This is a consolidation of postings about what complexity, which is the amount of information in something, actually is. The first part of this theory is the Patterns And Complexity blog, www.markmeekpatterns.blogspot.com . But that is more about the patterns through which information is manifested in the universe, while this posting here is about what information actually is, how energy and information is really the same thing and, how we see the universe as we do because of our "information perspective" of being at a higher level of complexity than the surrounding inanimate universe.
This theory comes close to another theory on this blog about information, "The Flow Of Information Through The Universe". But that theory is about how information always flows through the universe, from the lowest to the highest levels. Although the two theories are certainly complimentary, this theory is about what information actually is. This theory also comes close to "How Biology And Human Life Fits Into Cosmology", on this blog, but at this point I consider them as separate theories.
The former postings which have been consolidated into this theory are listed below, and can serve as a table of contents. Each chapter is titled in bold capitals, and there are sub-sections in some chapters that are designated with non-bold capitals and lower-case letters.
I find this topic to have great potential application. If we could get into the mindset of thinking of the universe as information we could start expressing complexity, which is the volume of information, in terms of numbers instead of the vague and subjective descriptions that we use now, such as "less complex than" or "much more complex than". Putting an actual numerical measurement on complexity is simple to do, and would be a tremendous breakthrough.
That is what I hope to accomplish with this theory.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) COMPLEXITY MADE REALLY SIMPLE
2) LONGEVITY AND COMPLEXITY
3) STORMS AND COMPLEXITY
4) THE NATURE OF NAMES
5) THE APPARENT INFINITE COMPLEXITY OF WORDS AND NUMBERS
6) ENERGY IS REALLY COMPLEXITY
7) THE NUMBER LANDSCAPE AND THE EVEN NUMBER BIAS
8) ENERGY AND THE TRANSFER OF COMPLEXITY
9) THE EQUIVALENCE OF SURFACE AREA TO ENERGY AND INFORMATION
10) NUCLEAR PROCESSES DESCRIBED IN TERMS OF INFORMATION
11) MATTER AND ANTIMATTER ANNIHILATION IN TERMS OF INFORMATION
12) INFORMATION, ENERGY AND, LIVING THINGS
13) WHY WE CANNOT READILY EXPRESS COMPLEXITY WITH NUMBERS
14) THE QUANTIFICATION OF COMPLEXITY
15) THE INFORMATION IN HARMONIC MOTION
16) ELECTROMAGNETISM IN TERMS OF INFORMATION
17) HOW REAL ARE WE?
18) COMPLEXITY AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LONG-TERM AND SHORT-TERM
19) ROWS OF THE PERIODIC TABLE
20) LOST INFORMATION AND EMPTY SPACE
21) THE WEATHER CYCLE
22) SIMPLE EXAMPLES OF HOW INFORMATION WORKS
23) INFORMATION OF POSITION
24) NEW MEASUREMENTS FOR COMPLEXITY
25) THE MEANINGFUL WORD RATIO
26) MATHEMATICAL SYMBOLS AND WORDS
27) ENERGY AND INFORMATION IN WATER AND PLANETARY IMPACTS
28) WHY THINGS GO WRONG
29) THE FRONT AND THE BACK
30) MAGNETISM AS INFORMATION
31) HYDROGEN BONDING AS INFORMATION
32) THE HUMAN COMPLEXITY RATIO
33) MEET THE UNIVERSE
34) THE ROLE OF ART, MUSIC AND, SPORTS
35) THE SIMILARITY OF TASKS
36) THE NATURE OF THE INANIMATE UNIVERSE
37) THOSE WHO HAVE IT MADE
1) COMPLEXITY MADE REALLY SIMPLE
There would be tremendous benefits if we could only quantify complexity, meaning to put a number on it as we would measurements of weight, distance or, temperature. Complexity is something that we deal with in everything that we do, and since we have yet to quantify it we express it in vague comparitive subjective terms such "less complex than" or "much more complex than". Imagine what it would be like if we could not quantify weight, distance or, temperature, but could only say "a little bit warmer than" or "a lot further than" or "not much heavier than".
But in order to quantify complexity, we must first thoroughly understand what it is and that is the purpose of my theory. The reason that we cannot readily attach a number to complexity, as we can other physical measurements, is that the complexity that we perceive is very closely linked to what we are.
Complexity is information, the information that is in anything of any complexity about how it came to be. Complexity is related to energy in that there is energy in anything of any complexity that exists from how it came together.
The complexity of any given system is lowered if it contains elements that are non-specific. An example is a machine that contains a piece of steel, and the piece of steel would do just as well as any other similar piece of steel or indeed of any metal of comparable strength. Thus, we would not need to consider the atomic structure of the machine's components as part of it's complexity.
In fact, complexity is a collection of patterns and the number of patterns in manifestation by any system is the complexity of that system. That is why the theory of complexity is on the same blog with the writings about the fundamental patterns that underlie everything.
It is important to understand that repetition is not complexity. When we replicate any system of a given complexity, we are not multiplying it's complexity. We are adding complexity only if the arrangement of the copies of the original system contain meaningful information. Ten identical cars are no more complex than one such car, unless they are parked or driven in some meaningful formation that involves information.
Complexity is like energy that we can never create new complexity, but only rearrange the forms of existing complexity. When we build the most complex machines, we are only replicating the complexity in our brains. The ideas for the machines came from reading books, which were the replications of the complexity of the brains of the authors, or by observing the complexity involved in nature. We, and the universe in which we live, have a certain given complexity and all that we can do is to replicate and change in form this complexity that was given to us. We can never create new complexity, just as we can never create new energy.
An example of how we can rearrange complexity, but can never actually create it, is the principle that I pointed out that we can make life easier for ourselves, on the whole, but only at the expense of making it more complex. Life can get easier but more complex, but can never get both easier and simpler at least not on a large scale. This must mean that energy and complexity are really the same thing, since they are interchangeable.
Randomness is not complexity. What we call random is where any arrangement of something is as meaningful as any other arrangement. But randomness is where we begin to realize that complexity involves ourselves and our perspective, and is not something that is absolute like distance or temperature.
In absolute reality there is no such thing as randomness, everything can be explained in terms of cause and effect. But we are more complex than our inanimate surroundings and this affects the meaning that various arrangements of those surroundings can have to us.
There is a difference between intricacy and complexity. Complexity is information that is contained in some system, such as how the system came to exist. Intricacy is simply the concentration of complexity, it is not more complexity. An example is a watch and a lawnmower engine. The two may be similar in complexity, but the watch is more intricate because it contains the same complexity in less "given", which is matter in this case. While we cannot create complexity, we can rearrange it to create intricacy.
Complexity cannot be measured with a ruler or a meter, but we can measure it by various methods. We know that complexity is the set of information that is required to construct some system, and the volume of that information is thus equal to it's complexity. We also know that the more complex something is, the more there will be that can potentially go wrong with it. This means that the sum total of every possibly injury and ailment in medical books is also an effective measurement of the complexity of the body, in relation to the surrounding inanimate matter.
One way to measure the complexity of a society in relation to an earlier society is simply the total number of job titles in the society. If the components of a system can be grouped into sets of opposites, the more similarity between the opposites in a set the lower will be the complexity of the entire system.
Aside from randomness, another result of our perspective and the incomplete knowledge that we have of reality is that we perceive coincidences and reverse coincidences. These are related to complexity in that a coincidence is an apparently random reduction in the true complexity of a system, and a reverse coincidence is an apparent increase in the complexity of a system as we see it. Of course, neither randomness nor coincidences really exist and are only manifestations of our perspective and our incomplete knowledge.
An all-pervasive pattern in all that we do is what I have named simply "The One And The Many", as described in the posting of that name on the patterns and complexity blog. You are the one, everyone who is not you is the many. Any address or identification number indicates the one, all that it does not indicate are the many. A given word denotes the one, all that is not described by the word are the many. A goal or an ideal situation is the one, anything short of that is the many. An event that is newsworthy is the one, all else is the many. Perfection is the one, all that is short of perfection is the many.
It is this concept of "The One And The Many" that actually makes it possible to measure complexity, in terms of numbers. "The One And The Many" is actually a ratio or fraction, expressed simply as one / many. The one is the permutation of data points that actually are, the many is all of the possible permutations of these data points. The complexity, or amount of information, is simply the numerical value of the many. This means that the more possible permutations, the more information is involved.
You can see that this "One And The Many" pattern is woven into all that we are and all that we do.
We exist in a situation in which we are at a higher level than our surroundings, and this has a profound effect on how we perceive everything. The fact that there is not as much complexity in our surroundings as there is within us means that we will see "truth possibilities" that will turn out to be false because there is not enough complexity for everything that we can perceive to be true. If we were equal in complexity to our surroundings, there would be nothing false, all that we could perceive would have to be true.
This 'complexity gap' between that of ourselves and that of our surroundings also explains why we use both words and numbers to communicate. Numbers are continuous, while words are not. We have to use words to differentiate that which exists from that which does not. This is necessary because we are at a higher level of complexity than our surroundings, and so we can perceive of things that do not exist because there is not enough complexity for all that we can perceive of to exist. We will necessarily perceive our systems of words and numbers as being of infinite complexity, simply because these systems must be as complex as we are. This makes it so that words and numbers can be used to describe our surroundings, which are not as complex as we are.
We know what words mean, but do not know exactly how much complexity they contain. If we did, we could communicate entirely with the much more-precise numbers and would have no need of words. If we were of equal complexity to our sorroundings, there would be no need of words because all could be described with numbers. We could not conceive of anything which did not exist so it would be unnecessary to differentiate that which exists from that which does not.
My complexity theory also explains why we have free will. If a being is more complex than the sum total of the surrounding environment, free will is necessary for the higher level of complexity to be meaningful. I theorized that plants do not have free will because they are actually equal in complexity to the sum total of that of the surrounding environment. Plants are far more intricate, but are no higher in overall complexity. This is why plants have no need of free will, as we do.
