Scientific Forums


Pages: (3) [1] 2 3   ( Go to first unread post )

Closed Topic · Start new topic · Start new poll


> The Informational Concept
sDs
  Posted: Nov 30 2009, 10:34 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 15-March 08

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


Hello ALL,

Here the informational concept in philosophy and physics is suggested for a discussion - see

http://arXiv.org/abs/0812.2819 – V4,

(also may be useful
- http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0703043:
- V1, sections: 1. "Introduction"; and may be 2. "To the definition of the concept of information";
- V5, sections: 1. "To the definition of the concept of information"; and "Discussion and conclusion")


Some comments:
(A) - the suggested informational approach is rigorously logically grounded. Indeed all that exists are the words. To understand that is necessary to take into account a few rather evident things:
(1) – to understand, that the information is the objective thing and doesn’t require any "sapiens" to exist;

(2) – to understand, that the information is unique thing which exists when there is no anything – that’s simply the cyclic statement "there is no anything besides the information that there is no anything besides..." - so the information is "storage device" for the information and so there isn’t any necessity for something else to exist.
On another word – the information is unique thing that isn’t capable to be non-existent.

(3) – to understand that all above is not a trick or next "information paradox" – though the information is very paradoxical thing indeed – but it is the ultimate reality and only requires to get used to such a conclusion.

(cool.gif But, besides, it seems it is highly desirable also for somebody "to be ready" to apprehend the concept, for that – it is desirable to put and to attempt to answer on a number of the questions, such as:
(1) – what is our external World ? (though the question "what is the (my) consciousness?" is interesting also);
(2) - from where, including – "from what material" the World was originated?
(3) – human's experience says that the World is some logically consistent system – in the World some system of "Nature laws" works – Why it is so? Why the consciousness’ languages, including – mathematical – are totally adequate to the material World? (and what is "material"? – that’s good question also);
- etc;
(4) - it is rather useful to remember, that in a number of thousands of years already there were many attempts in the science to answer on these questions, but all attempts turned out to be in vain – eventually always corresponding considerations reduced to some beliefs in framework of two main concepts –of Materialism and Idealism - and so this discussion turns out to be endless – why?

Additionally it is useful to remember, that there are a number of the "information theories" , as well as of the "set theories", when at that - the notions "the information" and "the set" aren’t defined (!) – so why did such a funny situations happen and why it remains unresolved till now?

But at that - these theories are well adequate when solving specific problems relating to specific properties of some sets (or "ensembles", "manifolds", etc.) as well as of an "information" as it is considered as, e.g., a "measure of uncertainty", "complexity", etc.
—-
After somebody will become "ready" – this informational concept becomes rather understandable when it makes essentially more clear many problems in philosophy, mathematics, physics, etc. As an example – it turns out to be that in reality the notions "the set" and "the information" are utmost fundamental and so can not be defined through something more fundamental/common notions, when both notions are "the same" in some sense – the set is "the mode of existence" of the information, when for the set the better name is a "manifold" in sense "diversity".

In philosophy for Idealism it becomes clear that there is no necessity for a Creator to be omnipotent (and so – transcendent, one of the main problems in Idealism) to "create the Universe from nothing" – all possible scenarios of the creations "were/are ready far before creation" and only one thing remains – how can a scenario be activated? For Materialism – a possibility of some "accidental" activation appears, when – since it seems that, e.g., our Universe is rather simple logical system – the probability of such a creation can be not too large;
it seems possible to develop rather plausible physics model for gravity and electricity, etc.;

- details – see the arXiv links in the posts above.

Cheers.


Top
sDs
Posted: Nov 30 2009, 12:37 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 15-March 08

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


And – sorry - to the first post, relating to the link http://arXiv.org/abs/0812.2819 – V4,

erratum:

(1) Eq. (24a) should be as: (Vector sum) omega_r=omega_y+omega_x*(1-beta)

(2) (Text between Eqs. 24c, 24d)
There is:"Taking into account the equation for the flux of the rims, Eq.(22) and that the flux of FLE in the bunches should also the equation for the electric field of a moving charge:";

There should be: "Taking into account the equation for the flux of the rims, Eq.(22) and that the flux of FLE in the bunches should also be transformed (corresponding equation for the flux in a bunch - by Doppler factor), obtain the equation for the electric field of a moving charge:";

(3)Eq. (24d) – the exponent in the denominator must be 2, not 3; besides - it contains unnecessary fator - reuced Planck's constant (it is already in the equation for scalar potential earlier in the text)


Cheers again
Top
sDs
Posted: Dec 28 2009, 10:37 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 15-March 08

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


Because of absence of comments in this forum I quote here
A comment/ answer in some another one:

[Comment]

"I accept with information: Therefore primes are God's language which are completely selfindependatn and therefore ale completely slefdefining - the most powerfull language which can be - is language build on primes, which is capable to cary tha maximum information in any possible sequence of symbols. It contains no redundancy to exactly formulate the thoughts and also works as universal translator, any finite language is it's subset - that means every todays human or programming language and also formal language of mathematics can be described by primes."

