Information universe. Private conclusions from the assumption

Physicists silently assume that the world consists of matter. And what if from the information? In the end, matter is only the name of a building material, from which, in the opinion of physicists, the world is organized, but the properties of materials and their placement into a single delightful and harmonious whole are already information. Therefore, when mentioning the structure of the universe, it is more correct to speak about information than about matter.

The following are conclusions from this bold assumption. To the adherents of the traditional physical concept of the world, some of them may seem hopelessly trite, others defiantly ridiculous. Well, not all physicists are surprised ordinary people with black holes and quantum strings, and sometimes representatives of other humanity are able to surprise physicists with equally reckless statements.





')

If the universe is information, then the universe should be viewed as a database. Of course, there are different ways of presenting information, but databases are exactly what is currently identified with information: its structuring, storage and use. Why, then, do not try to imagine the universe in the form of ... let's say, a relational database?

I will not start from the beginning - the relevant posts are published ( here , and the sequel here ). The bottom line is that the structure of the physical universe can be presented in the table of the simplest type.







The five sensations inherent in man are structured by three identifiers. Sensations define the beyond (well, in fact, what is “hot” or “green” or “bitter” if we consider them by themselves ?! They are completely indescribable), and the identifiers determine the internal structure of the information system (ID_1 indicates object, ID_2 - on its predecessor, from which the given object was formed, and ID_3 - on the subject). Together, sensations and identifiers give an idea of ​​the reality around us.

So let's check how the reality fits into this scheme. Take and register in the empty information system the first object.







This is analogous to the big bang, conceived by theoretical physicists as the beginning of the universe. As you can see, no explosion occurs: the first registered object is simply in the system, and that’s all. True, along with it, the zero object appears in the system: something from which the first object was formed (apparently, something that exploded at the origin of the universe according to the hypothesis of physicists). A zero object appears in the system when registering the first object as a link, for which reason it does not possess any properties: there is literally nothing to say about it, except that the first object was formed from the zero object. And the fact that any object, including the first in the information system, is formed from something, you can be sure that an object is something definite, therefore the rest exists, which is not an object. Such a strict philosophical passage, I don’t know how much readers will like it.

The subject designated as “A” is left alone - it does not play a noticeable role in our reasoning. Focus on objects.

Imagine that we need to register a second object in the system. For this there are opportunities:

• or register a new object from zero, by analogy with the first object;

• or register it from the first object, imagining that the first object was divided in two.

The first is known, therefore the second is informative. But there are difficulties with the identification of the remaining part of the first object.

You can say what remains after a part is taken away from the object: a completely new object or a diminished former one? Do not rush to answer. Imagine that there is a furniture set as part of a coffee table, sofa and armchair. If you take away from the headset chair, what will remain? The same furniture set, only in incomplete build - without a chair. And if you take away a coffee table and a sofa, for some reason, there is no furniture set in an incomplete build, but just a chair.

No, the example is not stupid, although the problem is well known. For us, it is informative in that in the table of the universe various ways of coding objects are possible .

Here is the first situation where the removal of an object keeps the original object intact, although in a modified form:







There was the first object, the second one was singled out from it, leaving the diminished one as a result.

But the situation when the removal of the object leads to the destruction of the original object:







There was the first object, and it was divided into the second and third.

Nothing like that, right? And in fact, exactly the same operations, but performed in different encodings.

However, we do not consider the possibility of coding information (they still do not relate to the content of the information system, these are just ways of setting its internal structure), we stop at the second method.

We note that with the second encoding method ID_1 very clearly shows the appearance (i.e. arrival) of objects, and ID_2 shows the disappearance of the object (its consumption).







Income and expense are basic philosophical concepts , but you probably didn’t know.

Of course, in reality, it is possible not only to separate objects, but also to merge them. Suppose I wanted to restore the original position by combining the second object with the third.







In the adopted encoding, you need to write:







Please note that when registering a compound object, it is not required to indicate object signs (sight, hearing, smell). The object is a composite, consists of parts, each of which has its own characteristics, and they are registered earlier.







This explains the effect of peripheral vision, which I wrote about in a previous post. A person's vision is all peripheral: in fact, a person is able to visually perceive no more than one point at a time (because data recording in the table of the universe is discrete). Nevertheless, a person sees everything at once? The fact of the matter is that no. In our example, subject “A” does not even see one visual point, but perceives an identifier that refers it to signs registered in the past. Moreover, this past can be as far as desired, since a composite object is sometimes composed of composite objects, which themselves are composed of composite objects, etc. But in the perception of a compound object, a person perceives past registrations : this is a kind of time machine that sends the human consciousness at the place and time of registration, respectively, and allows you to see the whole visual picture, seeing essentially nothing but what is registered in the chain of past object mergers and divisions.

Why mergers and divisions, where did two opposite operations come from? Apparently, from the very act of converting an object, involving two options:

a) new is less than the former - hence the separation;







b) the new is more than the former - hence the merger.







And as an intermediate point between merging and splitting - changing the properties of the object, in which (if we use the encoding adopted by us) instead of a single object, a new object appears with modified properties. The case of equality of new and old objects:







These actions fill in the information table of the universe, for example, as previously recorded.







Please note that the fourth object seems to be identical to the first (first the object was broken in two, and then connected), but on the other it is not completely identical, and not only by the identifier (the fourth, not the first), this does not play any role, it’s all only designation. The difference is that the fourth object is composite , since it was composed of the second and third, and the first object, it would seem, has the same properties as the fourth one, by definition, elementary (since it was isolated from zero).

It seems that physics does not imply this: so that the elementary object can be divided into parts. Compound - yes, please: for example, we can divide into parts the fourth object that was once derived from the second and third. Designations according to the coding adopted by us will be different, but parts of the object will remain.