Any system contains information about how it came to be. It's complexity is the volume of that information. There are basically two levels of complexity in our universe, the lower level of inanimate matter and plants, and the higher level of beings with free will. What we could call "construction" is rearranging this matter to serve our higher level of complexity, while "destruction" is the effective return of that created system to the lower complexity level of the surrounding reality.
Another way that complexity relates to energy is the apparent contradiction that energy supposedly can never be lost or created, but only changed in form yet we cannot reuse the energy that is used to drive machines and motors. The reason for this involves the two levels of complexity, for us and our surrounding environment. We are at the higher level, and when we design machines we impose our complexity on them. the energy that we use is then lost to our level, but is not lost to the surrounding environment at the lower level of complexity.
Energy is really complexity in that a moving object is more complex than when it is still because the vector and velocity of it's movement is information, and thus complexity. When we break apart the complex molecules of hydrocarbons in fuels, we reduce the complexity of the molecule. But this complexity cannot be lost, it must be manifested in some other way, and it does by making the vehicle more complex by moving it.
The difference between energy and complexity is often simply a matter of perception and scale. If, for example, we apply energy to a block of clay at the molecular level, it will be perceived as heat energy. But if we apply force to the block at a much larger level, it will shape the clay so that it is perceived as complexity.
So much can be understood only by understanding this complexity.
2) LONGEVITY AND COMPLEXITY
I have been wondering about something concerning all forms of life on earth that I cannot find a satisfactory answer to anywhere. Why is the longevity of a species directly related to it's size? Put simply the larger the average size of a species, the longer it's average life expectancy.
This is by no means a strict rule. One of the most obvious exceptions is dogs and cats. Dogs are larger than cats but the average cat lives somewhat longer. Turtles and tortoises are another exception, they tend to live much longer than their average size would indicate.
Humans also live longer than our average size would seem to indicate we should. But that can be attributed to advances in medicine and is not as much the case if we go back hundreds of years. Neither does this apply within a species. For example if a human being is exceptionally large or tall, it only means that their heart will have to work harder in old age.
But while this may not be a strict rule, it is a very broad general rule. Across all species of living things, average longevity is closely proportional to average size. This is even more true if we categorize living things into plants, mammals, fish, etc. I am referring, of course, to natural life span supposing that the creature will not be otherwise killed.
The question is: Why? Logic would seem to dictate that smaller living things require less to survive and so should live longer. Stars are the opposite of living things regarding longevity. There are small stars that have been around for more than half of the age of the universe, while there are very large stars that may last for only a million years or so.
The difference between insects and elephants is that while the larger forms of life may be more complex overall, the smaller forms are far more intricate. A fly has many of the same internal organs as an elephant so it is clear that the fly must be far more intricate. Intricacy is mass divided by complexity.
So, it seems that longevity is inversely proportional to intricacy. It does not seem to matter how complex a species is as long as it is large enough so that it's intricacy is low. High intricacy means short life.
Once again, the question is: Why?
But, what about this complexity theory? What on earth does the underlying complexity level of the universe have to do with the relative longevity of living things? The answer could be "plenty".
Living things are composed of the matter that, along with space, comprises the universe. So, it should come as no surprise that the rules that govern the structure of the universe also have a bearing on living things.
My conclusion is that intricacy is out of harmony with the underlying simplicity of the throw pattern of matter outward in the Big Bang that began the universe. Work can surely be done to concentrate complexity into sublime intricacy and living things are, by far, the finest example of this.
But the fundamental nature of the universe works against such intricacy. It can exist for a while, but the underlying nature of reality eventually pulls it apart. All living things eventually die and generally the more intricate, the sooner. Stars are the opposite simply because they are very low-intricacy.
Consider the general level of complexity of the surrounding inanimate environment as a flat surface. The complexity of any living thing is at some level above that surface. An insect is like a narrow tower reaching to a certain level above the inanimate surface.
An elephant, in terms of complexity, is also like a tower rising to a certain height above the base level of complexity. But, instead of being a narrow tower like the insect, the elephant is represented by a very broad tower. This is because, while the elephant may be more complex then the insect overall, it is far less intricate because it's complexity is spread over much more mass.
Over time, the narrow tower representing the insect is far more likely to topple over than the broad tower representing the elephant. Although the broad tower representing the elephant may be higher overall then the tower representing the insect, it's base to height ratio is much lower, and this makes the broad tower representing the complexity of the elephant more stable than that representing the insect. The height of either tower represents the total complexity, the volume of information enclosed relative to the base level of the surrounding inanimate reality, but the base of either tower represents how much mass that complexity is spread over. The higher the level of complexity within a given amount of mass, the higher the intricacy.
The tower representing the elephant, although it may be higher than the one representing the insect. is more stable, and this is how our complexity theory explains why an elephant has a longer life expectancy then an insect. The surrounding reality is always "trying" to pull any such structures back down to it's own level, and the more stout (base relative to height) such a structure is the more stable it can be expected to be.
This is how this complexity theory explains longevity.
3) STORMS AND COMPLEXITY
In a complex system, with a considerable degree of free movement within and with the system in a less-complex surrounding environment, certain stimulus can cause a portion of the system to accelerate ahead of the rest of the system thus throwing it out of balance. This is the opposite condition of a deterioration of the system which is a return to the lower level of complexity of the surrounding environment, although both are destructive.
This destructive acceleration of part of the complex system is what we could refer to as a storm. It takes many different forms, depending on the host system, of which a meteorological storm is only one example. But the concept of storms is an ideal demonstration of how many apparently different topics have exactly the same underlying patterns. This is the basis of the idea of patterns, that it is the same patterns being manifested in everything no matter how different they may initially appear to be.
Storms can occur only in complex systems, relative to the surrounding environment, with free movement within the system. Machines with moving parts, although they have motion, do not typically have free movement since it is only within certain pre-established parameters that the parts can move. Such machines may deteriorate or break down, but cannot undergo storms.
In the human body, when some outside stimulus causes cell growth which does not normally occur it forms what is known as cancer.
In the atmosphere, when dust from large dry areas such as north Africa and Australia is swept out over the ocean by winds, it forms more condensation nuclei upon which water vapor (vapour) can condense to form the droplets that form clouds and, when joined together form the larger droplets that form rain. This, combined with the rotational force of the earth below, forms a highly-accelerated sub-system in the atmosphere which we usually refer to as a hurricane, typhoon or, cyclone.
In the economy, the basic Law of Supply and Demand usually sets prices. But there are people looking to invest money in order to make a profit. This is not bad in itself, but it may drive up the prices of whatever they are investing in to artificially high levels. This is sometimes known as a bubble, because sooner or later it has to burst. As one example there is a tendency to believe that real estate should, in most cases, never decrease in value. Since there is a fixed supply of real estate to be shared among an ever-increasing population, this seems to make sense. But it also means that there will be investors who will see real estate as an attractive investment, and their demand for it will drive prices to artificially high levels. Sooner or later, these prices will have to crash.
Humans all share the earth. Most of the time, we can all live together. But there are those who feel that something which belongs to others should belong to them. Some feel that they are higher and have the right to tell others what to do, while some feel that they have the right not to be told what to do. Some persons think that they have the best ideas for how society should be run, while others disagree. Such imbalanced create wars and political turmoil.
These four examples may seem like completely different topics. To grasp my theory of patterns, it is necessary to understand that these examples are not different at all. They are, in fact, identical because the underlying patterns are exactly the same no matter what is actually being manifested by it. All are examples of storms in complex systems.
4) THE NATURE OF NAMES
I find that there is a hierarchy in our language with regard to complexity. In ascending order, this hierarchy consists of numbers, words and, names.
Words are based on the overall lack of information in the universe, as a result of the relative simplicity of the Big Bang. There is a vast amount of potential complexity in the universe, in comparison with the available information. The Big Bang, and the laws of physics by which the universe operates are relatively simple. Humans, for one example, are much more alike then they are different. An example of this scarcity of information, relative to the vast potential complexity available. that I often use is how the orbitals of electrons in atoms resemble the orbits of astronomical bodies which are composed of these atoms. Large-scale structures must reflect the nature of the building blocks of which they are composed because that is the only information available.
The result is that the same patterns must occur over and over again. It is for these patterns that we have words. The things that humans do are very repetitive due to this scarcity of information, if the potential complexity exceeds the available information then patterns must repeat. If everything was different from everything else, which would require much more information in the universe, we would have to give everything a name because there would not be the necessary similarity to make use of words.
In my complexity theory, on the Patterns And Complexity blog I have what I call "The Theory Of Puddles". As we know, a puddle is a low spot where water tends to accumulate. There are an infinity of patterns waiting to be manifested by some "given". When the universe of space and matter begins, and patterns do begin to be manifested by reality, it inevitably forms a "slope". This slope of reality means that some patterns are more likely to be manifested than others. The rare patterns are at the "high" end of the slope, and the common patterns form a "puddle" at the low end of the slope. In our universe, hydrogen atoms still comprise maybe 90% of all atoms, so they would definitely be in the puddle of the low end of the slope of reality. Diamonds are rare, they would still be in the puddle of reality because they exist, but would be in the shallows of the puddle high on the slope.
This "slope" of reality could actually be described as a ratio between the potential complexity in the universe, and the available information that was introduced into the universe by the Big Bang. Just as any slope has a ratio between the height on one side and the height on the other side. If the available information in reality and the potential complexity were equal, reality would be flat, there would be no slope and no puddle, everything would be different from everything else so that there would be no words but only names. But that is not the case and the puddle of reality that we have is based on the inequality between the potential complexity in the universe and the information available to create patterns in that complexity.