[Answer]:

- that’s something adequate, to some extent, to the informational conception; but not (of course) completely. In particular – when you use the term "God" – it should be defined previously. If It is some self- organized Essence (having a self- identification, some aims, etc.) then It is some subsystem in the Set "Information" which appeared to be under some reason or because of that a self – organization is an intrinsic property of Information.
On another hand, if a self – organization is an intrinsic property of Information, then the Set Itself can indeed be classified as the "Prime Creator", Deo, - as, e.g., G. Cantor said (see Wiki) "…The actual infinite arises in three contexts: first when it is realized in the most complete form, in a fully independent otherworldly being, in Deo, where I call it the Absolute Infinite or simply Absolute…"

But, on another hand, here a problem appears – can we consider an Essence intelligent, when this Essence is absolutely complete and so cannot change anything in itself? Insofar as even the Essence will attempt to change something in itself, for example – to begin our Universe, It must absolutely exactly follow to the scenario of this change, when this scenario existed "always", including – "far before" of some Beginning…

Cheers
Top
uaafanblog
Posted: Dec 28 2009, 11:57 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1181
Joined: 27-November 06

Positive Feedback: 72.73%
Feedback Score: 80


yes.

when a tree falls in the forest it makes a sound.

thanks for clarifying that ...


--------------------
I been stuffed in your pocket for the last hundred days, when I don't get my bath I take it out on the slaves. So grease up your baby for a ball on the hill, I'll polish them rockets now and swallow those pills and say ....
Ahhhhhh .... Spacelord mutha mutha.
-- Monster Magnet --

It is offensive and ruinous, something to be avoided at all cost, for a nonbeliever to hear a Christian talking about these things as though with Christian writings as his source, and yet so nonsensically and with such obvious error that the nonbeliever can hardly keep from laughing.
-- St. Augustine --

I laugh a lot in the Evolution/Creation section of this forum.
Top
sDs
  Posted: Apr 22 2010, 09:12 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 15-March 08

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


The discussion on a number of forums of the informational conception showed that some difficulties in the understanding of the conception sometimes take place.

So a separate article for the conception was made - some extended compilation of corresponding sections of the papers "The information and the matter" and "The informational physics indeed can help to understand Nature?"

- see http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712

Cheers
Top
Kaeru
Posted: Apr 22 2010, 01:26 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 154
Joined: 8-March 10

Positive Feedback: 77.78%
Feedback Score: 25


So, you want to spread an idea, but your language is so convoluted and full of buzz-words that no one can understand it but you? If that. What garbage.

Outstanding. dry.gif


--------------------
wa chichioya to issho ni fushinjin na kaeru
Top
adoucette
Posted: Apr 22 2010, 03:40 PM


Illegitimi non carborundum
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 12894
Joined: 14-April 05

Positive Feedback: 77.59%
Feedback Score: 205


QUOTE (Kaeru @ Apr 22 2010, 08:26 AM)
So, you want to spread an idea, but your language is so convoluted and full of buzz-words that no one can understand it but you? If that. What garbage.


Really?

You don't understand the significance of this statement from the conclusion of this paper:

QUOTE
for a physicist it would be rather interesting to answer on the question – so how is possible to open a can with a sentence “there is no this …, as well as its evolution”?



wink.gif

Arthur


--------------------
"We cannot prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached a turning point; that we have seen our best days. But so said all before us, and with just as much apparent reason. On what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?"

Thomas B. Macaulay
Top
Kaeru
Posted: Apr 22 2010, 05:00 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 154
Joined: 8-March 10

Positive Feedback: 77.78%
Feedback Score: 25


Definitely not. Can you read Russian? It would be very helpful to see a good translation instead of the gobbledegook presented. blink.gif


--------------------
wa chichioya to issho ni fushinjin na kaeru
Top
adoucette
Posted: Apr 22 2010, 05:21 PM


Illegitimi non carborundum
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 12894
Joined: 14-April 05

Positive Feedback: 77.59%
Feedback Score: 205


QUOTE (Kaeru @ Apr 22 2010, 12:00 PM)
Definitely not. Can you read Russian? It would be very helpful to see a good translation instead of the gobbledegook presented. blink.gif

I think it was written in English.

It's interesting to review the various versions of the paper.

(these two have been at this for a while)

V1 is quite different.

http://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0812/0812.2819v1.pdf

Arthur


--------------------
"We cannot prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached a turning point; that we have seen our best days. But so said all before us, and with just as much apparent reason. On what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?"

Thomas B. Macaulay
Top
sDs
  Posted: Apr 27 2010, 08:28 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 15-March 08

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


As it seems too much talking about the paper’s English happened in the thread.

