Information as mass, paper published on information entropy

[BWRhasnoAC]

This is wildly exciting for me personally as I have been reading about this for a few years now and they have finally released some amazing theories that better explain the nature of how matter organizes in the universe.

It also supports the idea that we exist in some kind of high level simulation, and everything has information associated with it's mass, much like the cell has information in it's DNA.

Nerdy exciting stuff.

Could a new law of physics support the idea we're living in a computer simulation?

A University of Portsmouth physicist has explored whether a new law of physics could support the much-debated theory that we are simply characters in an advanced virtual world.

phys.org

 

[nfrine]

This is wildly exciting for me personally as I have been reading about this for a few years now and they have finally released some amazing theories that better explain the nature of how matter organizes in the universe.

It also supports the idea that we exist in some kind of high level simulation, and everything has information associated with it's mass, much like the cell has information in it's DNA.

Nerdy exciting stuff.

Could a new law of physics support the idea we're living in a computer simulation?

A University of Portsmouth physicist has explored whether a new law of physics could support the much-debated theory that we are simply characters in an advanced virtual world.

phys.org

You are a Cowboy fan, correct?

 

[CascadeClone]

Thats interesting, altho i wont claim to understand all of it.

Two thoughts-
If existence is a simulation, what does the Simulator do once we hit some level of realizing its a simulation? Does the simulation just end, like a lab experiment gone wrong, and the universe as we know it is destroyed? Along w all of us? Or does that realization trigger some kind of "level up" where the Simulator breaks the 4th wall and starts to communicate to us? Is the Simulator "God" for all intents and purposes?

Second, could it be that existence is NOT a simulation in the sense that its intentional, that some Simulator exists who made it. But rather this is just how our human minds are analogizing and comprehending our initial understanding of what a matter-energy-information universal physiscs really is? It might be this is "real" or "natural" rather than artificially invented by some intelligence with a different "real" universe over the top of it. But we are calling it a Simulation in our initial glimpses of comprehension.

Third thought. What if we can figure out how to crack the info code and re-write things? Maybe you can change the rules of.physics. Mke things resistant to gravity maybe. Go faster than light. Make your wang 2" longer. Anything could be possible.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

Thats interesting, altho i wont claim to understand all of it.

Two thoughts-
If existence is a simulation, what does the Simulator do once we hit some level of realizing its a simulation? Does the simulation just end, like a lab experiment gone wrong, and the universe as we know it is destroyed? Along w all of us? Or does that realization trigger some kind of "level up" where the Simulator breaks the 4th wall and starts to communicate to us? Is the Simulator "God" for all intents and purposes?

Second, could it be that existence is NOT a simulation in the sense that its intentional, that some Simulator exists who made it. But rather this is just how our human minds are analogizing and comprehending our initial understanding of what a matter-energy-information universal physiscs really is? It might be this is "real" or "natural" rather than artificially invented by some intelligence with a different "real" universe over the top of it. But we are calling it a Simulation in our initial glimpses of comprehension.

Third thought. What if we can figure out how to crack the info code and re-write things? Maybe you can change the rules of.physics. Mke things resistant to gravity maybe. Go faster than light. Make your wang 2" longer. Anything could be possible.

Probably never know if it's natural or created. It could be God.

As far as manipulating reality, who really knows? I remember reading about an experiment proposed to prove that information has mass but the specifics are escaping my memory.

 

[LeaningCy]

Probably never know if it's natural or created. It could be God.

As far as manipulating reality, who really knows? I remember reading about an experiment proposed to prove that information has mass but the specifics are escaping my memory.

I remember this popping up a few years ago:

The information catastrophe

Currently, we produce ∼1021 digital bits of information annually on Earth. Assuming a 20% annual growth rate, we estimate that after ∼350 years from now, the nu

pubs.aip.org

"Currently, we produce ∼10^21 digital bits of information annually on Earth. Assuming a 20% annual growth rate, we estimate that after ∼350 years from now, the number of bits produced will exceed the number of all atoms on Earth, ∼10^50. After ∼300 years, the power required to sustain this digital production will exceed 18.5 × 10^15 W, i.e., the total planetary power consumption today, and after ∼500 years from now, the digital content will account for more than half Earth’s mass, according to the mass-energy–information equivalence principle."