Physicists tell us that everything is really numbers being manifested. There is nothing in the universe that cannot be described in terms of numbers being manifested by reality. But we are in no way impartial observers of our environment. We have a place in the environment, and see it from our own perspective. This means that the innate numerical definitions of our universe are not all equal to us, and this is the underlying reason why we use words, due to our perspective and scale, as well as numbers. Words would be meaningless in inanimate reality.
Use of words and numbers also depend on how much knowledge we have, and this is part of our perspective. Words are more convenient and expressive, but less precise, than numbers. We must completely understand something in order to be able to describe it with numbers, but this is not the case with words.
A vital part of the perspective which brings about the use of words is the difference in the level of complexity between ourselves and the inanimate surroundings around us. This difference brings about what I call "truth possibilities", meaning that we are capable of envisioning things which may turn out to be false. There is more than enough potential complexity in the universe, relative to available information, that patterns must repeat, but there is not enough potential complexity for all that we are capable of envisioning to be true, due to our higher level of complexity relative to our inanimate surroundings. This is reflected in the fact that the most important words are "yes" and "no". If we were of equal or lesser complexity, relative to our surroundings, these two words would not be necessary.
Our elevated level of complexity relative to our inanimate surroundings also shows up in such things as energy inefficiency, construction and, destruction. Even though we know that energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form, we cannot reuse energy because energy and complexity are really the same thing and once energy is used by us, it passes back to the surrounding lower level of complexity. Construction is the imposition of our complexity on our surroundings, and destruction is a reversion back to that lower level of the surroundings.
(Note-Also, in my complexity theory, creatures with free will are of a higher level of complexity then the inanimate surroundings, without which free will would be unnecessary and meaningless. Plants are of equal complexity to the inanimate surroundings, but of far greater intricacy which is a concentration of complexity. The potential differences between beings, such as humans, within a species, is theoretically equal to the complexity of the inanimate surroundings).
Existence itself brings about numbers. But the scarcity of information in this existence causes repetitive patterns, which brings about our use of words. Enough information to differentiate the repetitive patterns from one another brings about our use of names, instead of the more generic words. If the available information for construction of the universe from the Big Bang matched the potential complexity available there would only be numbers, from the perspective of absolute reality and names, from our perspective. Everything would be different from everything else, so there would be no repetitive patterns for us to assign words to.
In summary, repetition in the patterns of numbers manifested by the universe, due to the scarcity of available information, brings about words from our perspective. Having these repetitive patterns, but with significant variation between them, brings about names. There will be such differences, having all of the universe exactly the same would be the lowest level of complexity, but the lower the amount of information available to create these differences, the larger the scale in the universe between which the differences are likely to be found. For example, atoms of the same element tend to be identical but the stars that are composed of the ese atoms are different from one another. There are recognizable differences in people, which is why we have names. If people were identical, we would more logically be identified with numbers rather than names.
We could describe the use of words and names as a dynamic interplay between repetition and uniqueness, as seen from our perspective in the universe.
5) THE APPARENT INFINITE COMPLEXITY OF WORDS AND NUMBERS
There must be fundamental units of complexity that cannot be defined themselves, but can be used to define other entities. What I defined as the Real Alphabet is sensory elements that cannot be described with words. To make use of words in communication, there must be certain basic elements that cannot be described with words but must be understood by sensory experience alone.
An ideal example is color. We cannot describe color with words, it is impossible. The words just do not exist. How would you describe your favorite color, or the green margins of this blog, to someone who has always been blind? But if a person to which we are communicating understands the basic sensory elements that cannot be described with words then we can put these together, by using language, to convey other information. That is how language works.
Words and numbers are our fundamental units of communication. The conclusion that I have come to is that the actual complexity of a word or a number cannot be defined by us. It must necessarily be as complex as we are, and will therefore appear to us as being of infinite complexity. But we are more complex than our surroundings so that those surroundings appear as of finite complexity so that they can be described by us using words and numbers.
Anything that is as complex as we are, which our words and numbers must necessarily be, will appear to us as of infinite complexity. For something to appear as of finite complexity, it would have to be of less complexity than we are. When we deal with complexity we cannot consider it as an absolute because we, with a certain complexity of our own, are ourselves a part of the scenario.
Energy is also complexity. This means that complexity must be conserved, in the same way as energy. When complexity increases in one place, it must correspondingly decrease somewhere else. There is only a fixed amount of complexity available.
An ideal example is fuel and cars. The molecules in fuel are long and complex. When these fuel molecules are broken, their energy is released and it is used to drive the car.
But we can see this in a parallel way in terms of complexity. When the complex molecules of fuel are broken down, that makes them less complex. But complexity, like energy, must be conserved. The released complexity must go somewhere. One way to make a system more complex is to set it in motion. A system in motion contains more information, and thus more complexity, than the same system at rest. This is why the car moves, in terms of both complexity and energy, when the molecules of fuel are broken down.
The repetition of patterns conserves complexity. We know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state (at least as long as there is no electric charge imbalance). This is known as the conservation of energy. In the same way, the universe tries to conserve complexity.
An obvious way of how complexity must be conserved is how a large-scale structure must reflect the nature of it's component building blocks. Consider orbits, for example. The orbitals of electrons around the nucleus in atoms is reflected in the orbits of moons around planets and of planets around stars, that are composed of the building blocks of atoms. Another conservation of complexity is how all atoms of a given element are all alike due to lack of information, and thus complexity, in the Big Bang.
Technology must also ultimately be as complex as we are, simply because we create the technology. The technology itself may be simple, such as a knife. But to fully describe the operation of the knife, it would be necessary to include all of the fine muscular movements and skills involved in use of the knife. Then we would have to include the complete details of why we would be using the knife, which would go all the way to our nature as human beings and our position in the environment.
I theorized, then, that all examples of technology would ultimately end up as being equal in complexity to each other as well as equal in complexity to us. The total complexity of technology would be the internal component, the design of the technology itself, added to the external component, the environment in which it is used and the nature and reasoning of the human beings using it. With simpler examples of technology, such as the knife, most of the complexity would be external. With human beings ourselves, most of the complexity would be internal.
Words and numbers are likewise tools, just as is technology. The only difference is that words and numbers are used to describe, rather than alter, the surrounding environment. But this does mean that words and numbers must ultimately be equal in complexity to their users, which are us.
The meaning of a word or number is to differentiate something from something else defined by other words or numbers. This can only mean that it must be as complex as the entire set of words or numbers. The entire set of words or numbers that we use to define anything that we perceive must ultimately be as complex as we are. If something is defined by what it is not then the definition of anything must be as complex as the entire set.
If we see a basket, and define it as such, that means that we are defining it by differentiating it from everything that is not a basket. The basket is not a cloud or a car or a tree or a rock, it is a basket. But since we have to define things by what they are, which must necessarily be in relation to what they are not, then any definition must actually be as complex as all of the definitions of all things combined. Since the more complex we are, the more we will see and perceive that can be defined, that means that the totality of all of our definitions must be as complex as we are.
That means that a comprehensive system of definition, such as words or numbers, must be as complex as the entire system, including what it is not. The systems of words and numbers are examples of the pattern that I refer to as "The One And The Many", as described in the posting on the complexity blog by that name. Each one must be as complex as the entire system because the things that it is not define what it is.
Such a system of definition is essentially listing all of the numbers or words, or sets of words, that something could possibly be, and then eliminating all of those that it is not. But this necessarily involves the complexity of the entire system. A point on a map must be as complex as the entire map because everything on the map, every other point, contributes to the definition of the point. To show what the point is, it must show all of the points that it is not, thus requiring the complexity of the entire map to define even one point on the map.
The reason that everything in the universe is not different from everything else in the universe comes back, once again, to complexity. Things in the universe tend to have a similarity to other things. As in the example above, there are clouds and cars and trees and rocks and baskets. This is because there is only a limited amount of information to go around about the forms that things must take, so that complexity must be conserved.
What is the complexity of a number then? Is the number 36 more complex than the number 4? It is true that a meaningful arrangement of 36 objects is more complex than an arrangement of 4 of the same object but one number cannot in itself be any more complex than any other number because numbers are essentially an address system, the complexity of which must involve the entire system. Remember the basic rule that repetition is not complexity, meaning that 36 of something contains no more information that 4 of it.
The complexity of something is simply the information within it, including it’s location if that is meaningful. With a word or number, each is defined by the others that it is not. This means that every word or number must be equal in complexity to every other word and every other number. The number of numbers is infinite, while the number of words that we use is not, but words can be put together in an essentially infinite number of combinations.
The sets of words and numbers is not really infinite, but that is how we will perceive it due to our own limited complexity. We see our surroundings with a complexity that is a reflection of our own complexity. This must mean that we will perceive the total number of ways that we can describe those surroundings, using our tools of words and numbers, as infinite. If we were to see our tools of communication as of finite complexity, that could only mean that we would not be using our full complexity.
6) ENERGY IS REALLY COMPLEXITY
There is no such thing as energy. It is merely a crude term for the transfer of complexity that we do not fully understand. Energy is another one of those terms like "random" or "coincidence". We know that nothing is really random, everything has a definite cause and effect. Neither is there any such thing as a coincidence, it is just an illusion of our complexity perspective.
What we conveniently describe as energy is really the transfer of complexity. The use of energy is complexity decreasing in one place so that it can increase in another, because complexity can never be lost or destroyed but only transferred in form. Complexity is simply the information in something as to how it came to be or to be where it is. Complexity is taking a given number of some basic unit, such as atoms, and arranging them so that they have meaning relative to one another.
What we refer to as energy is liberated complexity that must be added to something, by moving or otherwise affecting it. A moving object contains more information, it's vector and velocity, than the object at rest. Thus, a moving object is more complex than the same object at rest.
Consider the complexity in the arrangement of atoms in the complex hydrocarbons of fuel molecules. When those molecules are broken apart in the cylinders of a vehicle engine by heat, the complexity is decreased. Complexity cannot simply be lost, it has to go somewhere. The liberated complexity goes onto the vehicle itself, making it more complex by adding motion to it, because remember that a moving object, including the vehicle, is more complex than the object at rest.