This English is, certainly, not Oxford one, but is understandable enough to understand the content of

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712

Cheers
Top
sDs
Posted: Jun 2 2010, 01:27 PM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 15-March 08

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


Now extended and more systematic version of the informational model in physics appeared see

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2819 , V5; though it remains be rather desirable
to have read the paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.3712 before/ also.

As it seems the SR theory becomes more understandable.

Cheers
Top
sDs
  Posted: Jul 22 2010, 11:32 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 15-March 08

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


Because of absence of comments in this thread I quoted already a posting from some other forum. Now it seems a sense to continue such a practice. However, since the discussion was seems rather interesting but long, there is no room for quotation and so I point out here only URLs of two threads:
Main address: http://www.thescienceforum.com/Physics-for...a49afcece200b68

The threads:
(1) What’s so special about light?

And

(2) 1/0

The first thread was cleaned by moderator from spamming and so is readable practically as a whole. The second – is spammed, so one should choose the posting "SSDZ - moderator" as a rule.

The discussions in these threads seem as practically complete, so maybe there is no necessity to post something else – only to read; besides – for answering on new posts it is tooo hot here now…

Cheers
Top
sDs
Posted: Nov 12 2010, 10:11 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 15-March 08

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


Because of absence of comments in this thread I continue the practice of a posting from some other forum (below - from the link above, "What’s so special about light?").
_________________________

Now the paper with a description of some experiments aimed at a testing of the informational model in physics appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 v2.

Three experiments are considered – two relating to the gravity randomness and one – relating to the SRT test.

Though in this thread ("what is...") the SRT problems were discussed and seems be made rather clear, a number of threads appeared later where the same problems were touched again.

All the problems arise from non-selfconsistence of standard ("axiomatized") SRT version. First of all – it leads to the twin paradox. The resolutions of the paradox as, e.g., "… Special relativity, by its very formulation, applies only in inertial reference frames…Therefore on cannon apply the equations that describe time dilation in the reference frame of the traveling twin by only in reference frame of the non-traveling twin.." Or "…Actually acceleration, and acceleration and gravity are equivalent (see the "equivalence principle" of general relativity) is the key to the resolution of the twin "paradox"… "
– seem as rather non- satisfactory.

Indeed – the main contraction of elapsed time for the traveller occurs just in the inertial path of the way, when the contribution of the acceleration/deceleration intervals is comparatively small and is lesser with increase of the inertial path. On another hand – if the masses of the twins are let – 70 kg (even 700 kg) – such masses aren’t so large to recall about GR – here we have practically purely flat spacetime and purely SRT problem.

Another SSRT flaw is the assertion that all "inertial frames" are equivalent, where any frame relates to whole spacetime in Universe. From this follows rather questionable implication that, e.g., every moving particle (which, of course, "have its reference frame") transforms whole spacetime.
Besides – because of relating to this particle all Matter in Universe "moves with [practically] the same (-)speed", from SSRT follows that the particle enlarges the energy of whole Matter - for some protons in the spacetime that is equivalent 10^17 of initial mass,
etc.

So the first SRT version that was developed by Vogt, FitzGerald and Lorentz basing on the experiment (M-M experiment) and the relativity principle (Maxwell equation must be invariant in inertial frames) seems as was more adequate.

The informational model haven’t the flaws that are pointed above. The acceleration indeed have a role, but in SRT it only indicate that the traveller’s momentum rises/ decreases with corresponding decreasing /rising the traveller’s "own (individual, proper) time". When homebody’s momentum and time don't change – to save some years is necessary to spend some energy.

On another hand – what is the mechanism that leads to changing of a FLE state at some impact (at acceleration)? – that is very important problem; and its solving possibly will allow to widen the informational model into "GR region".

Cheers
Top
sDs
Posted: May 5 2011, 11:51 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 15-March 08

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


Now a little changed version of the paper with a description of some experiments aimed at a testing of the informational model in physics appeared – see http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979, v3.

Cheers
Top
sDs
Posted: Jun 7 2011, 11:03 AM


Member
**

Group: Power Member
Posts: 80
Joined: 15-March 08

Positive Feedback: 50%
Feedback Score: 0


Under some non-pleasant reason
(see, e.g., http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/31372-i...cs/page__st__20 , SSDS's last post)
the informational conception got - in some sense though - a publicity:

in the Net a sensation appeared, e.g.:

http://io9.com/5799396/youre-living-in-a-c...-math-proves-it

The novelty resembles in certain sense the informational conception.

Though it is a full rubbish, in one month (May) the "novelty" was widely spread; Google shows more then 100 000 links answering on

"You’re living in a computer simulation, and math proves it" .

Cheers

This post has been edited by sDs on Jun 7 2011, 11:06 AM
Top

Topic Options Pages: (3) [1] 2 3 

Closed Topic · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use