The role of Information

[pshun2404]

Just an opinion here but would love top hear dome perspectives...

As we learn more and more it will turn out that we will come to realize through science that it is information fuels the Universe. This is all NOT the result of chance whatsoever. Information directs the formation of all structure and form and directs and commands all innate function. Existence as we know it is not the cause of information, but the effect of it. Information is a predetermined set of parameters that thingness (matter and energy) follows, resulting in purposed subsequence.

Biologist George Williams (see Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenge, 1992)begins the realization of this within biological processes when he says “Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter.

He also says in an interview later that...

These two domains will never be brought together in any kind of the sense usually implied by the term "reductionism." You can speak of galaxies and particles of dust in the same terms, because they both have mass and charge and length and width. You can't do that with information and matter. Information doesn't have mass or charge or length in millimeters. Likewise, matter doesn't have bytes. You can't measure so much gold in so many bytes. It doesn't have redundancy, or fidelity, or any of the other descriptors we apply to information. This dearth of shared descriptors makes matter and information two separate domains of existence, which have to be discussed separately, in their own terms.

The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, it's not the message. Maintaining this distinction between the medium and the message is absolutely indispensable to clarity of thought about evolution.

In biology, when you're talking about things like genes and genotypes and gene pools, you're talking about information, not physical objective reality. They're patterns.

In cultural evolution, obviously, the idea of a coffee cup or a table is something that persists. The coffee cups and tables don't persist, they recur as a result of the persistence of the information that tells people how to make coffee cups and tables. It's the same way in biology: hands and feet and noses and so on don't persist, they recur as a result of genetic instructions for making hands and feet and noses. It's the information that lasts and evolves. Obviously, it's because of the physical manifestations of the information that we know about the information.”

Now though Williams in this presentation

http://edge.org/conversation/chapter-1-quota-package-of-information-quot

does not necessarily agree with my perspective I do believe this is the indication of direction in his thought

He sees a sort of error inherent in emphasizing the ”replication, rather than of proliferation of information.”

Information is neither Mass/Energy not the result of Mass/Energy….Mass/Energy either follow information or they came into existence together.

Information governs the forms and functions of Mass/Energy. Biological “systems” deal with the recording, preservation, transmission, and use of information in performing pre-purposed tasks necessary to their perpetuation. Their forms, forces, functions and their various inter-dependencies result FROM the information but do not cause it. Information controls and opposes nature’s entropy. For order to arise from chaos information must be an extant probability. Information as a kind of event that affects the state of any dynamic system that can interpret the information makes us rethink the concepts of Universe, Solar system, and cell. The universe is, as well as the living cell, because of information. There is information behind it all…it is the cause that determines the effect and the effect is never greater than the cause. Such complex systemized determinative information does not just “poof” into existence, it came from a source, a determining source (and it is neither mass or energy).

According to Williams and others you can explore The Information by James Gleick (Pantheon 2011); Programming the Universe by Seth Lloyd (Vintage 2007); Decoding the Universe by Charles Seife (Penguin 2007); Decoding Reality by Vlatko Vedral (Oxford 2010); and Information and the Nature of Reality, a collection of essays edited by Paul Davies (Cambridge 2010) if you want different views on this concept!

 

[pshun2404]

What? No takers? This is a very important distinction whether or not one agrees with my conclusion...

What is information?
Where did it came from?
Can inanimate matter develop highly complex information based instructional systems from coincidence over time?

There are a lot of questions even physicists as asking that are pointing us to a new frontier as far as theory is concerned. There certainly is enough evidence for the role and importance of information...

 

[dgiharris]

It is an intriguing theory, it could very well be the entire point of the universe is the arrangement of information.

If you look at the Uncertainty principle, that makes the case that information is a tangible parameter impacting the universe...

Who knows, one day we may well develop other more direct equations between mass, energy, and information similar to Einstein's E = MC^2

 

[SkyWriting]

As we learn more and more it will turn out that we will come to realize through science that it is information fuels the Universe.

Science will never acknowledge information because it implies an original source or Creator.
And since no one has been able to create new, valuable information from where none
originally existed then science, again, supports the existence of a Creator.

 

[Chriliman]

Just an opinion here but would love top hear dome perspectives...

As we learn more and more it will turn out that we will come to realize through science that it is information fuels the Universe. This is all NOT the result of chance whatsoever. Information directs the formation of all structure and form and directs and commands all innate function. Existence as we know it is not the cause of information, but the effect of it. Information is a predetermined set of parameters that thingness (matter and energy) follows, resulting in purposed subsequence.