Molecules of food in the body operate in exactly the same way. The molecules, such as carbohydrates, are broken apart in the stomach, making them less complex. The complexity has to go somewhere, so it increases the complexity of the body in the form of motion.
Consider nuclear fission, the release of binding energy by breaking apart a large atomic nucleus into two smaller nuclei by means of a fast-moving neutron. This can only be done with plutonium or the 235 isotope of uranium. Remember that complexity is arrangement of some basic units so that they have meaning relative to one another. In a nucleus, the component protons and neutrons have such an arrangement. But the complexity increases at a faster rate than the number of units, in other words it is not linear. 4 x 4 is greater than (2 x 2) + (2 x 2).
This means that there is more complexity in a large nucleus than there is in two smaller nuclei added together, with the same total number of protons and neutrons. The result is that, when a large nucleus is split in two during nuclear fission, the two resulting nuclei together have less complexity than the original nucleus. This complexity cannot just be lost so, the complexity goes into motion of the two resulting nuclei along a certain vector and velocity. It is the kinetic energy of these resulting nuclei which provides us with nuclear energy.
But in nuclear fusion, the opposite takes place. In fusion, small atoms such as hydrogen are crunched together into larger atoms. But the resulting larger atom contains less total information, less complexity, than the original smaller atoms because all of the vectors and velocities of the moving smaller atoms are now combined into one. This complexity cannot just disappear, so it gets transformed into velocity and vector of the resulting atom that provides nuclear energy.
Nuclear fusion takes place in the sun, and it imparts the liberated complexity outward into space, so that some of it finds it's way to earth. (By the way, only about one part in two thousand million of the sun's energy lands on the earth).
If you wonder how fusion and fission can work in opposite directions like this, the answer is that larger atoms have proportionally to protons many more neutrons in the nucleus, to hold the like-charged protons together, and the placement of these neutrons in the nucleus requires a lot of information. These large numbers of neutrons in the nucleus are lacking in smaller atoms.
When hydrogen is used as fuel to produce "energy", a different process takes place. Hydrogen is diatomic, two atoms together. These two hydrogen atoms split upon combustion and join themselves to an oxygen atom in the atmosphere. The three atoms then form one molecule, of H2O or water, and than move as one. This decreases their total complexity, since before they had two separate vectors and velocities and now they have only one. This means that complexity has been liberated, and we perceive it as energy. (The process is actually more complex than this because atmospheric oxygen is also diatomic).
We could call this route to "energy", in hydrogen fuel and nuclear fusion, "vector condensation".
7) THE NUMBER LANDSCAPE AND THE EVEN NUMBER BIAS
I would like to illustrate how, in my complexity theory, energy and complexity is really the same thing. When energy is applied, it must make changes, and these changes are a storage of information and thus complexity. This equivalence between the two shows up in that we could call the Number Landscape, which is the manifestation of numbers in everything.
In terms of physics, there are two fundamental ways of looking at the universe. The first is that mathematics is just a convenient way to describe what happens in the reality around us. The second is that mathematics is actually that reality and that everything in the universe is a manifestation of the numbers and patterns of mathematics. It is rather like the old question of "Which came first, the chicken or the egg"? Most likely, neither way of seeing the universe with regard to mathematics is "right" or "wrong", it is just two different ways of looking at things.
Today, I would like to present this point of view that the patterns of mathematics are actually the underlying reality by introducing what I have termed "The Number Landscape". Suppose we did a survey of the universe and counted every time each number was manifested in reality in any way. I think we could logically conclude that, under normal circumstances, the rank of the numbers in terms of appearance would be identical to their sequence.
Since the universe is mostly empty space, the number manifested most often by reality would be zero. The next most common number would be 1 and then 2, and so on. This is simply because numbers are most often used to describe matter and matter in the universe is scarce in comparison with space. This is what I mean by the Number Landscape.
I surmise that the rules of this Number Landscape are that it seeks equilibrium toward low numbers, few numbers manifested and, adherence to the number sequence 1,2,3,... If reality had it's way, the only number manifested would be 0, at most 1.
The reason that this is not the case and we have numbers manifested like 67,301,232,851 is that the Number Landscape has been upset by events. The primary driving force behind this disequilibrium in the Number Landscape is the Big Bang that began the universe as we know it. When energy is applied to the universe, it brings about more numbers, higher numbers and, non-sequential numbers, because these are the ways that the Number Landscape can accommodate complexity. This number landscape is then more complex than it was originally, and this is another way we can see that energy and complexity is really the same thing.
I notice that this Number Landscape is actually a useful tool. We can use it do describe the activity factor of any given system, which is another way of stating a change in both energy and complexity. The universe, of course, increased dramatically in activity upon the Big Bang but has been decreasing ever since as large-scale structures form by gravity. But every time a supernova occurs, it creates another splash in the Number Landscape.
The activity of the universe as a whole, or of any limited portion of it, can be expressed in the divergence in the manifested sequence of numbers from it's natural sequence, which is the usual 1,2,3... My hypothesis is that when activity increases in any given system, it puts stresses on the manifestation of the natural sequence of numbers. This is because some numbers have more factors than others and this causes them to be manifested more often until the natural sequence of numbers is not the same as the manifested sequence of numbers. As an example, 12 is a higher number than 11 and this would seem to mean that it would be manifested less often. But, when activity increases and alters the Number Landscape, 12 has more factors than 11 and eventually overtakes it in manifestation.
Suppose there is the titanic explosion of a star in space, a supernova. Chunks of matter made of the various elements cooked up in the star's interior fly all around. Some collide and break into smaller chunks and some of those eventually pull back together by gravity. When a chunk of matter breaks apart in a collision, the number of pieces it is most likely to break into is 2, this must be the case to maintain the number sequence.
But if a chunk of matter breaks into two pieces, and then each of those is in a collision and also breaks into two pieces, we then have the number 4. Thus, this activity opens the possibility that the number 4 may be manifested more often than the number 3 because, even though 3 is lower and thus closer to a state of equilibrium, 4 has more factors (2x2). This is what I referred to as a splash in the number landscape.
Not only will higher numbers be manifested due to objects breaking apart into smaller objects, but there is the possibility that the natural number sequence will be upset by the activity. Even if we have a system in which no such breaking apart of chunks of matter occurs, velocities and rates of change as well as differences in those and ratios between them will similarly affect the number landscape.
What this all comes down to is that energy and complexity are really the same thing. When energy is applied to the universe, it must increase the complexity of the universe. Since everything is really numbers being manifested, the underlying way that this is done is to add complexity to the Number Landscape by enlarging it and then by upsetting it's sequential order. The non-sequential set of numbers 1,2,4,3 has more complexity than the corresponding sequential set 1,2,3,4 because it requires more information to describe it.
A familiar way in which we can see that energy and complexity is really the same thing is in how we can make life physically easier by developing technology. We can make life physically easier, but only at the expense of making it more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and also less complex. This shows that energy and complexity must really be different manifestations of the same thing.
My view is that the shift in the natural number landscape of any active system of numbers that are manifested in any observation will begin with the higher numbers. In the Number Landscape, higher numbers are further from the ground state of zero and thus their position and manifestation is less secure.
For example, as activity increases in a given system 12 begins to be manifested more often than 11 because of it's factors. 12 may even move ahead of 10. 8 moves ahead of 7 and 9 may even move in front of 7. If the system is really active, 6 may move in front of 5 in manifestation and finally, the number landscape is really unsettled if 4 is manifested more often than 3 on a large scale.
An ideal example of such variations in the natural number landscape due to the fact that some numbers have more factors than others is the chemical elements. As we might expect hydrogen, the simplest element with only 1 proton, is by far the most abundant and helium with 2 is the next most abundant.
But elements with lower numbers of protons are in no way always more abundant than those with more protons. This is because stars cook up elements in their interiors by fusing lighter elements together and there are more of elements whose number of protons have more factors then those of lower numbers of protons but which do not have as many factors. This is possibly the best example of the upsetting of the Number Landscape by the application of energy, and thus complexity. I got to thinking that, if numbers represent reality, then the nature of the numbers that we find so useful should reveal something about the nature of the universe that we use those numbers to represent.
Almost everything is empty space, and this includes atoms themselves. An example that is often used is that, if an atom was represented by a sports stadium the nucleus, which is the only dense part of the atom, would be about like a strawberry in the middle of the playing field. A galaxy in space is virtually all empty space, yet it is about a million times as dense in matter as the vastness of inter-galactic space.
We can thus state with certainty that actual matter is indeed exceedingly scarce in comparison with the space in which it exists, and this is why zero is by far the most common number that is manifested and lower numbers must get manifested first..
Now, what about the numbers that we use to represent reality? Our number system ranges from zero to infinity but the vast majority of numbers that we use to express quantity, excluding identification numbers or addresses, are very low, much closer to zero than to infinity.
Zero represents nothingness, infinity represents the endlessness of space and ordinary finite numbers represents matter. If there was no matter in the universe, then the only meaningful numbers would be zero and infinity. Have you noticed that the finite, and mostly low, numbers that we use are very much a mirror of the density of matter in space?
The vast majority of numbers in daily use, other than identification numbers, are below one hundred. The average number that we use to express quantity will always be a reflection of the density of matter in space. This average number also encompasses units, because the units that we choose are also reflections of the density of matter in space. This is because, as described in my cosmology theory, energy was applied to the universe in the Big Bang to bring about matter, and this energy must be manifested as complexity because the two are the same thing.
7b) THE EVEN NUMBER BIAS
Numbers are manifested in the world all around us, that is why we find mathematics to be such a useful descriptive tool. I have concluded that, if we exclude the number 1, there must be more even numbers being manifested by the world and the universe around us than odd numbers.
