Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Kris]

I need critical even sarcastic comments or a real discussion about the following idea:

Science does not explain the origin neither structure of the universe. Scientists forced us to believe that the universe came into being from “nothing” and the life created itself by a chain of random collisions. This official science breaks e.g. the first and second laws of thermodynamics which are the basic laws of science. Any logical discontinuity is patched or covered by a word of science celebrity. The situation is due to narrowing the universe to existence of mass and energy.

Let’s make a different approach and assum that the “information” is the only “material” of the whole universe and use it to explain the universe as the whole:

Before Big Bang there was the Information only, nothing to be observed or measured.

Some part of Information transformed itself into mass, energy e.c.t. and it was the beginning of our universe.
The creation could be a single act, a repetitive one or any other option and any time.

Mass, energy and so on is just a defined form of information where all properties are fixed e.g. property of atom are defined and unchanged.
Any interaction of formatted forms is defined and in line with laws of science.
At the end each defined form of information does not vanish but dissolve into Information.

The first defined form of information started the time of the universe and the last one will finish the time of the universe.
The distance between mass, energy makes dimensions.

Life form contains the building blocks of defined form of information and also uses the information.
The usage of information is the difference between life forms and a mass ect.
Life forms have capacity to process information and to absorb information.
Interaction of living forms depending on their action and the reality of universe.
Life form can be created by other life forms or Information.

In my opinion I-theory make the logic and order inside science without any need for scientific patches or exclusions of the science law.
It also explain the source of everything.

Kris

P.S. Sorry for my English – this is not my mother language and I do not have any formal English education.

[Sealight]

I need critical even sarcastic comments or a real discussion about the following idea:

Let’s make a different approach and assum that the “information” is the only “material” of the whole universe and use it to explain the universe as the whole:

Before Big Bang there was the Information only, nothing to be observed or measured.

It is a good idea and I don't believe it is new. Can you define what Information is?

-- Updated October 17th, 2016, 10:00 am to add the following --

The distance between mass, energy makes dimensions.

And what is the distance between mass?

[Kris]

Of course I do not know exactly what Information is however I will try to explain how I find Information:
Any particle contains governing information about its structure and property / possible interaction with others. This information is declared = unchanged until the particle disintegrate for example an atom is spitted into 2 smaller ones and those atoms have new governing information. The only source on the new information is the information in the original atom. I do not know how the information is stored and transferred: it can have own memory or a memory is embedded into structure. Due to many form of mass and energy the embedded idea has higher probability.

I discover information capacity of living organisms build from mas/energy with usage of information and absorbing it. This triggered a form of existence on pure Information in addition to mass, energy ect.

Theory of scientists that “all is from nothing” is so absurd that the only conclusion is that all declared form of information including living ones is the facto done from Information. If we assume that Information is unchanged (?) the only description of it will be: a kind of full power and knowledge.

So before Big Bang there was only Information which has a wish to make the universe. With first form of mass, energy ect 4 or more dimension were born. The first particle make time and the next added distance = 3 D.

Maybe my explanation will help you a little.

[Renee]

Criticism of your first claim:

My understanding is that Science (?) did not force us to believe there was nothing before the Big Bang. Science simply claims nothing over what it was that preceded the Bing Bang.

Criticism of your theory:

Information, whatever it is, and you make no claim over what it is, is what holds thing together in this world, so to speak.

This is a belief, not a scientific theory. It can't be disproven. And any scientific theory must have a way to be disproven.

You say this is philosophy? I would say it is creative philosophy, or natural philosophy, which has no supporting evidence. Because of the total lack of support, it is not tenable as an acceptable world view.

You might as well worship the Sun, or the turtle which created the universe. That turtle can't be disproven, either.

Please read the "flying saucer" mock-theory by Bertrand Russell. It is short, succinct, to the point, and a direct hit on the validity of rejecting the supernatural or the evidence-less natural.

[Kris]

Renee wrote: My understanding is that Science (?) did not force us to believe there was nothing before the Big Bang. Science simply claims nothing over what it was that preceded the Bing Bang.
Please explain your above mentioned opinion using for example Stephen Hawking statements, who is the leading theoretical physicist:
“ (Hawking) closed by outlining "M-theory," which is based partly on ideas put forward years ago by another famed physicist, Caltech’s Richard Feynman. Hawking sees that theory as the only big idea that really explains what he has observed.
M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. Hawking mentioned that he felt fortunate to be living in this state of existence.” - from Big Bang Didn't Need God, Stephen Hawking Says by Rod Pyle.