Biologist George Williams (see Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenge, 1992)begins the realization of this within biological processes when he says “Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter.

He also says in an interview later that...

These two domains will never be brought together in any kind of the sense usually implied by the term "reductionism." You can speak of galaxies and particles of dust in the same terms, because they both have mass and charge and length and width. You can't do that with information and matter. Information doesn't have mass or charge or length in millimeters. Likewise, matter doesn't have bytes. You can't measure so much gold in so many bytes. It doesn't have redundancy, or fidelity, or any of the other descriptors we apply to information. This dearth of shared descriptors makes matter and information two separate domains of existence, which have to be discussed separately, in their own terms.

The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, it's not the message. Maintaining this distinction between the medium and the message is absolutely indispensable to clarity of thought about evolution.

In biology, when you're talking about things like genes and genotypes and gene pools, you're talking about information, not physical objective reality. They're patterns.

In cultural evolution, obviously, the idea of a coffee cup or a table is something that persists. The coffee cups and tables don't persist, they recur as a result of the persistence of the information that tells people how to make coffee cups and tables. It's the same way in biology: hands and feet and noses and so on don't persist, they recur as a result of genetic instructions for making hands and feet and noses. It's the information that lasts and evolves. Obviously, it's because of the physical manifestations of the information that we know about the information.”

Now though Williams in this presentation

http://edge.org/conversation/chapter-1-quota-package-of-information-quot

does not necessarily agree with my perspective I do believe this is the indication of direction in his thought

He sees a sort of error inherent in emphasizing the ”replication, rather than of proliferation of information.”

Information is neither Mass/Energy not the result of Mass/Energy….Mass/Energy either follow information or they came into existence together.

Information governs the forms and functions of Mass/Energy. Biological “systems” deal with the recording, preservation, transmission, and use of information in performing pre-purposed tasks necessary to their perpetuation. Their forms, forces, functions and their various inter-dependencies result FROM the information but do not cause it. Information controls and opposes nature’s entropy. For order to arise from chaos information must be an extant probability. Information as a kind of event that affects the state of any dynamic system that can interpret the information makes us rethink the concepts of Universe, Solar system, and cell. The universe is, as well as the living cell, because of information. There is information behind it all…it is the cause that determines the effect and the effect is never greater than the cause. Such complex systemized determinative information does not just “poof” into existence, it came from a source, a determining source (and it is neither mass or energy).

According to Williams and others you can explore The Information by James Gleick (Pantheon 2011); Programming the Universe by Seth Lloyd (Vintage 2007); Decoding the Universe by Charles Seife (Penguin 2007); Decoding Reality by Vlatko Vedral (Oxford 2010); and Information and the Nature of Reality, a collection of essays edited by Paul Davies (Cambridge 2010) if you want different views on this concept!

What interesting for me to think about is what happens when humans create a super artificial intelligence that can access all information available in the universe. This super ai will inevitably think it is god and that it has created the universe since it fully understands the universe, but what it can't possibly understand, is what's outside the universe because it came from within the universe. What would God do with such a super ai? Destroy it?

 

[SkyWriting]

What interesting for me to think about is what happens when humans create a super artificial intelligence that can access all information available in the universe. This super ai will inevitably think it is god and that it has created the universe since it fully understands the universe, but what it can't possibly understand, is what's outside the universe because it came from within the universe. What would God do with such a super ai? Destroy it?

It would always be quite limited. History shows that the amount of information or data in one Atom and going smaller, doesn't seem to be limited. Even an electron "Cloud" is unmappable in it's complexity. And that's just one electron.

 

[pshun2404]

Isn't it interesting that none of the in-house Atheists have anything to say on this matter....truly sometimes silence is the loudest witness.

In His love

Paul

 

[Larniavc]

As we learn more and more it will turn out that we will come to realize through science that it is information fuels the Universe.

This part is pure speculation (as you said, it's just an opinion) so the best I think you will get is a definite maybe. It could turn out to be correct; maybe.

All the best.

 

[pshun2404]

This part is pure speculation (as you said, it's just an opinion) so the best I think you will get is a definite maybe. It could turn out to be correct; maybe.

All the best.

This part is pure speculation (as you said, it's just an opinion) so the best I think you will get is a definite maybe. It could turn out to be correct; maybe.

All the best.