At the lowest scale, that of the electric charges which comprise the universe, there is no such thing as odd numbers. There are two electric charges, negative and positive, which attract one another and must always be balanced. Two is thus the fundamental even number. Because there are two electric charges which comprise space and the universe, there must be two possible directions from a given point in a given dimension of space, and two is an even number.
At a higher scale, that of atoms, the even number bias still shows, but now odd numbers can be manifested as well. Of the ten most common elements in the universe, eight have even atomic numbers, which is the number of protons in the nucleus. The most stable atomic nuclei are those with an even number of protons and an even number of neutrons. The least stable atomic nuclei are those with an odd number of protons and an odd number of neutrons. This shows that the even number bias starts with the electric charges, but then shows up to a somewhat lesser extent in higher scales as well.
In a star exploding in a supernova, and scattering it's component matter across space, or the entire Big Bang for that matter, the least information state would be an equal thrust outward from opposite sides, and this can only mean an even number of fragments being thrown outward. This is in accordance with Newton's Law of Equal and Opposite Reactions.
Symmetry is of even numbers, asymmetry is of odd numbers. The universe is overall symmetric due to the action-reaction principle and due to the charge symmetry of even numbers. This also makes exponents of two more likely to be manifested than nearby multiples, but non-exponents of two. To have an odd number would require more information. Since we live in an even-numbered universe, founded on two electric charges, this makes odd numbers a higher-energy state.
The number system that we use is useful because it is an effective representation of the universe. Addition and multiplication operations show the bias toward even numbers. If we add two even numbers or two odd numbers, we get an even number. If we add an even and an odd number, then we get an odd number. This makes the operation of addition favor odd and even numbers equally.
But multiplication clearly favors even numbers. If we multiply two even numbers, or an even and an odd number, we get an even number. It is only when we multiply two odd numbers that we get an odd number.
This illustration of arithmetical operations shows why we should exclude 1 as an odd number, and say that odd numbers begin with 3. Addition favors neither odd nor even numbers, both are equal. But addition is one-dimensional in nature, while multiplication is two-dimensional. The two-dimensional multiplication clearly shows the bias toward even numbers, in a proportion of four to one.
Do you notice a relationship here? In addition, which is one-dimensional, even and odd numbers have an equal chance of being produced. But in multiplication, which is two-dimensional, even numbers have four times the chance of being produced as odd numbers. This is yet another application of the Inverse Square Law.
The reason that this even-numbered bias is not more apparent is the way we count and measure. This bias only shows up in "natural" numbers. Our number system is an artificial tool that we use to describe the reality around us. But this conceals the even-number bias.
To see the even-number bias more clearly, we would have to use only a "natural" number and measurement system. This means doing away with our artificial units of measure like meters, grams, pounds, minutes, degrees, etc. Also artificial are any kind of addressing system such as coordinates or altitude and longitude. Decimal is our artificial creation, in a natural number system, all portions of a number must be expressed in fractions. A "natural" measurement system is where everything is expressed in ratios and proportions, and not in artificial units.
Even numbers represent space, because it is composed of the two electric charges. Odd numbers are a higher information state, requiring an input of energy to bring about, and can be said to be represented by matter. There are no odd numbers in empty space along, as long as we exclude 1. It is only by joining like electric charges together to form matter that odd numbers can be manifested, and even then even numbers must still be predominant.
Do you see the connection, with regard to my cosmology theory, between this concept of even numbers representing space, while odd numbers represent matter, and the Inverse Square Law? We see the Inverse Square Law at work in how odd and even numbers are equally likely to be produced by addition, which is one-dimensional, while even numbers are four times as likely to be produced by multiplication, which is two-dimensional. My cosmology theory has a two-dimensional sheet of space disintegrating in one of it's two dimensions into the one-dimensional strings that compose matter as we know it.
This two-dimensional sheet was scattered by the dissolution, which we perceive as the explosion of the Big Bang, over four dimensions of background space. Four is twice as many as the two dimensions of the sheet. This is why the interaction of matter and space is governed by the Inverse square Law, in the same way that multiplication favors the production of even numbers (which we saw represent space) at a rate four times that of addition, which is one-dimensional..
Remember that, in my cosmology theory, matter began with a two-dimensional sheet of space that was within, but not contiguous to, the surrounding multi-dimensional background space. This was the first asymmetry of the universe. Matter originated from this sheet, and has been the basis for odd number manifestation ever since.
Odd numbers, as introduced into the universe, are a second-tier higher-information state. If we have twice (an even number) of one quantity than another, and the two quantities are combined together, the lower quantity will represent 1/3 of the total. In my cosmology theory, odd numbers come into play when it requires three times the energy to hold like charges together into matter than there is between the usual pattern of adjacent opposite charges. But matter is second-tier after space, just as odd numbers are second tier after even numbers.
8) ENERGY AND THE TRANSFER OF COMPLEXITY
There is no such thing as energy. It is merely a crude term for the transfer of complexity that we do not fully understand. Energy is another one of those terms like "random" or "coincidence". We know that nothing is really random, everything has a definite cause and effect. Neither is there any such thing as a coincidence, it is just an illusion of our complexity perspective.
What we conveniently describe as energy is really the transfer of complexity. The use of energy is complexity decreasing in one place so that it can increase in another, because complexity can never be lost or destroyed but only transferred in form. Complexity is simply the information in something as to how it came to be or to be where it is. Complexity is taking a given number of some basic unit, such as atoms, and arranging them so that they have meaning relative to one another.
What we refer to as energy is liberated complexity that must be added to something, by moving or otherwise affecting it. A moving object contains more information, it's vector and velocity, than the object at rest. Thus, a moving object is more complex than the same object at rest.
Consider the complexity in the arrangement of atoms in the complex hydrocarbons of fuel molecules. When those molecules are broken apart in the cylinders of a vehicle engine by heat, the complexity is decreased. Complexity cannot simply be lost, it has to go somewhere. The liberated complexity goes onto the vehicle itself, making it more complex by adding motion to it, because remember that a moving object, including the vehicle, is more complex than the object at rest.
Molecules of food in the body operate in exactly the same way. The molecules, such as carbohydrates, are broken apart in the stomach, making them less complex. The complexity has to go somewhere, so it increases the complexity of the body in the form of motion.
Consider nuclear fission, the release of binding energy by breaking apart a large atomic nucleus into two smaller nuclei by means of a fast-moving neutron. This can only be done with plutonium or the 235 isotope of uranium. Remember that complexity is arrangement of some basic units so that they have meaning relative to one another. In a nucleus, the component protons and neutrons have such an arrangement. But the complexity increases at a faster rate than the number of units, in other words it is not linear. 4 x 4 is greater than (2 x 2) + (2 x 2).
This means that there is more complexity in a large nucleus than there is in two smaller nuclei added together, with the same total number of protons and neutrons. The result is that, when a large nucleus is split in two during nuclear fission, the two resulting nuclei together have less complexity than the original nucleus. This complexity cannot just be lost so, the complexity goes into motion of the two resulting nuclei along a certain vector and velocity. It is the kinetic energy of these resulting nuclei which provides us with nuclear energy.
But in nuclear fusion, the opposite takes place. In fusion, small atoms such as hydrogen are crunched together into larger atoms. But the resulting larger atom contains less total information, less complexity, than the original smaller atoms because all of the vectors and velocities of the moving smaller atoms are now combined into one. This complexity cannot just disappear, so it gets transformed into velocity and vector of the resulting atom that provides nuclear energy.
Nuclear fusion takes place in the sun, and it imparts the liberated complexity outward into space, so that some of it finds it's way to earth. (By the way, only about one part in two thousand million of the sun's energy lands on the earth).
If you wonder how fusion and fission can work in opposite directions like this, the answer is that larger atoms have proportionally to protons many more neutrons in the nucleus, to hold the like-charged protons together, and the placement of these neutrons in the nucleus requires a lot of information. These large numbers of neutrons in the nucleus are lacking in smaller atoms.
When hydrogen is used as fuel to produce "energy", a different process takes place. Hydrogen is diatomic, two atoms together. These two hydrogen atoms split upon combustion and join themselves to an oxygen atom in the atmosphere. The three atoms then form one molecule, of H2O or water, and than move as one. This decreases their total complexity, since before they had two separate vectors and velocities and now they have only one. This means that complexity has been liberated, and we perceive it as energy. (The process is actually more complex than this because atmospheric oxygen is also diatomic).
We could call this route to "energy", in hydrogen fuel and nuclear fusion, "vector condensation".
9) THE EQUIVALENCE OF SURFACE AREA TO ENERGY AND INFORMATION
I find that there are more than we already have of what we could call equivalences. We already know about the equivalence between mass and energy. That a certain amount of mass contains a given amount of energy. This is called simply the Mass-Energy Equivalence, and is a fundamental principle of physics.
I have previously written about how I have concluded that energy is really the same thing as information because we cannot apply energy to anything without also adding information to it, and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it.
I now find that there is also a relationship between the surface area of matter and the information and energy within it.. Just as mass multiplies by energy equals a constant figure, so surface area multiplied by energy also equals a constant figure. This basically means that the energy and information in something manifests as surface area.
9b) SURFACE AREA
How would we expect an object to manifest it's information, other than location or velocity? The logical answer is in it's surface area. A sphere has the least surface area per volume of all three-dimensional geometric shapes. This is because it has the least information. It requires the least information to describe. An irregular surface on a sphere has information added to it, and thus energy, because we cannot add information to it without applying energy to it, and cannot apply energy to it without adding information to it.
Suppose that a potter takes a concentrated lump of clay, and shapes it into a pot. Energy has to be applied to the clay in order to do this. The energy is also information as to how the finished pot should be shaped, because energy and information is really the same thing. But this will inevitably show up as the finished pot having more surface area than the original lump of clay.
If we then break the pot, by applying still more energy and thus information to it, the broken pieces will have a greater total surface area than did the intact pot.
