Philosophy Discussion Forums

Greta wrote:I would like evidence that Kris and 1i3i6-- are not the same person. There are too many coincidences IMO. Otherwise I will delete this thread.

Good Day Greta,
I can't PM as I am new here but I most definitely not the same person as Kris. I recently joined this forum in search of a place to have more intellectual conversations centered on Philosophy/Science. I went to this section to center on this and literally replied to the top most threads in this section as they are were caught my attention are seemingly 'up my alley'. I have a number of pending submissions that are thought out and aren't foolishness. I have replied to the previous poster to put to bed that what I have said is absurd. I would like very much for these posts to be approve so that I may participate. I am not Kris and have responded to different users.

PM me if there are any issues related to this or my submissions.

Greta wrote:I would like evidence that Kris and 1i3i6-- are not the same person. There are too many coincidences IMO. Otherwise I will delete this thread.

I waited a day or so and no reply. I would have liked to have engaged in interesting discussion. However, the Moderation is seemingly too heavy handed and delayed. You're more than welcome to delete my pending posts.

1i3i6-- wrote:Just as you have potential energy.
There is a concept of 'potential information'...It would seem that this is nonsensical to you because you're not using the right tools to analyze it. A deep understanding of set theory and information theory are what's needed. I'm only trying to discuss this in a way that is more easily understood.
It should be now and if you find a flaw or issue, please post it.

I have a question about the Information structure as I presented.

We understand information organization as a PC with processor, memory and input/output devices.
My feeling is that the Information can simultaneously receive, process, store and execute/transform
information on almost unlimited scale without any specialization or dedication. The information transfer
required instant access and communication of enormous areas without processor. Similar mechanism,
however in micro-scale and very limited, you can find in plants.

My question is do you met witch similar existing information structures or with any theoretical model?

1i3i6-- wrote:Just as you have potential energy.
There is a concept of 'potential information'.

If i decide to make a video game and want to restrict character movement
to left, right, up and down. The set of all movements once I create the game can be defined as {left, right, up, down}
I can encode this with two bits :
00 - left
01 - right
10 - up
11 - down

Before I create the game, I can have information about it.

With all due respect, this is not information, in the ordinary sense of the word. This is an idea (or ideas). Information is a transfer of knowledge. Here you thought up a game, and decided with naming some attributes with names (00, etc.) This is not information, or ether. It is an idea you've developed.

Kris wrote:By this example, Information actually precedes the creation of the game and is tangible. No. Ideas preceded the creation, not information. Why call something something else?

What allowed me to encode the information? Something that could arbitrarily take on any value before I assigned it value : An ether. but more likely than ether, what really allowed you to encode the information was the prior advent of computers, your brain, your knowledge of games, your knowledge of directions, etc. etc.

There's an infinite number of binary strings is there not?
So, there you have it by example.. Real world example. So... you are denying that sea-urchins are real life examples, too? How can you claim such a denial to hold true? (I can play stupid too, you know.)

Shouldn't take much to conceptualize this beyond a finite frame.

A bit of background in information theory might help one parse this.
The example above puts it right out in front of you.
It's most definitely not gibberish.Yes, it is.
If you feel it is, try to deconstruct it and/or find its flaws. there are so many flaws, that it is impossible to deconstruct it. First of all, it is not a constructed entity. You throw about numbers and facts, and claim they are connected. Maybe they are, but you are not showing how. Your text is a haphazardly thrown-together miazma of unrelated facts, left that way. I can't deconstruct something that has no structure.
In order to do so, you should be equipped and versed in matters of information theory. If you are not, you're going to have problems. false again. My only problem is that you are trying to involve me in a Quixotic duel. No such go, my friend. When you present something that has sense, fine, I'll agree or disagree. But what you present here is not something that people can agree or disagree with. It can be assigned no truth value. It is miazma, gibberish. It is a senseless text.