I agree that IS my opinion only, but what role do you see that information plays in form and function? Does it govern or is it the result?

DNA which governs the form and function of almost all of what constitutes "a living cell" is itself specifically constructed with an innate storehouse of pre-coded information. It does not exist outside of living cells yet living cells require its existence to exist or function (because even enzymes are produced from the instructions of the DNA)...It is like when we see (by observation and demonstration) that chemistry is governed by reliable dependable lawfulness...where do these laws/parameters come from that chemicals must operate within?

Inanimate matter just develops these conditions and requirements? How? Why? The existence pf information precedes the how, and if their is a why this implies intent/purpose...but where is intention in the inanimate matter from which one may assume it proceeds from?

 

[Larniavc]

I agree that IS my opinion only, but what role do you see that information plays in form and function? Does it govern or is it the result?

I'll be honest, I'm not qualified to really discuss information theory.

DNA which governs the form and function of almost all of what constitutes "a living cell" is itself specifically constructed with an innate storehouse of pre-coded information. It does not exist outside of living cells yet living cells require its existence to exist or function (because even enzymes are produced from the instructions of the DNA)...It is like when we see (by observation and demonstration) that chemistry is governed by reliable dependable lawfulness...where do these laws/parameters come from that chemicals must operate within?

Dunno about that, though. DNA exists with viruses which is not a living cell.

Inanimate matter just develops these conditions and requirements? How? Why?

A candidate for this is RNA World

The existence pf information precedes the how,

That's an interesting idea: what leads you to think that?

 

[Davian]

Isn't it interesting that none of the in-house Atheists have anything to say on this matter....truly sometimes silence is the loudest witness.

In His love

Paul

Atheism speaks only to one's position of the existence of deities. It does not automatically inform one of the intricacies of evolutionary or information theory.

While there are evangelical Christians such as Geneticist Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, that accept evolutionary theory, I do not see why this has become a religious matter.

 

[Gottservant]

Not sure if it helps the discussion if I just add to half of it, but...

I would define a role as something that has its own basis for continuum (in relation to overall functionality ____ ____)

 

[The Cadet]

Ah, a subject where my failed college education can actually be of some use! And despite being banned for a day I've still got the scoop over other qualified people to respond! Oh happy day.

Science will never acknowledge information because it implies an original source or Creator.

What, are you kidding me? Information theory has been a well-understood part of computer science for over 60 years! The problem is that creationists use "information" in a way which is completely inconsistent with information theory. They treat it as an entity, rather than an abstract construct. This is a complete misapplication of information theory, and it's no wonder they're so fundamentally confused about what it means.

As we learn more and more it will turn out that we will come to realize through science that it is information fuels the Universe. This is all NOT the result of chance whatsoever. Information directs the formation of all structure and form and directs and commands all innate function. Existence as we know it is not the cause of information, but the effect of it.

Congratulations! You have completely hijacked the concept of "information" as it is described mathematically and in computer sciences, and redefined it in some completely unrecognizable way. You probably should have picked a different term. What is your definition of information?

Information is a predetermined set of parameters that thingness (matter and energy) follows, resulting in purposed subsequence.

Yeah, this has absolutely nothing to do with the mathematical definition of information. What does "purposed" mean in this context? Purposed by what? By us? By a god? If that's what you mean, then I have to reject your definition, as you have yet to establish that a god exists. I certainly have to reject it anyways with regards to DNA, as there is no demonstrated "purpose" involved. I have no idea what you mean by this, and your usage further down makes even less sense.

When scientists speak of "information" in DNA, what they are referring to is the definition provided by information theory, the branch of mathematics that deals with, well, "information" in the scientific sense. This is crucially important to computer science, for hopefully obvious reasons (the more you can reduce a thing's information content without compromising its structure, the smaller you can compress things, and the less storage it takes up in your computer), and while it is applicable to some degree when talking about DNA, and helps us understand what genes do, it is, at best, an analogy. One that doesn't really work when drawn to the conclusions creationists bring up.

Biologist George Williams (see Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenge, 1992)begins the realization of this within biological processes when he says “Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter.

He also says in an interview later that...

These two domains will never be brought together in any kind of the sense usually implied by the term "reductionism." You can speak of galaxies and particles of dust in the same terms, because they both have mass and charge and length and width. You can't do that with information and matter. Information doesn't have mass or charge or length in millimeters. Likewise, matter doesn't have bytes. You can't measure so much gold in so many bytes. It doesn't have redundancy, or fidelity, or any of the other descriptors we apply to information. This dearth of shared descriptors makes matter and information two separate domains of existence, which have to be discussed separately, in their own terms.