 

[JustAnotherTimeline]

This is wildly exciting for me personally as I have been reading about this for a few years now and they have finally released some amazing theories that better explain the nature of how matter organizes in the universe.

It also supports the idea that we exist in some kind of high level simulation, and everything has information associated with it's mass, much like the cell has information in it's DNA.

Nerdy exciting stuff.

Could a new law of physics support the idea we're living in a computer simulation?

A University of Portsmouth physicist has explored whether a new law of physics could support the much-debated theory that we are simply characters in an advanced virtual world.

phys.org

I don't think there is adequate scientific support for the idea that information has mass. For instance, my thoughts as I type right now are not physical entities. They do not have mass. However, in reading the paper, the author notes that whether information has mass has no bearing on this research (he admits levels of skepticism here)...so I press on.

The research is really is interesting, and if correct, completely undermines Darwinism at its core. The implications of that are staggering.

For me, its a bit of a jump to conclude information efficiency is basically a computer data dump in a simulation. But, I do recognize the implications of this for simulation theory. It is certainly another feather in it's cap.

Just curious, would you WANT simulation theory to be true? If it were, how would it impact how you "live"?

Also (you knew I would go here), I am aware of your affinity for panpsychism and also simulation theory. At a high level, both of these ideas at their core imply that the world is not as it seems. We really are in Platos cave.

Although I know you are not convinced of theism, but have you ever thought that maybe people who believe in God (like me) are more similar in thinking to you than the mainstream physicalist/naturalist?

There is a reason why Jeremy Robinson wrote NPC (an author we both like) the way that he did. He believes in God, but also conceives of a possible simulation. They are good bedfellows, really. If you remember the end....the simulation had an architect.

 

[MugNight]

I’ve caught myself thinking, “what if we weren’t here?” at various times in the life. In those moments, it’s almost like my brain misfires and I can’t logically think through it. Is this a feature of the game? Almost like a governor on the mind’s engine as a matter of self preservation?

The idea of Existence implies there is an opposite, an empty nothingness. Can one exist without the other? I don’t know. My brain hurts again.

 

[pourcyne]

Probably never know if it's natural or created. It could be God.

Which one?

 

[pourcyne]

It also supports the idea that we exist in some kind of high level simulation, and everything has information associated with it's mass,

its

 

[JustAnotherTimeline]

Thats interesting, altho i wont claim to understand all of it.

Two thoughts-
If existence is a simulation, what does the Simulator do once we hit some level of realizing its a simulation? Does the simulation just end, like a lab experiment gone wrong, and the universe as we know it is destroyed? Along w all of us? Or does that realization trigger some kind of "level up" where the Simulator breaks the 4th wall and starts to communicate to us? Is the Simulator "God" for all intents and purposes?

Second, could it be that existence is NOT a simulation in the sense that its intentional, that some Simulator exists who made it. But rather this is just how our human minds are analogizing and comprehending our initial understanding of what a matter-energy-information universal physiscs really is? It might be this is "real" or "natural" rather than artificially invented by some intelligence with a different "real" universe over the top of it. But we are calling it a Simulation in our initial glimpses of comprehension.

Third thought. What if we can figure out how to crack the info code and re-write things? Maybe you can change the rules of.physics. Mke things resistant to gravity maybe. Go faster than light. Make your wang 2" longer. Anything could be possible.

Concerning your first thought, keep in mind simulation theory is like Russian dolls. You don't know which doll you are in. There could be a near infinite number of them. The creator of base reality could be the god-like figure. We are almost certainly not in base reality, so a "realization", I think would just be someone pulling the the plug. No chance to meet said god.

You second thought it interesting to me. I tend towards a sort of idealism, that mind rather than matter is fundamental. The universe looks a lot like the neural networks in your brain. I think all exists in the "mind" of God.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

I don't think there is adequate scientific support for the idea that information has mass. For instance, my thoughts as I type right now are not physical entities. They do not have mass. However, in reading the paper, the author notes that whether information has mass has no bearing on this research (he admits levels of skepticism here)...so I press on.

The research is really is interesting, and if correct, completely undermines Darwinism at its core. The implications of that are staggering.

For me, its a bit of a jump to conclude information efficiency is basically a computer data dump in a simulation. But, I do recognize the implications of this for simulation theory. It is certainly another feather in it's cap.