I utilize philosophy as a coarse grain tool. Once you have a rough shape and outline, it's best to put it away in favor of more fine-grained tools so as to not muddle or perpetually muddle that which you are trying to conceive.
It would seem that this is nonsensical to you because you're not using the right tools to analyze it. There are no right tools to analyze the theory you present. A deep understanding of set theory and information theory are what's needed. I'm only trying to discuss this in a way that is more easily understood. sorry, but you failed. Please discuss it in a way which is not easily understood. Then maybe you'll find people on this forum to understand and agree with you.
It should be now and if you find a flaw or issue, please post it. my only issue with your text is that it has no reasonable thought, no logical connection, and no structure to the idea you present. Other than that, it's okay. You use proper grammar.Your sentences are put together well. I haven't noticed any mistakes you made. It is my opinion that you may be a student of literature or of philosophy, and either you have made a bet, or else you've chosen this as a school project, or else for a laugh, your aim is to sound erudite and try to convince people to agree or disagree with gibberish. Your language skills are too well developed for you to not realize you are creating nonsense texts. So it's a joke, or a bet, the object of which is to see how long you can get people to string along. Well, Kris, you lost the bet; I was not fooled for even a second. Sorry.

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

In summary:

Kris, you wrote:
A deep understanding of set theory and information theory are what's needed. I'm only trying to discuss this in a way that is more easily understood.

My reply: Sorry, Kris, but you failed. Your simplification efforts, I am afraid to say, reduced the theory (if it exists in the first place) to gibberish, to nonsense. If I may make one suggestion, and I mean it seriously: Please discuss it in a way which is NOT easily understood. Then maybe you'll find people on this forum to understand you and agree with you.

Renee wrote:

1i3i6-- wrote:Just as you have potential energy.
There is a concept of 'potential information'.

If i decide to make a video game and want to restrict character movement
to left, right, up and down. The set of all movements once I create the game can be defined as {left, right, up, down}
I can encode this with two bits :
00 - left
01 - right
10 - up
11 - down

Before I create the game, I can have information about it.

With all due respect, this is not information, in the ordinary sense of the word. This is an idea (or ideas). Information is a transfer of knowledge. Here you thought up a game, and decided with naming some attributes with names (00, etc.) This is not information, or ether. It is an idea you've developed.

Kris wrote:By this example, Information actually precedes the creation of the game and is tangible. No. Ideas preceded the creation, not information. Why call something something else?

What allowed me to encode the information? Something that could arbitrarily take on any value before I assigned it value : An ether. but more likely than ether, what really allowed you to encode the information was the prior advent of computers, your brain, your knowledge of games, your knowledge of directions, etc. etc.

There's an infinite number of binary strings is there not?
So, there you have it by example.. Real world example. So... you are denying that sea-urchins are real life examples, too? How can you claim such a denial to hold true? (I can play stupid too, you know.)

Shouldn't take much to conceptualize this beyond a finite frame.

A bit of background in information theory might help one parse this.
The example above puts it right out in front of you.
It's most definitely not gibberish.Yes, it is.
If you feel it is, try to deconstruct it and/or find its flaws. there are so many flaws, that it is impossible to deconstruct it. First of all, it is not a constructed entity. You throw about numbers and facts, and claim they are connected. Maybe they are, but you are not showing how. Your text is a haphazardly thrown-together miazma of unrelated facts, left that way. I can't deconstruct something that has no structure.
In order to do so, you should be equipped and versed in matters of information theory. If you are not, you're going to have problems. false again. My only problem is that you are trying to involve me in a Quixotic duel. No such go, my friend. When you present something that has sense, fine, I'll agree or disagree. But what you present here is not something that people can agree or disagree with. It can be assigned no truth value. It is miazma, gibberish. It is a senseless text.


