It’s a tough call here. There’s a bit of a circle going on with this way of thinking: If we use information to describe something, then we have constructed a description out of information. But does that mean we have reconstructed “the something” out of information?

It’s a tough call here. There’s a bit of a circle going on with this way of thinking:

If we use information to describe something, then we have constructed a description out of information. But does that mean we have reconstructed “the something” out of information?

This is interesting food for thought but it looks to me like an inversion of what I think we actually do.

====

Take this chart and turn it inside out so that Our particular Universe is the largest and Mathematical Object Space is the smallest. I believe you’ll find it’s more accurate.

===

It’s an “about” vs “is” problem though. We are describing the Universe using information. We have the datum as basic component (or maybe it has another name but I always knew datum). But that ‘s our unit just as the meter bar sits in Paris as the standard for measurement. Information is our standard for measurement of the Universe at every level.

Yet, it is ours. Our role cannot be forgotten.

Information is essential to our understanding of its workings. I’m familiar with thermodynamics and information theory, entropy and the like. I’m always learning more and will continue to learn until I die, so I make no claims to know it all.

But when abstracting I believe it can be easy to “skip over” an assumption or two and end up being misled or misleading, especially when one is already certain.

===

Information theory, for example, has its roots in perfect gasses in enclosed thermodynamic spaces. The perfect gas is a useful thought experiment that has proven to be the invaluable basis of statistical theory which led to information theory and many a technology revolution when applied.

But it’s important to remember (I believe) the points of divergence, to keep in mind a distinction between “that which is pragmatic” (analogizing to a fictional perfect gas in a fictional perfect enclosed space and all the marvelous uses we have had for this pragmatic solution to the problem of quantizing large amounts of data) vs “that which is”.

That’s not to say we might not reach a point with information theory that we will not become creators ourselves, conjuring up matter and energy through information: I believe that might be possible and in a sense, we’ve been doing so for a long time now in some senses.

We can create an “is” from information and really we do so daily.

But, is it enough for complete?

===