Philosophy Discussion Forums

An object that is moving in a manner following Newton's first law must somehow "know" how to move, I propose. And yet I cannot believe that the object itself intrinsically contains this information (although one could always propose that it somehow does, I guess...). So it must be that the consequences of the information - i.e. motion - which is also the information itself, which is a strange concept, but maybe one worth exploring in the context of information theory currently gaining some acceptance as a tool for penetrating the laws of existence.

-- Updated October 6th, 2016, 8:47 am to add the following --

Maybe space itself consists of "pixels" and these store the information somehow? Surely that's a route worth exploring? I wonder if one could devise a model that would answer some of the quantum mysteries?

Something either exists or it does not the state in which it exists in is determined by the presence or abscence of another state of something. But as quantum mechanics has hinted at something can both exist and seemingly not exist at the same time, using this logic we could say that movement comes from A pattern of existence and non existence. The concept works like binary i suppose except with the option of one, zero and one as well as zero at the same time.

Yes, its been done. The universe as a "projection". Cannot remember the name of theory but you can probably find it, and other theories like it, by searching "universe as projection physics".

Also "information" is an abstract human concept. Information in the universe is part of the abstract modelling of the method of physical investigation by viewing the world as naturalistic.

Rasher Null wrote:Maybe space itself consists of "pixels" and these store the information somehow? Surely that's a route worth exploring? I wonder if one could devise a model that would answer some of the quantum mysteries?

It is a good idea about "pixels". But how about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? If space consits of "pixels" then they must obey the principle and hence the information must also obey it. This leads us to the conclusion that information is never exact and full. What do you think?

The titular question asks where information is stored within a moving object. How does an object know how high to go and where to land. To put the question in context, let's look at the pre-Socratic philosophers Heraclitus, and Parmenides, and what they had to say about motion.

Heraclitus believed the world is governed by the Logos, by which he meant the substrate-of-all-reality. In other words, everything is made up of a single-stuff. However, real motion obviously does occur within this single-stuff, making the world possible. Although Heraclitus didn't put it quite this way, I believe he understood that real motion was possible, so long as motion put back everything it took from the Logos. Basically, motion obeys a kind of conservation law.

Parmenides, on the other hand realized the Logos is essentially a void. By it's very nature, as the substrate-of-all-reality, the Logos doesn't exist*. And, since that which is not, is not, the world must be it's own substrate. The world is therefore both it's appearance, and the justification for that appearance. As such, it's too full for motion to occur. And since motion is only apparent and not real, the titular question is moot.

So, if Heraclitus is right, motion borrows the information it needs, and then returns it to the Logos, afterwards. But if Parmenides is right, there's no problem to begin with. Of course, there is a problem with how Heraclitus justifies the Logos knowing when to give out information, and when to take it back. It seems to me the Logos has to either be sentient, or else we're obliged to introduce sentience as an outside agency, so as to govern these decisions about information.

Introducing a sentient being in order to make Heraclitus plausible takes a major step backwards. And making the Logos sentient just introduces too many complications. Answering a question with an even more awkward question is no kind of answer. So, what about Parmenides; does he fare any better? Parmenides' philosophy begins with the premise ex nihilo nihil fit (nothing comes from nothing). According to him, an object apparently moves because it comes from nothing, only to return to nothing. In the blink of an eye, another object takes it's place, and so on-and-on, along the trajectory of motion.

The deal-breaker with Parmenides' position is how the apparent motion of an object gets orchestrated. It's essentially the same problem Heraclites faces. So, it doesn't matter whether we're dealing with apparence, or reality, the question is how it all makes sense. The two protagonists in this debate have both come up short. We've taken the scenic route, only to circle back to our original question: just where does the information in a moving object reside? Certainly not in the equations of motion, they're merely descriptive, not prescriptive. They are, however good at describing the push. So, if information is encoded in the push, then why can't it also be in the pull?

Push or pull; there's nowhere else the information a moving object can be encoded. Science doesn't believe in pulling, though. That's because the information telling a moving object what to do would then come from the future. Causality is information encoded from the past. Science believes in the push because the math is a lot simpler than calculating the pull. So, is causality the answer? No; although the math is good at describing motion, the information prescribing that motion proves illusive.

I'm going to bottom-line my answer to the titular question. Time is perhaps the most enigmatic concept which we human beings have to deal with. Any answer to the question about the information encoded in a moving object has to take time into account. So therefore, the enigma of time becomes the enigma haunting the question at hand. I believe an answer does exist; but, we can't answer it with the primitive tools we've been given.