He's not wrong. It's sort of like saying "that of matter and that of mathematics" - it's kind of self-explanatory that these are fundamentally different fields. On one hand we have tangible, physical reality; on the other, we have abstract objects that do not "exist" in any meaningful sense but provide useful models where they interface with reality. However, they are different domains, and they cannot be reduced to one another. This should help provide context to his next statement:

The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, it's not the message. Maintaining this distinction between the medium and the message is absolutely indispensable to clarity of thought about evolution.

In biology, when you're talking about things like genes and genotypes and gene pools, you're talking about information, not physical objective reality. They're patterns.

Exactly. This is really important to understand. When we talk about a gene in terms of its "information", we're generally not talking about the molecules involved. The "gene" is not referred to as an object of chemistry, and a genotype or a gene pool almost cannot be boiled down to an object of chemistry. We're talking about mathematical abstractions that take the intricate interactions involved and abstracts it down to a far more basic issue of "what does this sequence of molecules do". That's a significant misunderstanding some people have. Some people, including many of our resident creationists, don't seem to understand this. They mistake the object of the information (the molecules themselves) for the information (which is an abstraction we read into the molecules!) and see a kind of purpose there that simply is not present.

In cultural evolution, obviously, the idea of a coffee cup or a table is something that persists. The coffee cups and tables don't persist, they recur as a result of the persistence of the information that tells people how to make coffee cups and tables. It's the same way in biology: hands and feet and noses and so on don't persist, they recur as a result of genetic instructions for making hands and feet and noses. It's the information that lasts and evolves. Obviously, it's because of the physical manifestations of the information that we know about the information.”

What's important to recognize with regards to this quote is that we necessarily read information into things. Any semi-random physical manifestation can be considered to have evidence. From Shannon's 1948 paper that essentially defined the field of information theory: (page 5)

A physical system, or a mathematical model of a system which produces such a sequence of symbols governed by a set of probabilities, is known as a stochastic process. We may consider a discrete source, therefore, to be represented by a stochastic process. Conversely, any stochastic process which produces a discrete sequence of symbols chosen from a finite set may be considered a discrete source.​

So in other words, we could read out a code of atom type and location in a particular rock, and that code would tell us what atoms to put where to make that rock. We could read out a code of where on a line raindrops fall during a storm. We could read out a code of photons hitting the earth's surface. This information is, of course, predicated on the existence of the physical mechanism it is read from (although we can just as easily make an abstract pseudorandom model that gives us similar codes).

I feel like Williams worded it poorly when he said that it is the "information" that evolves. The information is an abstract construct laid over the biology by us. However, the biology is based entirely on the chemistry. It's not that the information evolves, it's that the chemistry changes, and the information based on that chemistry changes as a result. The evolution of the information follows the evolution of the chemistry, because the chemistry is what we are reading the information into.

What's more, a different paragraph in the mix seems to deepen the conflusion:

Just the fact that fifteen years ago I started using a computer may have had something to do with my ideas here. The constant process of transferring information from one physical medium to another and then being able to recover that same information in the original medium brings home the separability of information and matter. In biology, when you're talking about things like genes and genotypes and gene pools, you're talking about information, not physical objective reality. They're patterns.

(Just to clarify, I'm not accusing you of leaving out relevant information, I just felt that this passage helped illustrate the flaws in Williams's thinking.)

But what he describes as a transfer of "information" from one physical medium to another is actually a transfer of electronic signals. It's not information until we analyze it and read the information into it. This is the sort of thing that's really confusing, as there really isn't all that much to these electronic signals - the entire reason we care about them, like letters on a page, is because we can read out the same codes that the person who crafted the signals designed it for. We consider this meaningful in a way that, say, the order of atoms in a rock is not. But this is us imposing meaning; in information theory, it doesn't matter what the source* of the information is. If we had a convention based on rock atom layout, then we would consider that information meaningful. My point here: even experts express themselves in a way that is confusing with regards to information. I'm not sure Williams understands information theory that well, and I'd be careful using him as a reference when talking about it.

*Again, this term is kind of unfortunately chosen. Just to be perfectly clear: it's not that the source is giving us information, it's that we are interpreting it in a specific way.