However, the first object does not fall under this analogy, because it is initially elementary.

It turns out that an elementary (previously had no parts) object can be divided into parts ! What follows from the above reasoning is incontrovertible, since the laws of the functioning of information systems are accepted by us as an axiom. Or it will be necessary to assume that an object, isolated from zero, already has some kind of internal structure that allows dividing it or not dividing it into parts. But from the information system this in any case does not follow.

How many conclusions - albeit because of the fragmentary exposition of looking chaotic, but curious, curious! And this is the first approximation in a rough estimate.

However, I continue.

Until I touched the signs of objects - that is initially given by the values ​​of the fields "Sight", "Hearing" and "Smelling". But listen, with the arrival of the object, they can change! The old object may have some properties, and a new object - completely different.

We have two basic (the rest can be reduced to them) options:

1) properties of objects are saved;







2) properties of objects are not saved.







It is easy to figure out that before us is nothing more than a physical and chemical transformation of matter-information:

• in the first case, we have a physical transformation: we simply divide the object in two, while the properties of the object are preserved in both its parts;
• in the second case, the properties of the parts change, which indicates a chemical reaction — it does not even indicate, but is a chemical reaction.

The used way of thinking is the opposite of the usual “material” approach: it is not the chemical reaction that is expressed using the table, but the table's capabilities — in a general sense, the possibilities of presenting information — determine the capabilities of objects in the information system . As applied to our case, combinatorics defines the methods of physical or chemical transformation of objects.

It will be objected that as a result of a chemical reaction, not everyone can be obtained from any object, but from a certain one only determined according to the known laws of chemistry. And no one argues. Here we are faced with the basic laws for which there is an information system, and with the fact that in a certain sense of the word is introduced into the information system from the outside, although no less rational.

When, for example, one part is separated from an object and another part is obviously left from the object - this is the basic law, or the way in which information systems exist (probably, not any, but known to us, at least). However, in an information system, one or another object or an object possessing certain properties can be registered - and this is no longer the basic law of computer science, but pure voluntarism of the universe. Do computer laws prohibit chemical decomposition of iron in such a way that one part is gold and the other part is platinum? No, do not prohibit. But is it possible in reality? No, it is not possible - for the obvious reason that the universe is arranged differently: not to get gold and platinum from a piece of iron.

I try to explain that the universe is somehow rational, there is no dispute, it’s arranged, but the named rationality of the universe is caused by two not identical parts:

1) the laws of information systems through which not to transgress;

2) the layout of the table of the universe through a specific sequence of records and alternating properties of objects.

The question of what is obtained from objects as a result of their chemical decomposition, refers to point two, there are also many causal dependencies that are considered to be natural physical laws.

I hold a ball in my hands, but I open my fingers. As a result, the ball falls. What caused the fall? The power of the world wide? And if the ball had not fallen on the floor, but had risen into the air, another force would have caused it to soar, which would inevitably and immediately be discovered by physicists? Or maybe everything is arranged simpler - not simply in the sense of cause-and-effect dependencies, but in the sense that no forces act on the ball, but the further behavior of the ball after I opened my fingers is determined by the sequence of entries in the universe table?

If you look at the world from the side of computer science, there are not and cannot be any forces acting between objects . Objects are registered in the table of the universe (in other words, objects are what is registered in the table of the universe), and only the things of the reality surrounding us can claim their role. Countless relationships stretch between objects, but these are far from being physical in their understanding. In a closed system, which is any registration table, the forces are simply unthinkable. One object affects the other, and the previous object affects the previous one, and the previous one affects the previous one, and the very first object in this causal chain that acts is asked? The question is not new and eloquent, but no answer has been received to this day.

The forces acting in nature are an invention of physicists, although very useful from the point of view that allows us to establish truly existing interdependencies between objects (item 2 in the list above). This is the purpose of any science. But physical forces, manifesting themselves only in objects, cannot claim to be ontological status. Talking about the ontological status of some physical forces is the same as seriously talking about the Cheshire cat's smile floating in the air after the Cheshire cat itself has disappeared. It seems to me that physicists do not realize this, although the problem is as old as the world: it is well known about universals written by medieval scholastics, and that such hypostasis is well known.

An informational view of the universe leads to results that are different from the usual physical approach: this is a special world with its indisputable truths and its cognitive gaps. The fact that the three-dimensional spatial nature of the information universe is determined by identifiers, I argued in one of the previous posts. What is the time of the information universe, is also quite clear: certain objects, or their totality, or the relationship between them (clock hands, celestial bodies, etc.), recorded in the table of the universe. In this sense, between two objects that define the instant of time, any number of other objects can be located (that is, be registered) - nothing prevents this. Time can shrink or stretch , it is its immanent quality. And the movement, apparently, is determined by the effect of cinema: a change in the table of the universe of frame-records. But as for the previously mentioned lacunae in the concept of the information universe, they also occur, not without it. For example, laying the universe in a relational table does not explain the movement of the present from the past to the future, which is also called the “arrow of time”. The difficulty is in explaining this undoubted fact of our being without invoking time itself. For example, it is incorrect to explain the “arrow of time” by the fact that the records are entered into the table of the universe one by one, because in this interpretation the sequence of making records is involved, which in turn is determined by the moment they are made. And it is not possible to explain otherwise: the records in the table seem to be equal and certainly do not provide for a smooth sliding from one record to another.

There are many unsolved problems and they need attention. I do not understand why in the age of the undoubted flourishing of informatics, few people care about the information component of the universe. Is it because some areas of knowledge are monopolized by physics? Nevertheless, physics is not capable of giving the only possible and correct view of the world, and there are strong suspicions about some issues that have rested against the limits of their capabilities.