The same can be said of shaping a lump of metal into a tool. The finished tool will have more surface area, or at least more surface area per volume, than the original metal. The additional surface area is a reflection of the energy, and thus information, that was added in shaping the metal.
If we look at gravitational spheres such as stars and planets as a whole, we see that there is a very definite relationship between energy and surface area. The very reason that matter in the universe which coalesces by gravity tends to form a sphere is that a sphere is the form with the least surface area per volume, and thus the lowest energy state. This shows that energy is equivalent to surface area.
A sphere is not only the form of lowest energy state, but also lowest information state in that it requires the least information to describe of any geometric form. The equivalence between information and surface area can be seen in that the sphere is the form requiring the least information to construct, and also the form with the least surface area per volume. But this should not surprise us because we have seen that energy and information is really the same thing.
This also explains why objects tend to expand when heated. The heat is energy, and thus information, and so it must increase the surface area of the object, because surface area is equivalent to both energy and information, which are equivalent to one another.
9c) SMOOTH SPHERES
If two perfectly smooth spheres, that have come together in space by gravity, are of different size, it may not seem that the larger one contains more information, but it does. Even though a higher number, by itself, is not more complex and does not contain more information than a lower number. But the spheres are made of atoms and it takes more information to have more atoms arranged in a smooth sphere.
A perfectly smooth sphere is not exactly a "blank slate", with no information on it. It could be thought of as a series of zeros, with each being a point of information about the elevation of the surface. The more points that are described, the more information there is. There is more information in shorter wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, even if amplitude and frequency are the same. The sameness of the waves represent what could have been, but isn't.
Etching mountains and valleys onto a sphere increases it's surface area because we are adding information, and must have applied energy to it because energy and information are the same thing. But if a higher number has no more information than a lower number, then a large valley should not add any more information than a small valley. But yet it must, because it means more increase in the surface area of the sphere.
But the sphere is not the ultimate repository of information, it came together itself only as an expression of the equivalence of energy and surface area. Here, we are actually dealing with the fundamental mass-energy equivalence. This means that a larger valley on the sphere involves more energy, and thus more information, than a smaller valley.
Another way to consider the difference in the energy, and thus information, of a large valley compared to a small valley, on the smooth sphere of a planet is by having it expressed as a fraction. My way of quantifying complexity is that it is equal to the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction.
A large number, such as 100, is not more complex than a small number, such as 10, because they are really 100/1 and 10/1, and thus have a denominator of the same value. But the energy, or information, to create the large and small valleys, which would also apply to mountains, would be expressed relative to the energy or information that was used to create the smooth sphere of the planet before the application of energy which created either of the valleys.
It would be expressed as follows:
Energy and information to create sphere before the valley / Energy to create large valley.
Energy and information to create sphere before the valley / Energy to create small valley.
Thus the large valley would be a higher denominator, which would represent more energy and information. In reality outside that of human beings, there are no units, such as kilograms, joules, watts or, miles, and so the only way to express such interactions as the formation of a valley on a smooth planet is as ratios, and this makes it more clear how energy, information and, surface area is all the same thing.
9d) ENERGY THAT IS RADIATED AWAY
The basic equivalence of energy and surface area is the surface areas of atoms. The energy in atoms is that of the basic Mass-Energy Equivalence. If energy, and the information that it also is, is indeed equivalent to surface area, then the atom must have a surface area that represents the energy within it, even though atoms are mostly empty space. This surface area is formed by the outermost electron orbitals of the atom.
Fusion takes place in the centers of stars because that is where there is enough energy and gravitational pressure to overcome the electron repulsion between atoms and crunch smaller atoms together into larger ones. Energy is released as this is done, up to the element iron.
As successive fusion proceeds from lighter to heavier elements, there is ever-less surface area of the atom per mass contained. This is because combining two equal spheres together gives us twice the volume, but less than twice the surface area because that does not increase at the same rate as volume due to the nature of a sphere.
This energy that is released by fusion within the star, to compensate for the lesser surface area of the fewer heavier atoms that have been fused together from more lighter atoms, also pushes against the inward gravity of the star, to "inflate" the star over what it would be if there were no fusion taking place. This increases the surface area of the star, over what it would be if there were no fusion taking place, to make up for the lost surface area of the atoms being fused together at the center of the star. Energy is radiated away, which is why the star does not keep on growing in surface area, but is continuously replaced by more energy from within the star.
But, since energy and information are equivalent to surface area according to this theory, there must be leftover energy that could also be described as information as smaller atoms are crunched into larger ones by the fusion process in the centers of stars.
This is why electromagnetic radiation is released during the fusion process, which can be described as either energy or information. Stars shine, and there is sunlight every day, because surface area must remain equivalent to energy and information.
The energy of the radiation which occurs during the successive fusion of lighter atoms into heavier ones, which takes place in stars and this shows us more of how the surface area, in comparison with energy and information, of matter in the universe operates.
9e) ATOMS GET SMALLER IN ROWS ACROSS THE PERIODIC TABLE
One reason that heavier atoms have less surface area per mass then the smaller atoms from which they were fused together is that there is a stronger force pulling the larger atoms together, by opposite charge attraction, simply because there are more of both protons and electrons in the close confines of the atom. There is back pressure on electrons by like-charged electrons above, in all but the outermost orbital shell. This is why the maximum number of electrons that can exist in any orbital shell is 32, but for the outermost shell it is only 8.
If there was a similar variation in gravity, we would expect that a satellite with a given orbital energy would have a higher orbit, with a larger circumference, if gravity were weaker or a lower orbit, with a smaller circumference, if gravity were stronger.
One important factor in the orbital energy and surface areas of atoms is the so-called K-capture of electrons. This refers to an electron being crunched into a proton during fusion to create a neutron. This is why elements above about atomic number 20 have more and more neutrons relative to protons in the nucleus. This elimination of electron orbitals, to form neutrons from protons, is another factor in decreasing surface area of the atom per mass as we move to heavier atoms. A neutron is less information, and thus less energy and surface area, than a separate proton and electron.
When moving to heavier atoms, the size and thus the surface area per nucleon of atoms would seem to decrease, rather than increase, by the rule of the Inverse Square Law. Twice as many protons and electrons within the atom would mean four times as much inward opposite charge attraction. But the orbital energy, which is the same as the total displacement of the alternating electric charges of space, would be the same for electrons in the same orbital shell. It would just be compressed into a lesser area.
Across a row on the periodic table, atoms actually get smaller because there are more opposite charges pulling together. This means that there is less energy and less information, even though there is more mass. But energy and information is also distance. A 1 in a line of ten zeros represents more information than a 1 in a line of five zeros. The distance of electric charges in space is information because of the place it is relative to the places that it could be. A fraction is complexity.
Energy is information, but with given units of energy, such as electrons, less energy is just as much information as more energy, just as a lower number has just as much information as a higher number. Information in atoms goes not by electrons, but by electron shells. With discrete units, such as electron shells, information is only in the number of shells, which correspond to the surface area of the atom. Information is energy, but also energy that could be there but isn't.
Remember my doctrine that the complexity of a number is the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction. This is why we can multiply, but cannot add, fractions with different denominators. Addition is one-dimensional, but multiplication is two-dimensional so that the dimensions do not have to be equal in multiplication. Different denominators cannot be added because they are of different complexity. Complexity must be expressed in whole numbers. With regard to denominators, there is the 0 line, 1 line, the 2 line, the 3 line, and so on. To add fractions, we must first multiply to get a common denominator. Because multiplication is two-dimensional, this bridges the gap between parallel lines of denominators in fractions.
Atoms actually get smaller as we move across a row in the periodic table to heavier elements, which would seem to contradict this hypothesis because we are dealing with greater energy with regard to the mass-energy equivalence, and this does not apply to gravitational spheres. But we are dealing with electric charges, that involve both attraction and repulsion. This causes electrons to exist in orbitals composed of shells. Each shell has the capacity for a certain number of electrons.
This makes the orbital shells act like pegboards, with a certain number of pegs in a certain number of holes. An empty hole represents just as much information as a full one. There is more information in a set of pegs that is partially filled than in one that is completely filled, because we would then have to describe the arrangement of the partially-filled pegs.
This is why atoms to the left in a row on the periodic table are actually larger. It is not just a fraction, which would have a complexity equal in value to the denominator, because it must also account for the information of which ones are which. it does not reach the low point, and then increase, because a shell does not fill completely before the next one starts.
Atoms getting smaller in size across a row on the periodic table, even there are more electrons and nucleons, can be accounted for by considering empty spaces, rather than just electrons, as information.
9f) SUPERNOVA AND RADIOACTIVITY
To balance this relationship between surface area and energy during nuclear fusion, we must bring in the factor of excess energy that is radiated away, as electromagnetic radiation, during nuclear fusion. As the total surface area per orbital energy of the atoms within the star decreases, the excess energy must be radiated away as electromagnetic radiation.
A nova is the blasting away of the outer layers of a star, a supernova is an explosion of the entire star from the center. A nova or a supernova, like the emission of radiation or particles by radioactivity is, again, an issue of surface area. A star is an equilibrium between gravity pulling inward and energy radiating outward. A nova or supernova occurs when that balance is upset.
The only thing that could upset it, and cause the star to explode from within, is changes brought about by the successive fusion process. More energy must be released as the process progresses, at least in the large stars which explode, and the explosion is an effort to regain the balance that must exist between energy and surface area. A star crunches atoms together according to it's volume, but radiates away the resulting excess energy according to it's surface area. As we increase the size of a sphere, volume increases faster than surface area. This is why an increase in energy output cannot radiate away fast enough and the explosion of a nova is necessary to bring about the higher surface area to volume ratio of a smaller sphere.