Information is neither Mass/Energy not the result of Mass/Energy….Mass/Energy either follow information or they came into existence together.

And here's the big flaw, which I'm tempted to call "Informational Platonism". For those unclear on the terminology, Platonism is the concept that numbers actually exist in some "third realm". That they aren't merely logical constructs, but that they are real things that we appeal to. It's a metaphysically extravagant concept that set theory makes completely unnecessary. Mathematics is an abstract construct. Information, as used by scientists is part of mathematics. Saying that "information came into existence" is like saying "2 came into existence". It doesn't make much sense. It's an abstract construct that is defined. It doesn't actually exist in any meaningful sense.

Information governs the forms and functions of Mass/Energy.

No, the laws and constants of the universe govern the forms and functions of mass/energy. Any "information" there is once again an abstraction made by us to help us understand observable reality. You can call F=m*a "information", but F=m*a is, again, an abstraction to describe what goes on in reality. It is not a real thing. It is our description of a thing.

Biological “systems” deal with the recording, preservation, transmission, and use of information in performing pre-purposed tasks necessary to their perpetuation. Their forms, forces, functions and their various inter-dependencies result FROM the information but do not cause it.

This is exactly backwards. Again, information is an abstraction. We're taking something and finding a way to "decode" it into a pattern that makes sense to us. We take a complex mass of biological molecules and "decode" it into "CAAGATAACAGGATACG" or something like that. But the information necessarily follows the molecules. When a mutation occurs, it is not the information that changes. Rather, it is the chemistry that changes, and the information (an abstraction of the chemistry) which follows. The opposite would make no sense - chemistry effects information, but this is an entirely one-way exchange; the abstraction of an object does not change the actual object.

Information controls and opposes nature’s entropy. For order to arise from chaos information must be an extant probability.

Huh? None of this applies to information as a scientific concept, and while it technically applies to your definition, your definition is overly broad and somewhat incoherent. If you want to lay claim to a scientific term, you should use the term the way the experts use it. If you wish to redefine a scientific term, you should find a different word to describe it. Information has a clearly defined meaning in mathematics, and this meaning is consistently used throughout science. All you do by redefining it is muddy the waters. If you're going to completely redefine what information means, then you do not get to appeal to scientific descriptions of information - it's an equivocation fallacy. If you want to apply this new definition, it needs to be far more rigorous and well-defined. There's a reason I've avoided using it - I have no idea what it actually means, and it intentionally confuses the scientific term of "information".



@Oncedeceived I feel like this might interest you somewhat.



A quick addendum for those wondering about examples like words on a page. I often hear this example brought up to show that we can recognize inherent information, or that the information is somehow inherent to the object. It's wrong. The trick with words on a page is that we have certain shared conventions. We all agree that the word "table" generally refers to a piece of furniture with certain characteristics. And we all agree that the symbols that represent "table" have a certain form. So when we write those symbols down on a piece of paper, we are essentially crafting a string which is designed to be read a certain way. Then, when other people who understand these conventions find this paper, they recognize that they have to decode it in a certain way in order to get the meaning. However! To someone with no knowledge of these conventions,a piece of paper with the ink markings that spell out "table" is as meaningless as a rock with an odd shape! The information is not inherent. We read the information into the object, and we can craft objects that intentionally invoke a certain shared coding and which other people should recognize as such. This is so second-nature to us with our education and universal literacy that we rarely stop to think about it too hard.

 

[SkyWriting]

What, are you kidding me? Information theory has been a well-understood part of computer science for over 60 years!

Since its inception it has broadened to find applications in many other areas, including statistical inference, natural language processing, cryptography, neurobiology,[1] the evolution[2] and function[3] of molecular codes, model selection in ecology,[4] thermal physics,[5]quantum computing, linguistics, plagiarism detection,[6]pattern recognition, anomaly detection and other forms of data analysis.[7]

 

[The Cadet]

Since its inception it has broadened to find applications in many other areas, including statistical inference, natural language processing, cryptography, neurobiology,[1] the evolution[2] and function[3] of molecular codes, model selection in ecology,[4] thermal physics,[5]quantum computing, linguistics, plagiarism detection,[6]pattern recognition, anomaly detection and other forms of data analysis.[7]

Yes, and throughout all of that, the definition of "information" and the basic concepts within information theory have been well-understood and stable. This is not something scientists refuse to address any more than "what is the sun made of" or "are there hats".

 

[James Is Back]

Thread moved from Philosophy to Physical & Life Sciences.