Just curious, would you WANT simulation theory to be true? If it were, how would it impact how you "live"?

Also (you knew I would go here), I am aware of your affinity for panpsychism and also simulation theory. At a high level, both of these ideas at their core imply that the world is not as it seems. We really are in Platos cave.

Although I know you are not convinced of theism, but have you ever thought that maybe people who believe in God (like me) are more similar in thinking to you than the mainstream physicalist/naturalist?

There is a reason why Jeremy Robinson wrote NPC (an author we both like) the way that he did. He believes in God, but also conceives of a possible simulation. They are good bedfellows, really. If you remember the end....the simulation had an architect.

I am making no assumptions on the nature of a hypothetical simulation. I am simply excited by the additions to physics. I have no real interest debating theism on this particular thread because we aren't in the cave.

Something incredibly exciting is the possibility of nature minimizing informational entropy, such as the reference to elections in atoms or symmetry in plants or other natural occurring formations.

 

[Turn2]

"...No one could afford to live, go out or travel and the world was too scary
Fifteen years ago the book "Snow Crash" predicted the underclass would have to live out their lives, trapped in a tiny room with full head monitors on
Leading a second life wired to a computer generated world..."

 

[JustAnotherTimeline]

I am making no assumptions on the nature of a hypothetical simulation. I am simply excited by the additions to physics. I have no real interest debating theism on this particular thread because we aren't in the cave.

Something incredibly exciting is the possibility of nature minimizing informational entropy, such as the reference to elections in atoms or symmetry in plants or other natural occurring formations.

Oh, I didn't realize that, my bad! I'll coarse correct.

I agree, the symmetry portion was super interesting and definitely something I've always wondered about. What are your thoughts on implications in biology? That was the part that stuck out to me most.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

its

Is that not a possessive pronoun? English is annoying so I'm probably wrong.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

Oh, I didn't realize that, my bad! I'll coarse correct.

I agree, the symmetry portion was super interesting and definitely something I've always wondered about. What are your thoughts on implications in biology? That was the part that stuck out to me most.

It could just be biological evolution has moved towards less informational entropy to limit mistakes in replication, structure, composition, etc. As long as things have existed it's not impossible to think that would occur through natural selection.

 

[frackincygy]

I'm no physicist, but if his theory is correct and information has both a mass (possible source of dark matter) and a tendency towards reduced entropy (as his evaluation of symmetry in nature suggests) then wouldn't the universe be progressively getting less massive over time? Isn't this at odds with our conventional understanding/ modeling of the universe?

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

I'm no physicist, but if his theory is correct and information has both a mass (possible source of dark matter) and a tendency towards reduced entropy (as his evaluation of symmetry in nature suggests) then wouldn't the universe be progressively getting less massive over time? Isn't this at odds with our conventional understanding/ modeling of the universe?

Maybe not less massive but more ordered at least as information is concerned. Which is counter to normal entropy and part of the reason I think people see a simulation as a possibility.

I kind of think of it as the strong forces in molecules influencing their geometry. Information seemingly needs to become more ordered as to maintain the material processes of replication and structure.

 

[pourcyne]

Is that not a possessive pronoun? English is annoying so I'm probably wrong.

It's is a contraction for "it is". "Its" is the possessive form of "it".

Even if you wanted to say "it is mass", that is how you need to express it, since the "it" is the object of the preposition "with" and therefore cannot be the subject of a following "is".

Correct: ... everything associated with it is mass.
Correct: ...everything associated with its mass
Incorrect: ... everything associated with it's mass

As for English, it's much easier than quantum mechanics. The rules are more precise and easier to apply, relatively speaking.

Little Einstein humor for you, there, given the overlying topic.

 

[BWRhasnoAC]

It's is a contraction for "it is". "Its" is the possessive form of "it".

Even if you wanted to say "it is mass", that is how you need to express it, since the "it" is the object of the preposition "with" and therefore cannot be the subject of a following "is".

Correct: ... everything associated with it is mass.
Correct: ...everything associated with its mass
Incorrect: ... everything associated with it's mass

As for English, it's much easier than quantum mechanics. The rules are more precise and easier to apply, relatively speaking.

Little Einstein humor for you, there, given the overlying topic.

I hate the rules of English but I do remember this from the little English I took in school now that you mention it. I prefer Spanish, easier to spell, rules don't change much.