minds and think the information is already there before they look and see it. Nature does not deal in information, any more than it does math. I did like how the first guy pointed out that all information is embodied in matter, that it doesn't just float around in the ether. This is why I know that I am a solid organism, made only of matter, so I can be causal in the universe.
To get to the moon, the human being needed to properly manage the concept of time, matter and space. However, we do not know how to explain, using language, what time is, what matter is and what space is.
Saint Augustine of Hippo used to say: “What, then, is time? If no one asks me, I know; but if I want to explain it to the person who asks me, I don't know. "
We do not need to know what information is to know what Consciousness is. In fact, there is already a coherent explanation for it. That Robert Lawrence Kuhn does not know about it is another matter.
Information is just one dimension of reality. At the fundamental level it represents creation, 0 or 1 existence or absence. It brings forth the concept of value. Listening to this conversation there is an aspect that is just as important which is being ignored...that is process. When we break down the universe it can be represented with 3 concepts, property, result and process. At the simplest level think of Temperature (property), How it’s measured (process) and it’s Value (result). All three are necessary and important.
I highly recommend you check out the work of Arthur M Young through his books The Reflexive Universe and The Geometry of Meaning.
It's quite surprising that a conversation revolving about "information" and "meaning" doesn't lead to discussing "semiotics".
Interesting point. The "information is fundamental" movement is trying to pull it into the domain of physics, which I believe is beyond its scope. The book "The Information" by Gleick is more about semiotics and the evolution communication between people.
@@NickMirro I agree, physics is all about the quantitative and Shannon certainly used some nice quantitative terms, and topped it off with “entropy” which resonated with that field. But the future of science is interdisciplinary, disciplines such as biophysics, where common terminologies and new philosophies must be made in order to generate more heuristically useful research. I believe that physiosemiotics and biosemiotics could certainly be explored as branches of semiotics, and explore what comes out of it.
‘Information’ ? It has been my most dubious privilege to have been able to determine (quite verifiably) ‘information’s’ exact ontological identity, & although I am not going to divulge it here (otherwise I’d have to kill you, as the saying goes) I can quite confidently assure you that it’s not ‘digits’ - nor ‘bits’ - no matter how many of these particular things one has at one’s disposal, nor how cleverly arranged they are, nor how large, powerful and globally interconnected are the machines operating on them.
‘Digits’ can be used as the means with which to COUNT (& calculate) BUT ‘digits’/‘bits’ are NOT entities with which any genuine, bona fide, real-life problem-solving, rational THINKING can be accomplished - for which latter another completely different class of entities is required.
George Gilder in “Life After Google” rightly points out that our computers are not thinking machines at all but are nothing more than glorified, electrically automated counting devices; they are none other than vastly accelerated, massively miniaturised, electronically automated ABACUSES !!! & as such completely unable to think. (Let alone intelligently.)
Yes. It is eminently possible to build machines (instruments, tools & devices) to perform EACH of these two different operations - ‘counting’, & separately ‘thinking’. Interestingly we ourselves have one of each such devices up inside our heads which is precisely why we can both count & also think.
Another consideration of which I can assure you is that once ‘information’s’ correct & fully verifiable identity is recognised to be this particular (still undisclosed) thing (class of things) it immediately becomes eminently possible to further establish the ontological identities of all of the very greatly sought after, directly information-related phenomena such as ‘thought’, ‘mind’, ‘intelligence’ and ‘consciousness’. Some bonus, eh what !
Easey, peasey
Indeed, by subsequently building on the ontological identities of information itself as well as that of all of these directly information-related phenomena, it further yet becomes eminently possible to, either newly establish, or greatly clarify, the ontological identities of everything else - time, space, matter & energy, life & non-life, even morality ‘good’ & ‘bad’, (to far less than exhaust the list).
As it so transpires our Universe turns out to be a panpsychic one, that is to say one in which matter can be both well & accurately described as being ‘congealed consciousness’ - again, a Universe in which each & every increment of matter (each & every increment of congealed consciousness) is precisely that, conscious - indeed is both conscious & intelligent. ...... although not a few of us human beings currently fail as regards the latter......
“Dubious privilege” ? I’m a hapless little old untutored antipodean lady hardly likely to get any of these epic discoveries of mine out there where they’ll do some real good ....
