Computers are real

[funkstar]

That's a special case of a high correlation between mass/energy and information.

It doesn't apply in general.

Yes, it does. It's called Landauer's principle and is a simple consequence of thermodynamics.

 

[Pete]

Thanks funkstar, I hadn't heard of that principle.
But, it does not seem to apply to the specific point you quoted.
From what I gathered through Wikipedia (not necessarily a reliable process!), Landauer's principle does not correlate the information in a system to the mass/energy of a system. Rather, it describes a limiting case of how altering the information in a system affects the entropy of that system - essentially, it appears to dictate that manipulating information in a particular way has a real entropy cost, i.e. useful work must be converted to heat.

I think it relates to a realization I had in [post=2053684]post 37[/post] of this thread:

Interesting... I was about to say that changing to a high-information representation costs no more than changing to low-information representation. But, I think would have been wrong.

However, the extra energy cost of encoding high information is not embedded with the information, but is lost to heat... so the information encoded does not have that energy.

 

[Vkothii]

"Losing information" costs energy; it dissipates as $$ \Delta S =\mathit {k_B} $$ $$\mathrm ln2 $$

This formula relates the cost of "losing" a single 'bit' or piece of information. Those online MIT notes describe Landauer's principle and the notion of 'copying' a bit, in terms of real CMOS and real charge and current - signals dissipate (i.e. are "lost to the environment") in terms of work done (lost).

In digital computers/circuits, signals are 'unitary', and logically represented as 0s and 1s - physically these are just voltages with a 'step' between (which is a phase).
If the signals were complex frequencies instead, the dissipation would have a different formula (to account for extra phases), but would still be logarithmic - the order of dissipation as a "computation" is logarithmic, which is Landauer's principle.


(the notes: lecture 3, pp 10-12: http://web.mit.edu/2.111/www/)

 

[CheskiChips]

I think the quantum bit loss is variable in transit...just as every other loss is in transit.

If I recall this has been quantified and techniques for testing it have been devised. The best test today is a tuble-like artificial atmosphere and the bit loss was still rather high.

Secondly...
why is energy loss at $$\Delta S = k_B ln(2)$$
Especially...why $$ln(2)$$ ?

 

[Vkothii]

Because digital circuits have two states - two kinds of bit, 0 and 1.

 

[Enmos]

Indeed? And the final result is worthless. Meaningless. Of no effect on anything whatsoever. That's exactly why I say this thread is in the wrong sub-forum.

I agree, it should be in Philosophy.
Information is the organization of the carrier medium or within the carrier medium, thus it's not physical in itself.

 

[Vkothii]

Information is the organization of the carrier medium of within the carrier medium, thus it's not physical in itself

"Organization" is only logical then? There is no physical computation or representation - information is made out of logic?
The carrier is the only physical thing needed - information just flows all by itself, no energy or physical process required?

P.S. Why is a computer philosophical? A transistor works because of philosophy?
What's the philosophy of semiconductors, is that a new subject?

You seem determined to believe that information isn't physical. Unfortunately, you are unable to give a single example of "non-physical" information. No logical information can be represented with an imaginary representation. This applies to the thoughts in your head, btw.

 

[CheskiChips]

I agree, it should be in Philosophy.
Information is the organization of the carrier medium or within the carrier medium, thus it's not physical in itself.

I think determining whether it is or not is the topic of discussion here.

It very well could be the root of physicality.

 

[Enmos]

"Organization" is only logical then? There is no physical computation or representation - information is made out of logic?
The carrier is the only physical thing needed - information just flows all by itself, no energy or physical process required?

P.S. Why is a computer philosophical? A transistor works because of philosophy?
What's the philosophy of semiconductors, is that a new subject?

I feel the basic subject here is whether or not information is physical.
Information isn't made out of anything, it's just patterns that can be recognized.

 

[Vkothii]

Patterns - what is a pattern made out of??

You realise you just failed the first question in the exam?
Either that, or Seth Lloyd needs your explanation of "non-physicality", to correct his mistaken assumption (that information is physical - which of course means it requires a physical form).
So can you come up with an example of this information stuff, with an imaginary representation?

 

[Enmos]

Patterns - what is a pattern made out of??

You realise you just failed the first question in the exam?

Patterns are not more than organization :shrug:
Answer me this: If I create the words "I was here" out of the randomly scattered rocks that were on that field I used as an example before, what is it that the information is then made of ?

 

[Vkothii]

It isn't made out of rocks, is it?
Making the pattern, is a process?
Is work done, or not?

Rocks are physical, work is too. The representation sure looks like it's in need of physical things.

 

[Quantum Quack]

It could all wash into the use of language. "Information" means what?
- stuff that informs.
Why does a rock need to be informed? Does it have a choice to do anything with that information? etc etc ....

Does hitting a bell with a hammer "inform" that bell to ring or just simply hit it and it rings?

This is why it seems destined for philosophy ....
Information technology is about delivering information to something "us" who can convert that information into value or "meaning" but with out the ability to convert to meaning, is the stuff actually information or merely energy buzzing around doing it's thing?

 

[Enmos]

It isn't made out of rocks, is it?
Making the pattern, is a process?
Is work done, or not?

Rocks are physical, work is too. The representation sure looks like it's in need of physical things.

It's not made out of rocks :bugeye:
But whatever, I give up..

 

[Pete]

It isn't made out of rocks, is it?
Making the pattern, is a process?
Is work done, or not?

Rocks are physical, work is too. The representation sure looks like it's in need of physical things.

"In need of physical things" does not mean "is physical". I don't know why you continue to conflate the relationships between things with the things themselves.

 

[Pete]

Vkothii,
What did Enmos add to the rocks when formed the message?
Mass?
No - the rocks have the same mass as before.
Energy?
No - the energy expended was lost as heat, not added to the rocks.

Information?
Yes! The rocks now have information embedded in their relationship to each other.


So, information was added to the rocks, but not mass, and not energy. Do you see?

 

[Vkothii]

Yes, I do see.

To "create" information requires the following:

1) A collection of physical objects
2) A means of manipulating them
3) An encoding, or logical representation that gets 'mapped' over the physical collection, by the manipulations.

Therefore all information, regardless of the logical representation, requires a physical form.
Therefore "information is physical" Q.E.D.

 

[Enmos]

Yes, I do see.

To "create" information requires the following:

1) A collection of physical objects
2) A means of manipulating them
3) An encoding, or logical representation that gets 'mapped' over the physical collection, by the manipulations.

Therefore all information, regardless of the logical representation, requires a physical form.
Therefore "information is physical" Q.E.D.

Like speed requires a physical form ? So speed is also physical ?

 

[Vkothii]

Is velocity imaginary instead, you think??

 

[Enmos]

Is velocity imaginary instead, you think??

No, it's not imaginary. So you say speed is a physical thing ?