In my opinion scientific explanation like mentioned above or (Hawking) “The universe will evolve from the Big Bang” are closer to a religion dogmata than any scientific explanation because:
What programmed and managed the universe evolution?
Why law and structure of universe is so uniformed if it is random?

Present day science bases on similar statements and dogmata. People are educated and indoctrinated without possibility of rejection. No scientist neither teacher can reject them like no man could reject kissing of Voter’s mummified body without rendezvous with a guillotine.

[Kris]

Renee wrote: You say this is philosophy? I would say it is creative philosophy, or natural philosophy,
I am not convinced with your argument.
I am far away from this discipline – I had only 1 semester contact with it and I did not like it.
However my statement fit to the definition of philosophy:
- pursuit of wisdom
- a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means
- an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
Please change my mind, I will be thankful.

-- Updated November 18th, 2016, 12:28 am to add the following --

Two persons asked what Information is and I have big problem with that.
I am too small to bring even partial description.

I think that all what was and is - this is Information.
The universe is a representation of defined part of Information and “ the entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.” by Clausius. There is $1 question if there are dimensions or the universe is an Information Matrix only. Who knows…

Before Big Bang there was Information only and you can describe it as perfect (?) order with minimum logical entropy. You can illustrate Information before BB as a vacuum with full power and knowledge so you cannot measure or recognise anything

[Gertie]

Hi Kris,

I'm not a scientist, and I'm afraid my objection is pretty banal, and to do with the concept of Information, which you agree you're struggling with. This might be why. You say -

Let’s make a different approach and assum that the “information” is the only “material” of the whole universe and use it to explain the universe as the whole:

Before Big Bang there was the Information only, nothing to be observed or measured.

Some part of Information transformed itself into mass, energy e.c.t. and it was the beginning of our universe.
The creation could be a single act, a repetitive one or any other option and any time.

My point is that 'Information' isn't a Thing In Itself, it's an abstract concept we've created to describe/impart knowledge about, actual Things In Themselves. A very useful one, but still. Information is knowledge/descriptions, of something else. IMO.

To make my point easier to grasp, lets say when the universe exploded into somethingness, it did so in the form of an apple. Before that, there was nothing to be described - hence there was no information. Afterwards there was a Something to be described, the apple. The apple can be described in terms of its weight, dimensions, number of atoms, their activity and so on, hence there is now Information/Description about the universe. Because there is now a thing in itself to be described. Make sense?

So I'd say you can't treat Information itself a Thing In Itself, because it's just a way we use to describe and impart knowledge about actual Things In Themselves. We can codify that information in symbolic representations, maths, 1s and 0s and so on. But Information doesn't exist independently of what it describes, except as a useful concept, a way of thinking about things. So Information itself can't be a Causal Force. It can't be anything or do anything itself. (It's more like an adjective than a noun, in that sense).



Having said all that, it's possible that there's something about the universe, the nature of existence, which knocks what I'm saying out of the water. But then I'd say you need to come up with the more fundamental underlying hypothesis which makes Information more than I'm suggesting, not just start with the unjustified (imo) assumption that Information is a Thing In Itself. A Thing In Itself which can transform itself and so on.

Or come up with a different definition of Information to one I'm offering, where-by Information can do the things you suggest (which I suspect in reality would mean creating a new more fundamental hypothesis).

Or... it's possible I'm just not understanding this properly.

[Dark Matter]

Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything by Ervin Laszlo might be of great interest to you.

[Renee]

Renee wrote: My understanding is that Science (?) did not force us to believe there was nothing before the Big Bang. Science simply claims nothing over what it was that preceded the Bing Bang.
Please explain your above mentioned opinion using for example Stephen Hawking statements, who is the leading theoretical physicist:
“ (Hawking) closed by outlining "M-theory," which is based partly on ideas put forward years ago by another famed physicist, Caltech’s Richard Feynman. Hawking sees that theory as the only big idea that really explains what he has observed.
M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. Hawking mentioned that he felt fortunate to be living in this state of existence.” - from Big Bang Didn't Need God, Stephen Hawking Says by Rod Pyle.

