Information as a concept is an abstraction.

Information as a concept is an abstraction.
Is the abstraction the same as what is being abstracted from?
If it’s detailed enough, the abstraction can overlay on top of what it’s being abstracted from and be difficult to distinguish, much like a realistic painting, digital image, etc. But do they share the same properties?

Does information exchange heat?

Ok, you can say “heat is information, therefore information exchanges information”.

Does information create life?

Well, you can say that “life is information, therefore information creates information”.

But is heat information and is life information? Or is information the paint brush we’re painting with, superimposed upon a human understanding of reality?

I think this is why having Information Theory as distinct from, say, Theoretical Physics is useful.

They can inspire each other but it can get a little strange and even vague if one isn’t careful, imo.

===

YES! Yes you can. I love where you’re going with that.

===

You’re familiar with the map/territory thing right? The map is not the territory. Usually comes up when someone is saying “the Universe is mathematics” and such.

But: What if, we’re BOTH experiencing reality and creating a map of reality as we go, and ONLY able to experience reality from layers of maps that we create?

Will we ever know if we’re ACTUALLY reaching territory?

Or does it matter?

After all, once we’re exhausted the limits of human potentials (including the potentials of all of the machines and programs we might ever create, and all of the machines and programs that our creations might ever create), in whatever days, years, eons of humanity there is…

… it “might as well be” actual territory and no longer considered maps, because *we’ll never know the difference*.

In short, perhaps our maps *are* an inevitable consequence of being self-aware beings experiencing territory. The maps *are* the territory and the territories are the maps.

There’s just a lot of bad maps out there.

====

====================

It’s a great way to go about it… although consider this: (yeah I’m a pain in the ass):

Do you need an over-reaching framework *within which* to decide _how_ to break things down into their most elementary particles?

If so then it is the decision-making framework that is larger than the elementary particles created within the decision-making framework, meaning the holistic perspective can only extend so far as the decision-making framework allows you to go.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


2 + = nine

Leave a Reply