[Fis] black hole and information

Wed Oct 7 17:44:38 CEST 2020

Dear Xueshan, Krassimir et al,

In my humble reasoned opinion, this group should already have been
nominated for the next Nobel prize; whether in Physics or Biology, is but a
detail.

We have, during the last 25 years, under the prophetic leadership of Pedro,
arrived at cornering the term ‘information’ on many levels and by many
descriptions. The group work has been done by the non-dogmatic, dialogic
method, by employing the recurrent questioning technique of Socrates: *But
then, how do you explain this:?*

In the present iteration, Krassimir again raises the point of *information
is in your head. *The answer is, again, that we would not have an organ for
perceiving *information*, if the stimuli which this organ perceives, would
not have an *independent, interpersonal* *existence*.

Compare it with the perception of magnetism by migratory birds or of
electric fields by some sea floor searching predators. Discussing among
each other, two storks can agree that magnetism is only in a stork’s head,
as can two hammerhead sharks agree, that electric impulses of the prey are
only in the heads of hammerhead sharks. Owls would not agree with snakes,
that the smell and warmth is what is important to watch for, because they
know that it is the noise and the optical pattern of the prey what decides
about the success of the catch. Humans happen to use information in the
same fashion, without being presently able to agree on the semantics of the
concept, much less a name for it.

Information is the slight deviation between how it should be and how it is.
The deviation between what can be the case and what is the case is a
property that transcends smell, magnetism, optical pattern properties,
noises and warmth. Both the *how should it be *and the *how is it *are
pictured in the brain of the predator. Humans are able to talk about the
difference. Sharks, owls et al are acting on the difference (by moving – in
several senses – in such a fashion, until the perception hits the match
between how it is and how it should be: that is, the impression fits the
schema). Humans also act on the difference (they eat if they are hungry),
but they are able to talk about the difference also. They may call it a
reverie, a wish-fulfilling phantasy, an elaborate complot, an intrigue, a
plan, an inventory, a design, a model, a roadmap, a flow diagram and an
algorithm.

*If you look at a pizza* of which a slice is missing, the *pictures*
of the *factually
present* part, the *expectation* of the whole pizza and the *information*,
that such a slice has already been eaten, *are only in your head*. We
certainly agree, that the partly eaten pizza exists furthermore in the
actual world, too. This is what we say is the case. What Krassimir implies
is, that the whole pizza does not exist outside of our head, nor does in
his view exist the slice of the pizza that has been eaten, in the outside
world, neither. This may be evidently true in the case of pizzas. What we *talk
about *is indeed only in our head. What we *experience*, is actually
present in the outside world.

*How have we got there* that we experience the whole of the pizza and the
missing part also, even if these are not actually there? The answer is in
the pre-logical, axiomatic nature of our world being subject to *periodic
changes*. We can take a lunar month as a convenient example, because it is
faster than the year period and slower than the day period. In any moment,
we are experiencing a partly eaten pizza, here in the form of a partly
consumed day, lunar month, year. By being adapted to our planet’s periodic
habits, we *know*, what part of the day has already passed, and which
seasons are yet to come, and if one is of a poetic inclination, how far the
Moon is from being fully round again. Our pizza is a temporal one, and
there exist objective facts, which determine, what part of it has been
eaten by Time, that eternal devourer and recreator of pizzas. One may
assent to Krassimir: yes, our pictures are in our head, but then add: they
reflect the outside world correctly. In the outside world there is always,
in every moment, a partly fulfilled *is-the-case *which can be easily and
explicitly, exactly distinguished to a relevant *can-be-the-case*, and the
difference between these two, which we call *information*, in other words,
what could also have become the case, or simply, what *is-not-the-case*. By
this window, we have climbed into that room, on the door of which
Wittgenstein has fixed a note: “Do not enter here. You get crazy here. You
would need devices not invented yet to deal with what is not the case.
Leave this subject aside for a while. Better not say anything about what is
not the case.”

All sensory organs use the difference between the schema and the
impression. Humans have invented the sensibility to talk about the
sensitivity as such. The alertness as a neurological faculty is of course a
property of highly regulated systems, but the stimulus must exist on lower
levels, too, if the perception of it is optimised for reasons of evolution.

That there is an *innate, immanent, axiomatic wiggle-woggle* among several
variants of *is-the-case *is what is hard to swallow, intellectually. One
loves his Descartes home where Newton rules. Who would want to live in *two
*Descartes spaces which partly crowd each other out, usually merging more
or less peacefully into *one *space, in which the Newton etc laws are
valid, but mostly in the form of some special cases, among manifold,
interacting others?

We build the picture of the world according to the axioms we experience,
perceive and learn. If the picture of the world is incoherent, illogical,
contradictory or inexplicable, then the axioms are to be questioned in the
order: *learnt – perceived – experienced*, because if the individual is
healthy, his experiences are in congruence with Nature; although he may
perceive other stimuli than usual, as long as his faculty of perception is
working, the reason for the many riddles in his picture of the world can
only be in that set of axioms which he has learnt. To paraphrase
Wittgenstein: if we lived in harmony with Nature, we would understand how
she works, even if we were not able to speak about it. (Because we would
lack the words for dissonances and urges, in Nirvana everything being
always in its perfect realisation.)