I will be glad to explain the things you ask for, but first please explain your stance on information, and how it relates to
1. The third law of thermodynamics
2. The law of conservation of momentum and energy
3. The MPV law of "the product of pressure, volume and temperature is a constant",
4. Finding the proper integral function of the bell (normal distribution) curve.

Once you have shown me these, I'll try my best to show you what you asked for.

Alternatively, you may want to show me how your "information" gets treated in its development by Siegfried Kern, or by Klaus Guttenheimer, in their seven-volume tome "Erklarung der wissenschaftligen Bewunderket, wie sie mit ordinarischen Volker der Umgebung der Meschugenen Leuten sowie ganz egal gesehen sein werden durfen kann". If you decide with this approach, I guarantee no reply, or else double your money back.

[Kris]

Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything by Ervin Laszlo might be of great interest to you.

Very interesting.
Of course it is not my level of science and too much information noise ( New Agey) but many common points like Akashic field.
Some aspect I see differently.
I am basing on comments only- I should read the book.

Do you know something about Tesla "original medium" idea?

[1i3i6--]

Kris you have a solid idea and framework.
I agree with your sentiment regarding the dogmata present in the popular beliefs present in current day Scientific communities.

Information can exist stand-alone if you adjust to a more deeply thought out definition of information :

Information
In - The 'special' stuff that takes on form
formation - structure, dimensions, etc.
Both can exist in infinite sets.

Thus, prior to dimensions and structuring therein, our concept of information can exist.
It just exists in an infinitely pure and extensible form. People have a hard time wrapping their heads around that.
An idea of an 'ether'.

Also, there is mathematical foundation for this idea :
'Infinite Set has Countably Infinite Subset'

I can extend this conversation if desired in another thread. I didn't want to detract from OP's post only highlight that there isn't a flaw in his theory w.r.t to information.
The theory is solid, fresh, and maintained by many others in different forms

[Renee]

Information can exist stand-alone if you adjust to a more deeply thought out definition of information :

Information
In - The 'special' stuff that takes on form
formation - structure, dimensions, etc.
Both can exist in infinite sets.

Also, there is mathematical foundation for this idea :
'Infinite Set has Countably Infinite Subset'

The theory is solid, fresh, and maintained by many others in different forms

This patently does not make sense to me. Sorry, I am not dissing your point, it just makes my head spin to see a non-philological definition of the word "information" which involves, as you claim, a deeply thought-out definition, but I am sorry, to me it seems random to assign the meaning of "The 'special' stuff that takes on form" to the prefix "in". This is definitely not right.

I can't prove that the rest of your post, along with the original poster's, is gibberish or not. To me they make no intuitive sense, the two posts do not in any way coincide with my limited knowledge of the subject matter, and your support and attempt to prove the validity of the original post's posted theory has not resonated with any search I made on the subject.

So I really don't know how to cut it to you, but here is my best shot: the original poster's theory makes no sense, at least to me; that theory has no support by anyone I know or I know of, other than by you, a new member who popped up out of nowhere in the last 24 hours; said (and sad) theory is not intuitive, and its component elements are woefully irrelevant to each other and to your and the original poster's claim, as far as I can see it from here.

(**) I never could have imagined that analyzing completely nonsensical text could be so much fun.

-- Updated November 22nd, 2016, 8:03 pm to add the following --

Kris, it is my express private opinion that I'm calling you out because you wanted to play "the emperor's new clothes" and I detected your agenda in one single reading.

Sorry to have spoiled your joke. Died in its birth, before it could take on wings.

But don't despair. Like the Phoenix, you can get reborn from the ashes of your previous existence. It is easy to create a new identity on forums, and you can swoop down on us and present on our forums yet another erudite-sounding (according to your standards, anyhow), complete nonsense as a theory.

[1i3i6--]

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.

What allowed me to encode the information? Something that could arbitrarily take on any value before I assigned it value : An ether.

There's an infinite number of binary strings is there not?
So, there you have it by example.. Real world example.

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.
If you feel it is, try to deconstruct it and/or find its flaws.
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.


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. 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.

[Sy Borg]

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.

[Kris]

Greta,

Of course you can do whatever you want, I do not care.

I expected a discussion on the subject of I-theory and not about who is the author.

Everyone can see from the language there are two different persons.
And you have access to info about both persons.

BTW Why you want to kill a discussion about I-theory?

P.S. Scott please send this to Greta and do not show on this post.
This is not a good signs of discussion between normal people.