It takes more pressure to fuse heavier atoms together than lighter ones. Eventually, the star reaches a point where the fusion process stops because there is not enough gravitational force from the star's mass to continue the fusion process. But it is also true that more energy is released by fusing together two heavier atoms than two lighter ones, even though the energy released by the heavier atoms is less then proportional to the mass difference as compared to the lighter atoms because energy in previous fusion steps had to be radiated away from the star in order to maintain the surface area to energy equivalence.
If the greater energy that is released by this successive fusing of heavier atoms cannot be radiated away from the star's surface area fast enough, it bring about the imbalance which can result in the explosion of a nova or even a supernova. The increased surface area of matter that is brought about by a nova or supernova is a compensation for the energy that could not be radiated away fast enough.
We see this continuous adjustment in both atoms and stars to maintain equilibrium between surface area and energy. A nova is an attempt to re-balance by increasing surface area relative to the volume of the star in which the successive fusion of heavy elements is taking place. But this can bring about too much surface area due to the fragments of solid matter such as rock and metal which are ejected into space. This, in turn, brings about the coalescing together of these fragments into a sphere, which has the lowest surface area per volume. This brings the relationship between energy and surface area full circle.
9g) COSMOLOGY AND SURFACE AREA
But yet this equivalence between energy and surface area that we saw here has an obvious application to the cosmological theory, reviewed in the posting on this blog "The Universe Made Really Simple". My cosmological theory has the matter in the universe, but not the space which preceded it, originating from a two-dimensional sheet of space within the multiple dimensions of the outer background space. When one of the two dimensions of this two-dimensional sheet disintegrated, as the negative side came into contact with the positive side, it resulted in the explosion that we perceive as the Big Bang. Long one-dimensional strings remained, which we see as the particles of matter today, and the other dimension became energy as the energy of the bonds that had been in the former one-dimension of the sheet were released into the background space.
The remaining dimension is seen today as the surface area of matter objects, which I described in this posting. The other dimension has, of course, been released into space as energy. Now, do you see the cosmological angle on this concept of the equivalence of energy and surface area? The two dimensions of the original sheet of space must have been equivalent and, since the remaining dimension of the sheet was what remained of it's "surface area", this is why today there must be an equivalence between energy and surface area.
10) NUCLEAR PROCESSES DESCRIBED IN TERMS OF INFORMATION
There has to be an information balance within atoms. Just as negative and positive charges must ordinarily be equal, so the information in the nucleus and the electron orbitals must be equal to one another.
As smaller atoms are crunched together into larger atoms by nucleo-synthesis in stars, the larger atom gains more of both protons and electrons. But this causes an information imbalance to arise. The protons in the nucleus would be all bound together, but the electrons are all in distinct orbitals, each with a different quantum address. There are four parts to the quantum "address' that each electron has and, according to the Pauli Exclusion Principle, no two electrons in a given atom can have the same quantum address.
This can only mean that the electron orbitals contain more information than the nucleus, but this creates the information imbalance which is not supposed to exist. Having different information states in the nucleus and the electron orbitals in itself creates a higher information state in the matter of the universe as a whole, and we know that the universe always seeks the lowest information state. This is because energy and information is really the same thing, and the universe always seeks the lowest energy state.
My hypothesis is that the atom avoids such an imbalance, keeping the levels of information in the orbitals and the nucleus equal, by creating neutrons. Aside from ordinary hydrogen, with just one proton and one electron and referred to as protium, there are always more nucleons in atoms than electrons. A nucleon is any particle in the nucleus, whether a proton or neutron. As we move to heavier elements in the periodic table there are more and more neutrons, relative to protons.
In terms of information, the purpose of this is to add information to the nucleus, and thus to maintain a balance with the information in the electron orbitals. All that electric charges ultimately are is points of information, and so a charge balance is really an information balance.
With elements up to iron and nickel, which form by the ordinary S-process, for slow, of nucleo-synthesis, there is never a permanent information imbalance, although atoms can exist as ions and isotopes. But heavier elements are formed by the R-process, for rapid, only during the explosion of a large star that is known as a supernova. Smaller atoms are forced together into larger ones, which would never exist otherwise if not for the tremendous amount of energy released when the star explodes. Since these heavier elements are created only when a supernova occurs it explains why lighter elements up to iron, such as carbon, nitrogen and, oxygen, are exponentially more common than heavy elements such as lead, silver, gold and, uranium.
In such conditions, an information imbalance between the nucleus and the orbitals of an atom can very easily arise. We say that the process of radioactivity occurs because an atom is seeking greater stability. But what exactly is meant by this stability? What I am describing here is that this stability that is being sought by the atom is the correction of an information imbalance between the nucleus and the electron orbitals. There is no such imbalance in the lighter elements, iron and below, that are formed by the S-process, because if there was such an imbalance then the atom would not have formed in the first place.
Neutrons are formed by crunching an electron into a proton. Since an electron has a negative charge and the proton a positive charge, this creates a nucleon that is slightly more massive then a proton but has a neutral charge. As we saw neutrons add information to the nucleus, relative to the electron orbitals, by creating an additional information point in the nucleus.
There are three types of radioactivity, Alpha, Beta and, Gamma.
Beta decay is either a neutron turning into a proton, or vice-versa. A neutron can turn into a proton which, of course, changes the atom into a different element since elements are defined by the number of protons, by creating an electron, along with an anti-neutrino, and releasing it. The new electron exits the atoms altogether, as a high-speed particle, and does not join the other electrons in the orbitals.
Beta decay can also change a proton into a neutron by emission of a positron and a neutrino, instead of an electron and an anti-neutrino. A positron is the antimatter equivalent of an electron, basically a positively-charged electron. One of the basic forces of the universe, the Weak Force, brings about beta decay. The Weak Force changes one quark into another by the exchange of a W-boson and the creation of a electron-anti-neutrino or positron-neutrino pair.
If there were more neutrons than protons, as is the case with heavier R-process atoms that can be radioactive, and a neutron were changed into a proton, this would increase the amount of information in the nucleus by increasing the number of possible neutron-proton arrangements. With two types or bits, or points of information, there is the maximum potential information with any given number of total bits, when there is an equal number of the two bits.
To understand this, let's use a simple example. Suppose that we are using the two computer bits, 1 and 0. 1 could be represented by a proton while 0 would be a neutron.
If we have four bits, and none is different from the others, there is only one possible permutation of the bits, either 1111 or 0000.
If we have four bits, and one is different from the others, then there are four possible permutations. Either 1000, 0100, 0010, and, 0001 or 0111, 1011, 1101 and, 1110.
But if we have four bits, and two are different from the other two, we have six possible permutations, 1001, 0110, 0101, 1010, 1100 and, 0011.
This shows how, with a given number of points of information, and at least two different types of points, the set of points can hold the maximum information when there are equal numbers of the different types of points which, in this case, are protons and neutrons. This storage of information as permutations of data is what I refer to as "The One And The Many". The one is the permutation that is, the many are the ones that could have been if the points of information were arranged differently.
Remember my doctrine that the complexity of a number is the value of the denominator, when the number is expressed as a fraction or ratio. "The One And The Many", as I refer to it, is simply 1 / many. The complexity of the number, and thus the amount of information within it, is the numerical value of the many. The many is all of the possible permutations of the data points or information, the one is the actual permutation that is.
But what this means is that Beta decay can be a tool to "adjust" the amount of information in the nucleus, to bring it closer to that of the electron orbitals, and thus eliminate the instability in the atom that is caused by the information imbalance between the two.
In contrast to Beta decay, Alpha decay is another type of radioactivity that emits an entire alpha particle from the nucleus. An alpha particle is basically a helium nucleus, two protons and two neutrons. This changes the atom into a different element, two steps lower in the periodic table. The helium that is on earth is usually found where Alpha decay has taken place.
But by lowering the number of both the protons and neutrons, Alpha decay lowers the number of possible permutations and thus the information in the nucleus. Thus, if the information in the electron orbitals is lower than that of the nucleus of an atom, due to so many possible permutations of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, Alpha decay can be a tool to correct that imbalance.
The third type of radioactivity is Gamma. This is not a particle but rather electromagnetic radiation. Gamma radiation has the shortest wavelength, and thus the highest energy, of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Gamma radiation is usually given off by an atoms just after either Alpha or Beta decay has taken place.
But electromagnetic radiation is information, and this information is being given off by the atoms in order to close the imbalance between the electron orbitals and the nucleus. We describe this as seeking stability.
Gamma radiation is also energy. We know that a lot of energy is given off by radioactivity because it is largely heat from radioactive decay that keeps the iron core of the earth molten. But remember my doctrine that energy and information is really the same thing because we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it, and we cannot apply energy to something without adding information to it. Another way of looking at it is that we can make our lives physically easier, through technology, but only at the expense of making it more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and also less complex.
How about nuclear fission? When we "split the atom", by striking the nucleus with a high-velocity neutron, a tremendous amount of energy is released. But if energy and information is really the same thing, then there should be an informational model of this, and there is.
Let's go back to our simple informational model of the four bits, two 1s and two 0s, and the information that is stored in the possible permutations of these bits. When we have all four bits together, we saw that there are six possible permutations of the bits. But now suppose that, with the 1s representing protons and the 0s representing neutrons, we "split" the bits into two sets, with a 1 and a 0 in each set.
Whereas with the bits all together, we had six possible permutations. But now, with the bits split in half, we have only four, 10 + 10, 01 + 10, 10 + 01 and, 01 + 01.
This means that there is a loss of information by splitting the set of bits in half. If this stood for an atom, with 1s and 0s representing protons and neutrons, this loss of information would also have to show as a release of energy, because energy and information is really the same thing.
This is exactly what happens when we "split" an atom of uranium isotope 235, meaning 92 protons and 143 neutrons in the nucleus, into two "daughter" atoms of krypton and barium. Actually, several free neutrons are also released because heavier elements must have proportionally more neutrons in the nucleus, relative to protons. These free neutrons travel at high velocity, and split other nuclei, which produces the self-sustaining "chain reaction".