(*) As odd as it might sound, claiming that the Logos doesn't exist doesn't mean it's not real. There's a subtle difference between the two concepts.

Platos stepchild: It seems to me the Logos has to either be sentient, or else we're obliged to introduce sentience as an outside agency, so as to govern these decisions about information.

No need to consider it sentient, but intelligent - an intelligent system.

Causality is information encoded from the past.

Or intrinsic to the intelligent system, which is both past and present.

I find your question intriguing, but I’m not sure if I fully understand it. What information are you referring to? I don’t see why the object has to “know how to move”? If I were placed in a vertical maze, such that I would slide down the various inclines, and eventually be spit out the exit of the maze, I would not have to “know” how to move through the maze. The structure of the maze would simply force me in the various directions. So the object would not know how to move, it would simply move according to the various laws of physics.

So given a set of initial conditions (the big bang, or whatever your favorite theory is), and a set of laws, things would then just react to all the subsequent interactions, being driven by the laws of physics, and the structure of the universe.

I agree with Burning Ghost, information is a human construct that helps us to understand things. I'm not sure if it even makes sense to say, "where is the information". This sort of question may simply show that we don't really understand how things work. So I guess it is a great question if it uncovers the fact that we understand it so little that we can't even ask the right questions.

I think that there is a problem in the question in that "information" can be and is defined in lots of different ways. Thus, a reference to "the" information in a moving object is already ambiguous. How do you know there even IS information in a moving object like a water molecule?

For myself, I would say there is in fact a useful definition of information such that any object can be said to contain information. This definition is derived from Floridi's definition of Semantic Information, namely that semantic information is
1. Data (a specific set of relations) which is
2. Well formed (i.e. Specified by a set of measurable variables),
3. Meaningful, and
4. True.

The tricky part of this definition with respect to an object like a water molecule is going to be the idea of "meaningful". Traditionally "meaning" usually references a "meaner", that is, an agent that has an intention which becomes the "meaning". So the question is can just any object have reference to something outside of or separate from the object. I would say yes. Specifically, any object can refer to the "causes" of that object being the way it is. In this regard, "causes" refers to the four causes described by Aristotle: material, efficient, formal, and final. Thus, the data given by a specific set of measurable relations in the object become an affordance for an interpretation as to one or more of the causes of the object.

For example, given a water molecule in a given position with a given velocity v1, an agent may be able to interpret that data to determine one or more of the causes of that situation, depending on the knowledge possessed by the agent. Let's say the agent knew that at time t the water molecule was at rest, and also that the only other thing that could have interacted with the water molecule was a carbon dioxide molecule with a velocity of v2. With the additional knowledge of high school physics, that agent could interpret the information (water molecule with velocity of v1) to determine the efficient cause as a specific interaction of the carbon dioxide with the water.

Note that a different agent with different knowledge (say, chemistry and astrophysics), could interpret a different set of data (say, just that there is a water molecule, disregarding velocity) to determine the material cause being hydrogen and oxygen and the efficient cause being a star which fused the hydrogen and oxygen.

So, any given interpretation will depend on a given agent with a specific set of knowledge, but it can be said that any object contains information in that it contains relations which are affordances of potential interpretations.

And so to answer the original question, I would say the location of the information is the location of the measurable relations within the object, if there is such a place.

*

JamesOfSeattle wrote:I think that there is a problem in the question in that "information" can be and is defined in lots of different ways. Thus, a reference to "the" information in a moving object is already ambiguous. How do you know there even IS information in a moving object like a water molecule?

I'm trying to be tactful in dealing with this question. But, I'm sorry; tact just isn't possible. Asking how we can even know whether there IS information in a moving object betrays a woeful misunderstanding of physics. Now, if you want to call the entire edifice of mathematical physics into question, you're certainly entitled to do so. But, that doesn't change the fact that motion IS information.

Platos stepchild wrote:. But, that doesn't change the fact that motion IS information.

I have to admit I have never heard this, and I consider myself reasonably up on science. Could you point to a source that explains the concept that motion = information, preferably online?

*

The 'information' is found in Inertia.
Inertia (F=ma).
For mass, you will observe interesting behavior if the mass is not uniform or is dynamic when you apply force.
The information/energy is in the mass.