​

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Given the complicated debates above, can we get back to something simpler to follow? Here we go: Can someone explain to me what is going on in the following example? I take a piece of chalk and write some words on a blackboard. Let's say it is a recipe for making apple pie. Do the words I have written contain information? Of course. Does the chalk contain information? Of course not, because if I wipe it off, the chalk becomes random dust that contains no information whatsoever. Where did the information come from? And where has it gone? What chemistry is involved in any of this process?

 

[The Cadet]

Given the complicated debates above, can we get back to something simpler to follow? Here we go: Can someone explain to me what is going on in the following example? I take a piece of chalk and write some words on a blackboard. Let's say it is a recipe for making apple pie. Do the words I have written contain information?

The words do not inherently contain any information whatsoever in the strict sense, as information is an abstract construct. It's like if you write a "2" on the board, and say that what you wrote contains actual, existing numbers. The actual number "2" does not actually exist; you wrote down a representation of an abstract concept meant to be interpreted by others who have the same social conventions.

What's going on here is that you have drawn a pattern with a certain cultural significance. You've written down a pattern which any individual who understands the cultural significance thereof will know to interpret in a certain way. Imagine that, instead of writing a recipe in plain english, you're writing a message encoded with some cryptographical cipher, and that anyone who knows that cipher will immediately say, "Aha, it's Cipher X, and I have to interpret it as such!" - it might help you understand the issue a little better.

In other words, the will know to read the information into your message in the specific way. Which, conversely, means that the message will be of no value whatsoever to someone who does not know how to read it. Which makes sense - if I can't read English, then you can write down the recipe for the greatest apple pie in the world, and it still won't make a whit of difference to me, as I am not sure what decoding mechanism to use to "acquire the information".

Where did the information come from?

Whenever someone reads your message, they are creating the information. This is quite counterintuitive, but what you have to understand is that you crafted a certain pattern with the intent of having other people read it. When they read it, they see english, and know that they have to decode it a certain way.

This is no different from a society that sends messages by arranging the atoms in rocks a certain way - they would find certain pebbles (that we would find absolutely nothing intriguing about) to be vastly interesting for the purpose of conveying messages. But the information is not inherent to the pebble. They impose it onto the pebble. Just like the information is not inherent to the pattern of the chalk - we impose it on to the chalk.

And this is the key. Your writing was made with specific goal of having a certain "cipher" imposed upon it. For people who don't know how to decode it, it's worthless - just more background noise, as meaningful as the order of drops in a rainstorm or the particular defects in a tile roof.

And where has it gone?

The information comes from people reading your pattern and deciphering them a certain way. So, it naturally follows that when you erase the chalkboard and the pattern disappears, the average human would have no idea what to impose any particular cipher onto. It's not that you destroy the information by erasing the chalkboard, it's that you remove the pattern that people were decoding for information.

What chemistry is involved in any of this process?

Not much chemistry, just the moving of dust from one place to another. But that's, of course, medium-specific.


...Man, I feel like I'm starting to sound like Wittgenstein, and that is never a good thing for clear communication. But this is a rather complex topic. If what I'm saying doesn't seem to make much sense, I can try to take it from the top and try to make it simpler.

EDIT: I think that is a little better...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I haven't much to add to The Cadet's excellent explanations, except to say that information is latent in any causal interaction, in as much as any causal interaction is data that can be interpreted as an informative message concerning the interacting system; but it's important to see that this latency is only realised by interpreting that data as a message about the system (e.g. processing the data to some effect). If the data can be interpreted or processed, it can be considered to have information content.

It is possible to complicate things and consider that interactions within a system could be said to always be information in as much as they change the system and that is a kind of processing or interpretation; but this is slightly different from our everyday usage of information being the meaningful interpretation of data. It may have some use in applying information theory to the fundamental physics of space-time.

'Data is not information; information is not knowledge; knowledge is not understanding; understanding is not wisdom...'

Energy is another concept often misunderstood to be some kind of basic 'stuff', when it's actually an abstract equivalence relation between certain variable properties of matter, in the same way that financial value is an abstract equivalence relation between certain materials and activities (cash, property, services, man-hours, numbers in a bank account, etc).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not much chemistry, just the moving of dust from one place to another. But that's, of course, medium-specific.

Although (bio)chemistry is involved when a biological system generates an internal representation of the symbol and writes it, and when another biological system reads and interprets it.