I utilize philosophy as a coarse grain tool. Once you have a rough shape and outline, it's best to put it away in favor of more fine-grained tools so as to not muddle or perpetually muddle that which you are trying to conceive.
It would seem that this is nonsensical to you because you're not using the right tools to analyze it. There are no right tools to analyze the theory you present. A deep understanding of set theory and information theory are what's needed. I'm only trying to discuss this in a way that is more easily understood. sorry, but you failed. Please discuss it in a way which is not easily understood. Then maybe you'll find people on this forum to understand and agree with you.
It should be now and if you find a flaw or issue, please post it. my only issue with your text is that it has no reasonable thought, no logical connection, and no structure to the idea you present. Other than that, it's okay. You use proper grammar.Your sentences are put together well. I haven't noticed any mistakes you made. It is my opinion that you may be a student of literature or of philosophy, and either you have made a bet, or else you've chosen this as a school project, or else for a laugh, your aim is to sound erudite and try to convince people to agree or disagree with gibberish. Your language skills are too well developed for you to not realize you are creating nonsense texts. So it's a joke, or a bet, the object of which is to see how long you can get people to string along. Well, Kris, you lost the bet; I was not fooled for even a second. Sorry.

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

In summary:

Kris, you wrote:
A deep understanding of set theory and information theory are what's needed. I'm only trying to discuss this in a way that is more easily understood.

My reply: Sorry, Kris, but you failed. Your simplification efforts, I am afraid to say, reduced the theory (if it exists in the first place) to gibberish, to nonsense. If I may make one suggestion, and I mean it seriously: Please discuss it in a way which is NOT easily understood. Then maybe you'll find people on this forum to understand you and agree with you.

With all due respect, I suggest you read up on Information, Information theory, and Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz.
Binary is held as the fundamental unit of information.
Perhaps you seem to have mistaken the complexity of what I presented. If so, ask a question because it doesn't seem you fully understand what was stated or what information is.

Kris wrote:

1i3i6-- wrote:Just as you have potential energy.
There is a concept of 'potential information'...It would seem that this is nonsensical to you because you're not using the right tools to analyze it. A deep understanding of set theory and information theory are what's needed. I'm only trying to discuss this in a way that is more easily understood.
It should be now and if you find a flaw or issue, please post it.

I have a question about the Information structure as I presented.

We understand information organization as a PC with processor, memory and input/output devices.
My feeling is that the Information can simultaneously receive, process, store and execute/transform
information on almost unlimited scale without any specialization or dedication. The information transfer
required instant access and communication of enormous areas without processor. Similar mechanism,
however in micro-scale and very limited, you can find in plants.

My question is do you met witch similar existing information structures or with any theoretical model?

I don't think i fully understand your question.
However, what I presented is a theoretical framework for imagining a concept of information beyond what is known to exist in the present day universe.
I think you're asking me if my theoretical framework is compatible with :
quantum universe -> quantum information processing -> Simulation theory

I would say that's its more fundamental than that and the framework I presented doesn't aim to go beyond creation.

1i3i6 wrote:"I don't think i fully understand your question"

My question is do you know about any complex system ( in nature or in theory ) which does not use
processing center ( any kind of a brain / information center or processor ) and is able to analyze inputs,
to process information and to send output. I mentioned that plants are doing similar activities.

My search is related to possibility that a processing of information by the Information can be done
in similar way.

Kris wrote:1i3i6 wrote:"I don't think i fully understand your question"

My question is do you know about any complex system ( in nature or in theory ) which does not use
processing center ( any kind of a brain / information center or processor ) and is able to analyze inputs,
to process information and to send output. I mentioned that plants are doing similar activities.

My search is related to possibility that a processing of information by the Information can be done
in similar way.

Plants have processing centers. They're just distributed.
i.e :
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2 ... -and-react
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... chamovitz/
'Quantum_biology -> Photosynthesis'

Processing of information by information...

The nature of information is that it doesn't act or interact with itself.
In theory or nature, information can be processed and acted upon by things other than itself.

A processor is something that "is able to analyze inputs, to process information and to send output".
A processor is not information.

You're confusing and fusing processing/information. Please don't do that.
If you want to understand information more and its possibilities, do research on "Information theory"

Thank you everyone for reading, thinking and sharing your doubts with this
post.
Because I cannot replay or defend myself on this forum ( as half of my
posts were stopped
by moderators ) I quit.
Gloria victis!

1i3i6-- wrote:Just as you have potential energy.
There is a concept of 'potential information'.

