Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Information Is Physics

cacm.acm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–78 of 78 posts

Re: Information Is Physics

#71

Post by mcbits »

hos234 wrote: post #68
juretriglav wrote: post #65

Fascinating! Thank you for sharing, OP! Having recently gone down a similar rabbit hole [1], having references and starting points is incredibly useful for further exploration, as this stuff is very hard to search for. There does seem to be a direct computational link between information and the universe - and the way we’re using this link now , with classical computers, is highly abstracted and inefficient (the arti…

I don't think you need to bring quantum computing into the picture. For example "naturally" 3D printing a Mango takes a few years. Just drop a seed in the right place on earth and wait. Isn't that computing on the substrate of the universe? Are you asking if nature can be coaxed into doing it in a few seconds or a day? Or maybe you are not bothered about time and want to drop in that seed and grow a chair? The answer…

> Or maybe you are not bothered about time and want to drop in that seed and grow a chair?

If you don't mind giving the tree a little guidance as it grows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_shaping

Re: Information Is Physics

#72

Post by acqq »

bcaa7f3a8bbc wrote: post #28
ci5er wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird. It's new to me that we didn't have experimental evidence before, but I guess it would have to be pretty subtle equipment. I wish I knew how to catalog/index my assumption/belief set, so I could scrub it down for unverified sub-assumptions from time-to-time. I'm happy to update them, when they are proven wrong, but I don't know how to do this methodically and as a result, my brain fills up with crap. And then I…

There are quite a few things in physics which didn't have direct experimental evidence, while most are convinced because the theoretical results and incomplete evidence are persuasive enough. If this Science article is accurate, there was no direct experimental evidence that proved the majority energy of the Sun comes from the fusion of protons into helium, until the neutrino experiment in 2014. https://www.sciencema…

> the theoretical results and incomplete evidence are persuasive enough

In the quoted example, "direct evidence" from that paper was not necessary to confirm that the other calculations and models match. The achievement presented in that paper was to measure the specific neutrino flux, but there were many other measurements before that matched the developed models and weren't less convincing.

It's always good to read more than only journalist's interpretation. Here's from the paper itself:

Eve before "solar neutrinos from secondary processes have been observed, proving the nuclear origin of the Sun’s energy and contributing to the discovery of neutrino oscillations."

Only "those from proton–proton fusion have hitherto eluded direct detection."

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13702

The paper itself stated that the reactions in the Sun were already proved.

Re: Information Is Physics

#74

Post by pixl97 »

temac wrote: post #33
tux1968 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The article referenced by GP mistakes the form for the function. Just because the computer uses different technology than human tissue, doesn't mean it isn't emulating the same ultimate processes that are happening in our bodies. And even if we don't have the correct algorithms in sight today, there is every reason to believe that whatever processes are occurring in our brains and b…

> Just because the computer uses different technology than human tissue, doesn't mean it isn't emulating the same ultimate processes that are happening in our bodies BUT: at least I think we are far from it. Very far. In the sense that we don't need more computing power of the current approaches to get e.g. AGI, we need radically new ones. And I actually don't see why this would be opposed to more neuroscience educat…

Define intelligent.

Very tiny animal life shows what we would consider intelligent behavior. There is no particular reason to believe that evolution has even come close to size optimization that intelligence can be reduced in, as there are a large number of other dimensions it is working on at the same time, survival being the big one.

Re: Information Is Physics

#75

Post by perl4ever »

knzhou wrote: post #51
ppod wrote: post #50

This reminds me a bit of David Deutsch's Constructor Theory. What's the mainstream acceptance of that like at the moment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructor_theory

I'm always ticked off when I hear the hype around constructor theory. While information theory has had profound impacts in physics, constructor theory has always seemed to me to accomplish nothing but add fancy words. Yet it has done very well trading on the past prestige of its proponents, and promoting itself through popular talks where no real scientists are present to question them. For example, constructor theor…

The first sentence of the Wikipedia article is "Constructor theory is a proposal for a new mode of explanation in fundamental physics".

Well, if it's a "new mode of explanation", then the baseline expectation is that it doesn't add anything to all existing explanations of physics. The point of it would be to somehow allow explanations of things that were unexplainable before...

I mean, if you have a new way of explaining things, you have to derive all of the things we already know are true.

Edit:

The "Outline" at the bottom of the page doesn't sound like a profound new way of understanding the universe; it makes my bs meter twitch, but I don't see anything that provides a definitive reason to consider it all null.

Re: Information Is Physics

#76

Post by knzhou »

perl4ever wrote: post #75
knzhou wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always ticked off when I hear the hype around constructor theory. While information theory has had profound impacts in physics, constructor theory has always seemed to me to accomplish nothing but add fancy words. Yet it has done very well trading on the past prestige of its proponents, and promoting itself through popular talks where no real scientists are present to question them. For example, constructor theor…

The first sentence of the Wikipedia article is "Constructor theory is a proposal for a new mode of explanation in fundamental physics". Well, if it's a "new mode of explanation", then the baseline expectation is that it doesn't add anything to all existing explanations of physics. The point of it would be to somehow allow explanations of things that were unexplainable before... I mean, if you have a new way of explai…

You’re completely correct: new modes of explanation can be extremely useful, and you can’t judge from the Wikipedia article alone because it can’t get to the meat! That’s why I had to read the papers. Turns out, the meat just isn’t there, it doesn’t exist. There aren’t any ideas beyond the vague popsci outline, which by itself does no good.

Re: Information Is Physics

#77

Post by cellular »

mantap wrote: post #57
cellular wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The foundations of our knowledge are very quickly based on assumptions/beliefs. Light is not really understood. It's a wave and a photon, depending on what we need to solve. We incorrectly say light is a "wave", but "wave" is a verb!! I remember thinking this sounded ridiculous when I was in school. You probably did too! We should all go back and redo our assumptions like you say. The other thing that disappointed me…

Light is well understood but the explanation depends on what level of abstraction you require. There are quantum, classical and naive explanations of light and each are radically different. It's not our understanding that is flawed but rather the assumption that if there's two different explanations of the same physical phenomenon it indicates a lack of knowledge (rather than an abundance of knowledge).

That just moves the problem to "which layer of abstraction should I use". Ex. If I'm developing a new material that interacts with light, should I consider light to have mass, or not? Well if it's a space sail, photos have mass, if it's not a space sail, light has no mass. But I'm not sure if this new material is a space sail....which abstraction should I use?

Re: Information Is Physics

#78

Post by fixf »

fixf wrote: post #54
csomar wrote: post #19

I think the next step for physics could be potentially in establishing the link between abstract information and what is perceived as "real matter".

Self squared dragons and monstrous moonshine.

I find it amusing that I didn't say anything for OR against, just mentioned them and that apparently someone 'disagrees.' With what, an inaccuracy? Then post a reply. Just voting says: I don't get it.
Post reply on HN