We have problems with our *prefabricated concepts*, with the words we use.
We are used, e.g., to speaking about *6 *as if it was one indivisible
Sachverhalt, which can be included in some Zusammenhaenge. Six is however
the first case of a collection being sufficiently similar so that a
difference can be pointed out (3 are the background to a different 3, on
which it is demonstrated that 1 is different to 2, which in the background
is not the case.) If one plays with six units, one almost inevitably
creates monstrosities, which are a hybrid between a partition and a
permutation. These are the first Lego or Tetris elements of a new
algorithm, words of a logical language, in which a Zusammenhang among
several Sachverhalte can be expressed, both in a sequential reading and in
a commutative one.

Dear Xueshan, Krassimir, and you all my respected right honourable learned
friends, please circulate the following invitation on your respective black
boards:

*“Wanted: Programmers, graphic artists, data miners. Task: Data crunching
on natural numbers. Tabulating. Maintaining a database /a little brother of
oeis/ on names of patterns. Designers and name-givers: hunt for and
classify patterns. Must be ready to count different kinds of cuts on
intervals. No cash payments possible yet. First class promises. Needs
venture capital. Great potential. Radically new method of counting explains
some of Nature’s shenanigans.”*

The hybrids (partitions laid over each other, rotated) would be of eminent
interest to particle physicists, if they ever got around to combining their
ideas about what, where and when. Astrophysicists could find some
imaginative reveries if they contemplated the pictures Nature draws when
undecided about which, if any, order exists: how much of something is
usually where, and so forth. It is indeed educative if one studies the
tables of trigonometry and of multiplication and of sorting and of addition
and of reordering, if one wants to have a solid grasp of what a
Zusammenhang is among Sachverhalte. Even more educative, if one outlines,
draws and fills up a table oneself according to some elementary rules that
have not been investigated yet. This requires preparedness for
self-education, the main task is done by the numbers. The Zusammenhang lies
imbedded in the Sachverhalte. There exists a Zusammenhang which relates to
the way we distinctly count what follows in a different state of the world
and what is different within the same state of the world. We are used to
placing the Sachverhalte in differing contexts. This creates manifold
inexactitudes in the relative references. The whole is here understood as a
prediction, the actually existing part is the fulfilment, and the
collection of inexactitudes is the information in the statement. The model
is a picture we make in our own head, but the model mirrors Nature well.

*There is an inbuilt rivalry* between *a* and *b*, and the cuts that
separate these two, are alive and kicking. We cannot afford to neglect
them, if we want to count exactly. The cuts cannot be left aside. We have
to count with them. The rules of counting in terms of cuts are more or less
self-explanatory, but the task needs name-givers for the results
/proto-agglomerations/. Information is a property of the physical world,
and our senses have learnt to use it. Unifying the counting unit means that
we accept that we live in a three-phased dual world, of which the axes are
differently numbered. The axioms we *experience *support the idea, as we
procreate by merging two versions of the same story. The axioms we
*perceive* intuitively reject the idea, because we live in *one *world, but
insight supports it by means of microscopes and other devices that enhance
perception, where we discover duality to actually exist in molecules and in
many other realisations of Nature. The axioms we have *learnt* are the only
difficulty to overcome. We have gotten used to a traditional model, which
is nice for its simplicity, but not precise enough to be able to
differentiate among slightly deviating perspectives. Our mysteries are
self-created, they come about by our neglecting the syntax of the left side
of *a+b=c*, having thought erroneously, that counting only by means of the
syntactically simple units of the right side is precise enough.

The Nobel prize should be awarded to the FIS as a group. We could not have
come so far without each other. The dialogue has kept this group awake. Our
many various half-baked ideas about what is information have in the
concentrated lights of so many minds yielded a common roast, which is the
nourishing slice of the pizza of information.

Best wishes to you all
Karl

Am Di., 6. Okt. 2020 um 16:19 Uhr schrieb Krassimir Markov <markov en foibg.com
>:

> Dear Xueshan,
> I have only one remark.
> The Nobel Prize is given to researchers but not to the Black hole and not
> to any other object in the Cosmos!
>
> Without observer there is no Black hole entropy, there is no information.
> So, the consciousness is needed to reflect reality and to assume some
> reflections as information.
>
> Friendly greetings
> Krassimir
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Xueshan Yan <yxs en pku.edu.cn>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 06, 2020 3:37 PM
> *To:* FIS Group <fis en listas.unizar.es>
> *Subject:* [Fis] black hole and information
>
>
> Dear colleagues，
>
>
>
> This year's Nobel Prize in physics goes to black hole research today. When
> the curvature of space-time of a celestial body is so large that even light
> cannot escape from its event horizon, we call it a black hole. I. Once a
> black hole is formed, except for mass, angular momentum, and electric
> charge, all the previous material properties as objects disappear; II. The
> horizon area of the black hole is equal to its entropy (entropy equals
> negative information). These two issues form a close relationship between
> the research of black hole and information. The follow-up effect of this
> year's Nobel Prize in physics may lead to further thinking on the
> information in the future by astrophysicists, and lay a reverie foundation
> for the informational interpretation of matter several years later.
>
>
>
> Best wishes and health,
>
> Xueshan
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACISN SOBRE PROTECCISN DE DATOS DE CARACTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la informacisn sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
> siguiente enlace:
> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si esta suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicacisn en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> Този имейл е проверен за вируси от Avast.
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> <#m_-1833959808421829581_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
> siguiente enlace:
> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20201007/685cc8bb/attachment-0001.html>