If i decide to make a video game and want to restrict character movement
to left, right, up and down. The set of all movements once I create the game can be defined as {left, right, up, down}
I can encode this with two bits :
00 - left
01 - right
10 - up
11 - down

Before I create the game, I can have information about it.
By this example, Information actually precedes the creation of the game and is tangible.

Before you create the game you can have information about it? Where? Information has to be encoded by some method in something. It's as if stating that brainwaves are energy that I can detect on EEG, therefore I can create "stuff" out of nothing with pure thought. I feel like GOD

This entire idea of "Information" is not new and it comes from the hypothesis of our reality existing in the matrix of some quantum computer. This idea is somewhere in between Atheism and Theism, as our purpose being to play out a "game" of some elaborate social experiment. This can't be proved or disproved by means of Philosophical deduction. Good movie theme though.

"Thought" and/or "Awareness" would actually be more broad and encompassing terms than "Information". After all, "information" itself is but a thought. And it's a thought we are aware of. I would argue you can't have Information without some kind of Mind already present. Your thesis would have been more impressive had you used either of these two terms rather than "information". Thinking of "information" without a corresponding Mind/Awareness is basically just replacing matter/energy/"stuff" with another word. If "information" is inherently different than "matter" or "energy" it could only be so because of a psychological component which is not present in the latter two....

Atreyu,
Thank you for your opinion. I want to clarify the following;
Information is only a working name to that super being because information is a dominant property.
My description of Information will be:
1. It can process information in unimaginable way, with capacity to transform itself into mass, energy ect.
2. It can manage chaos and universe evolution on cosmic scale
3. It can generate real reality intentionally – unlimited space filled with universe. The universe is expanding and its character is developing quicker so there is no evolution restraints to the living beings.
All what we are, what we can sense and think is just real reality created by Information from itself inside itself. There is nothing more that Information.

Kris,

Kris wrote:Information is only a working name to that super being because information is a dominant property.

The problem with your using Information (capital I) as a working name is that the thing you are giving that name to is usually referred to as God. Giving Him the name Information is misleading because He has none of the properties commonly associated with the concept of information.

The common concept of information is a pattern or abstraction instantiated in material form. Some (including Renee, Atreyu, but not I) require the involvement of a conscious entity, so they talk about an idea or thought instead of just a pattern. This pattern in material form is consistent with all the theories of information I am aware of, including Shannon's, Floridi's, and quantum information.

So when you talk about inventing a game (or the game of chess) you can say that the pattern of the game "existed" before the game was invented, but it would be wrong to say the information existed before the game was invented, because the "form" (pattern) has not yet been put "into" a material substrate. Information is matter that has been "informed".

Does that seem reasonable?

*

I think a little differently.
Information is not the God and the God is not Information.
God creates means does something from nothing.
Information transform part of itself into real reality; whole universe, us included.
We beehive in similar way to Information: processing information and creating own reality.
Of cause we cannot compare to Information – we are too small to compare to.

JamesOfSeattle wrote:Kris,

Kris wrote:Information is only a working name to that super being because information is a dominant property.

The problem with your using Information (capital I) as a working name is that the thing you are giving that name to is usually referred to as God. Giving Him the name Information is misleading because He has none of the properties commonly associated with the concept of information.

The common concept of information is a pattern or abstraction instantiated in material form. Some (including Renee, Atreyu, but not I) require the involvement of a conscious entity, so they talk about an idea or thought instead of just a pattern. This pattern in material form is consistent with all the theories of information I am aware of, including Shannon's, Floridi's, and quantum information.

So when you talk about inventing a game (or the game of chess) you can say that the pattern of the game "existed" before the game was invented, but it would be wrong to say the information existed before the game was invented, because the "form" (pattern) has not yet been put "into" a material substrate. Information is matter that has been "informed".

Does that seem reasonable?

*

James,

I tried to read through this epic nonsense of a theory and posts.

In conclusion, you proved that the theory's kernel is equivalent to God.

Others in preceding posts showed that the theory is complete and utter nonsense.

So tying the two proofs, you successfully showed that God is a bunch of nonsense.

I can go along with that. Thank you, this entire thread's been very informative. (Pardon the pun.)