Nevertheless I’m pleased to note that both Giulio Tononi & Christof Koch have (separately) outlined a hard, quantitative, verifiable & fully demonstrable analytical basis by way of establishing a true science of consciousness. It can be done !
Most fortunately ‘information’s’ correct ontological identity allows precisely for just such treatment.
Nice word salad with zero ultimate meaning.
Perfect to avoid the absolute truth that Information CAN ONLY COME FROM A MIND.
It became clearer to me what information is in physics. but when they say, for example, that when something enters a black hole the information is not destroyed, where is that information stored? Or to say something, if my house burns down, where is the information on the house and everything that was in it?
The 'Primacy of Consciousness' (as I like to call it) is something I am privy to as a prophet. That is, this is the only reality that has ever 'made sense' to me ('Primacy of Stuff' makes no sense). And I didn't begin thinking of it as some kind of 'gift', until I realized that science had taken such great pains (and incremental steps) towards understanding the knowledge some of us were just BORN with. This is the difference between the intellect and the 'intuition'.
@@TheWorldTeacher Sorry, but I saw ^nothing^ up there to indicate I should read the whole thing... except that you started off defining 'consciousness' (as though I didn't know what that was).
But my WHOLE POINT is to underscore Descartes famous words (IOW, we *all* know what consciousness is; it's the ONE thing we all know fully). Sorry if I missed any gold nuggets buried beneath that one glaring point!
@@TheWorldTeacher Well at least I know for certain that reading your screed (whatever it was) would have been a waste of time. Again, *everybody* knows what consciousness is. It's inherent. It's what we are.
@@TheWorldTeacher I can be presumptuous, absolutely. But _pre-suming_ isn't the 'evil'. _'Being presumptuous'_ is the true evil, is it not?
@@TheWorldTeacher : "Bless You Always, So-called “PROPHET”!"
I'm not sure 'bless you' means what you think it does... but I digress. Smart people don't tend to believe in prophets at all (because fools believe too blindly in them) so no worries. That is the prophet's paradox!
@@TheWorldTeacher Not a word of that made sense.
Data , Information, Knowledge, Wisdom. Please elaborate.
Is this the computation or derivative?
What's "infamation"?
Something to do with lots of "Adams" I guess.
i was looking for this comment
I've been asking this question for about six months. (I was temporarily done with thinking of everything in terms of narrative.) The problem is that I can't think of any way information isn't communication, and I can't think of any way communication doesn't require a communicator and a communicatee, so to speak, and that seems to make some kind of consciousness the ground of everything. Framing it in terms of binaries is really thought-provoking, because it suggests that every On is composed of innumerable On's and Off's, and vice versa, just as routines are built of subroutines and as both Socrates and Tibetan Buddhism use a technique of questions with yes and no answers to achieve enlightenment.
Information is just one thing telling another thing what to do.
information seems to be the awareness of knowing what should be the role intrinsically of a bit
Today, I am closer to truth.
Consciousness is the sourse of all information, consciousness is the very core of reality, consciousness is God .
well they want the suspense
Thank you for another fascinating video with interviews of thoughtful scientists probing the nature and limits of information.
I am less persuaded that information, as a concept and entity, is a fundamental aspect of reality.
This is in contrast to some of the commentators who even seem to suggest that information may operate as a creative force to bring things into existence.
I would press pause on that notion. I see information rather as an advanced kind of “programming code” for other things such as energy and matter. It is nevertheless, at the very least, a vital aspect of our description of reality, I think.
One aspect of information not touched on in the video is related to that famous “bet” between S. Hawking and Kip Thorne on one side and L. Suskind/J. Preskill on the other side over black holes - the Black Hole Information Paradox.
Recall that Hawking first claimed information is forever lost when objects fall into a black hole and it’s singularity ending. Susskind and Preskill objected based on conservation of energy and information principles. Information is never lost, argued Susskind.
Hawking lost the bet when he conceded that proofs showed that the information corresponding to any object falling into a black hole never leaves the universe.
It remains captured forever in an apparent arc of radiation at the black hole’s event horizon - and it was later captioned “Hawking Radiation”.
Lesson: The eternal and on-going nature of information in our space-time universe.
Meanwhile, some scientists used this lesson to construct the model of the Holographic Universe. But that is another story.
Meantime, many thanks again for your video.