I can't link to it but read the Wikipedia entry.

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion; this includes changes to its speed, direction or state of rest.

In common usage, the term "inertia" may refer to an object's "amount of resistance to change in velocity" (which is quantified by its mass), or sometimes to its momentum, depending on the context. The term "inertia" is more properly understood as shorthand for "the principle of inertia" as described by Newton in his First Law of Motion: an object not subject to any net external force moves at a constant velocity. Thus, an object will continue moving at its current velocity until some force causes its speed or direction to change.

Also, you need to understand that the laws of the universe are constantly being applied.
Are these laws not 'information' as well? Where is it? What ensures its constantly applied?

Venture down the rabbit hole

You, 1|3|6, and the OP are using the term "information" in a way that seems completely unrelated to any prior use of the term. You may as well make up a new term to say "where is the mynewterm in the motion of an object", and "the mynewterm is found in inertia". Whatever you're talking about, it's not information, at least as I understand it.

*

JamesOfSeattle wrote:You, 1|3|6, and the OP are using the term "information" in a way that seems completely unrelated to any prior use of the term. You may as well make up a new term to say "where is the mynewterm in the motion of an object", and "the mynewterm is found in inertia". Whatever you're talking about, it's not information, at least as I understand it.

*

I put it as 'information' for a reason. I answered in a way that the OP can understand and pointed him to the scientific foundations that corrected the wording 'information'. I knew quite clearly what I was doing and answered the OP as opposed to trying to hold on to set ways of interpreting terms. Did anyone else point the OP to inertia? Seemingly, if someone understood the science a little deeper they would have already.

Burning ghost wrote:Yes, its been done. The universe as a "projection". Cannot remember the name of theory but you can probably find it, and other theories like it, by searching "universe as projection physics".

Also "information" is an abstract human concept. Information in the universe is part of the abstract modelling of the method of physical investigation by viewing the world as naturalistic.

The notion of the universe as a projection is an outgrowth of theoretical work done on black holes. Just as information is presumed to be stored on the surface of a black hole, so information about the universe is presumed to be stored on it's boundary. The so-called Holographic Principle speculates that information about the universe is composed of pixels, which in turn are a binary code of 1's and 0's.

I have a problem with dismissing information as an abstract human concept. Yes; it's true that we can't step outside of the universe in order to see whether there really is a binary code imprinted on it's surface. But, when you get right down to brass tacks, there's not much which isn't conceptual. Our perceptions, of course aren't concepts; however, without a rationalizing concept, our perceptions would be a maelstrom of nonsense.

So, inasmuch as we can only understand information conceptually, cavalierly dismissing it doesn't seem too helpful. Einstein compared science to guessing how a pocket watch works, without being allowed to open it up to check our guess. We judge our guesses according to their simplicity and elegance. Of course, the guts of a pocket watch don't have to be elegant. As a guiding principle, though elegance is often right on the money.

Science believes the universe is naturalistic, or more specifically mechanistic. But, as recently as 18th century German culture, the universe has been seen as vitalistic. Instead of motion being considered as a push through time, it can instead be considered as a pull through time. The reason for choosing the one model over the other is because the mathematics is much simpler.

I admit we have no, ultimate guarantee that the world, out there matches up with our concepts about it. But, since we have no alternate means of understanding the world, we have to assume there's enough of a match to justify our assumptions about it. Of course, there's more to making sense of the universe than just pretty ideas. Our guesses must also be pragmatic. The universe is, for all practical purposes an enormous black hole, in that light can't escape from it. What really justifies the Holographic Principle, though is the nature of information.

Einstein taught us that matter and energy are equivalent. But, it was understood, even before, that neither matter nor energy could be created or destroyed. So, clearly there's something, of which matter and energy are examples, such that this something likewise cannot be created or destroyed. The Holographic Principle states that this something is none other than information.

The ancient Greeks believed that an ugly truth is a contradiction-in-terms. On the other hand, we believe that ugliness and truth can go hand-in-hand. Nevertheless, we shouldn't doubt that beauty is truth, not until we're forced to do so. There's an inherent beauty to the concept the universe is encoded on it's own surface. It's aesthetically pleasing, as well as comforting to believe that nothing is ever lost. Even pain and grief are forever; nothingness can never take hold of the world. In a very real sense, we are immortal.

Platos stepchild wrote:

Burning ghost wrote:...

Brilliant post Platos Stepchild