But these two new atoms together have fewer possible permutations of protons and neutrons in the nuclei then the uranium atom had. This is thus released information, which must appear to us as released energy, because energy and information is really the same thing.
But, you may be wondering, if the two smaller atoms are at a lower energy state than the larger atom, the uranium, then why did they come together to form uranium in the first place?
Under ordinary nuclear fusion, they would not have. But remember that elements heavier then iron and nickel form not by ordinary stellar fusion, the S-process for slow, but are forced together by the tremendous energy that is released when a large star explodes in a supernova, known as the R-process for rapid. It is this excess energy that it took to force smaller atoms together into larger atoms, many of which are radioactive because the forced arrangement has an unstable information imbalance, that is released when we split atoms of Uranium isotope 235 or plutonium.
But then what about the opposite nuclear process, that of fusion? One thing that is so confusing about nuclear physics is that if we split a large atom, our uranium, into smaller atoms, energy is released. But if we crunch small atoms together into larger ones, nuclear fusion as is done in stars, energy is also released. If one process releases energy, shouldn't the opposite process not release it?
The sun is now in the process of crunching four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom and, of course, releasing the excess energy. But how can we account for this excess energy in terms of information?
An ordinary hydrogen atom has just one proton and one electron, the simplest of all atoms. In the fusion process, two electrons are crunched into two of those protons to create neutrons. This leaves us with a helium atom of two protons, two neutrons, and two electrons. This leaves us with six possible permutations of the neutrons and protons in the helium nucleus, remember the simple four-bit example above, but only a total of our permutations of the four hydrogen atoms that were brought together to produce it, since a character by itself, such as a 1 representing a proton, as only one possible permutation.
How does the fusion process manage to make six out of four, and then also has the energy to release as sunlight? Remember the information in the electron orbitals. Each electron in an atom has it's own four-part quantum "address". According to the Pauli Exclusion Principle, no two electrons in an atom can have the same quantum address.
But when an electron is crunched into a proton, to create a neutron, this information in the electron's orbital is no longer needed. Since energy and information is really the same thing, we perceive it as being released as the energy of sunlight or starlight. There is less information in a neutron than there is in an electron and a proton together.
We could also think of it in terms of surface area being equivalent to both energy and information. Energy is released by nuclear fusion because the larger atom that is formed by smaller atoms being crunched together has less surface area than did the atoms which were crunched together. The excess energy, which is also information, is released as radiation.
This goes back to what I wrote several years ago, the posting "Energy And Nuclear Fusion", on the physics and astronomy blog www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com . That was about my conclusion that the energy of sunlight, that is released by nuclear fusion, is actually the released energy from the orbitals of electrons that have been crunched into neutrons.
We could conclude that when information is added to matter, that is more than the natural information in that matter, something that is artificial or that "doesn't otherwise make sense" has to be created in order to make possible the additional permutations that are required to hold the information.
A neutron "does not make any sense" outside of the nucleus, and a free neutron will decay in an average of about ten minutes. But this is not true at all of the other components of the atom, the protons and electrons.
Liquids are a secondary state of matter. If there is matter in open space, it will exist as either a solid or a gas, and never as a liquid. Liquids come into being only when enough matter comes together by gravitational attraction, such as a planet. The existence of liquid requires a solid beneath it, and a gas applying pressure from above it.
But this additional state of matter is also additional information, just as the addition of neutrons to atoms increases the information by increasing the number of possible permutations. This shows that when matter is collected together by gravity, to form a planet, there is less information about the positions of all of the atoms in the consolidated form than there is when they were all floating in space with their own trajectories and velocities. But this information cannot just be lost and so shows up in some of the matter taking on the additional state of matter of liquid.
But then this reduction of information by consolidation must also apply when the sun crunches four hydrogen atoms into one helium atoms, and releases the leftover energy as sunlight. Each of the four hydrogen atoms had it's own trajectory and velocity, whereas the final helium atom has only one trajectory and velocity. This reduction in information goes into fusing the nuclei together into one. The Nuclear Force then takes over and converts some of the mass of the nucleons into binding energy, but they have to be thrust together first. There is no energy in the basic forces of the universe, such as the Nuclear Force, they can only act on what is.
Notice that two atoms with identical trajectories and velocities can never collide, and those which are most likely to collide are those with opposite trajectories. This is also a matter of information. Opposite trajectories together have the greatest total information, which we perceive as the greatest energy of collision, because energy and information is really the same thing.
11) MATTER AND ANTIMATTER ANNIHILATION IN TERMS OF INFORMATION
My cosmological theory has space as alternating negative and positive electric charges, and matter as concentrations of like charge held together by energy, so that there are charged particles such as negatively-charged electrons.
There are two varieties of matter, conventional matter and antimatter. The two are similar, except that the same electric charges are reversed, so that conventional matter has negatively-charged electrons in orbitals around a positively-charged nucleus. While antimatter has an atom of positively-charged positrons in orbitals around a negatively-charged nucleus.
If matter and antimatter are brought together, the two will mutually annihilate and release all of the energy that is holding their like charges together, against mutual repulsion, to form the matter which my cosmological theory has as concentrations of like charges. The energy holding like charges together to form matter, according to the mass-energy equivalence, is released in a great burst of energy and the electric charges that composed the matter go back to the alternating negative and positive charge pattern of empty space.
But if the space in the universe is composed of alternating opposite charges in a checkerboard pattern, then why can't oppositely-charged atoms also exist in an alternating checkerboard pattern?
It can easily be seen that the default shape for matter in the universe is a sphere. This means that if there is a significant amount of matter together, and no other factors present, the matter will shape itself by gravity into a sphere. This is why the earth, moon, sun and, other planets are all spherical in shape.
Science books will explain that the sphere is the default shape for matter because it has the lowest surface area per volume of all geometric shapes, and thus the lowest energy level. Since the universe always seeks the lowest energy level, the default shape for matter is a sphere. Put another way, the sphere is the most compact form because there is the least average distance from the center to each point in the mass, so that it requires the least energy to maintain.
A cube requires more information than does a sphere. Suppose that nuclei in atoms mutually repelled and attracted electrons, as they do now, but that electrons in adjacent atoms mutually attracted rather than repelled, while electrons within the same atom continued to mutually repel.
Atoms would have to be cubes, rather than spheres, because the mutually repelling nuclei would keep atoms intact and the nucleus would hold the electrons in orbit by mutual attraction, but the mutually attracting electrons in adjacent atoms would stay in contact as much as possible and this would mean a cube with each orbiting electron changing direction at a right angle at four points in each orbit. Atoms, as we have them, are spheres because electrons in orbit mutually repel and a sphere is the shape which has the least contact with adjacent spheres while cubes have the most contact.
Like atoms, whether matter or antimatter, have outer electrons that repel adjacent atoms because the outer electrons of both atoms have like charges. This is known as electron repulsion, and lowers the density of matter from what it would be otherwise. If atoms of matter could alternate with atoms of antimatter, adjacent atoms would attract, rather than repel, one another so we can presume that such mixed matter would be more dense than conventional matter.
Having adjacent atoms with their charges reversed, as matter and antimatter, would be a higher information state, and thus a higher energy state because energy and information is really the same thing. We know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state and so, even though this would reflect the pattern of alternating electric charges next to one another, it cannot be. The universe will seek a lower-energy state, and this is found by simply having matter and antimatter mutually annihilate when brought into contact.
A sphere is the shape with the lowest energy level but another way of looking at it is the shape with the least complexity, meaning that it requires the least information to construct. A cube is more complex in that it requires more information to construct than a sphere, and the change in the behavior of the electrons, as described above, represents the difference in information required to construct a cube, in comparison with a sphere.
This is why matter and antimatter will mutually annihilate when brought into contact. The universe is composed of alternating negative and positive electric charges and, since the information to construct the large-scale universe must come from the information in the most fundamental levels of the universe, there would seem to be no reason why alternating atoms with their electric charges reversed, matter and antimatter, should not exist next to one another.
But this would mean that the outer electrons of adjacent atoms would attract, rather than repel, one another, and this would mean that atoms would have to be shaped like cubes, rather than spheres. Since cubes involve more information than spheres, and energy and information is really the same thing, this means that cubic atoms would represent a higher energy state and, since the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, it cannot be.
The universe attains the lowest energy state by simply having matter and antimatter mutually annihilate one another when brought into contact.
Another way to express this is as surface area. A cube has more information than a sphere, and also has a greater surface area per volume. This additional surface area represents the additional information and, since energy and information is really the same thing, the additional surface area also represents additional energy in the cube. When smaller atoms are crunched together, by the nuclear fusion in stars, into larger atoms, the larger atom has less surface area than the smaller ones that produced it. This represents extra energy that has to go somewhere, and it is released as radiation into space. This is why stars shine.
The fact that the sphere is the default shape of matter in the universe also demonstrates that my cosmological theory of matter originating from a two-dimensional sheet of space, that disintegrated in one of it's two dimensions, in what we perceive as the Big Bang, to leave the one-dimensional strings of charged particles, such as electrons, that form matter as we know it.
The dimensions of space form right angles, which is why cubes and squares are the only shapes that fit together with no leftover space. So why doesn't matter, when brought together by gravity, also form right angles, as cubes? Instead, the default shape of stars and planets is as spheres.
It is because the form of matter is trying to conserve energy, seeking the lowest energy state. Matter comes from my two-dimensional sheet, yet is now scattered across three-dimensional space, excepting the dimension of space that we perceive as time. Since surface area is a reflection of energy, the form of matter does not have enough energy to adapt the form of the space around it. Instead, it seeks to conserve energy, as well as information, by adapting the form of a sphere even though that is an alien form to the shape of the space all around it.
12) INFORMATION, ENERGY AND, LIVING THINGS
I have been writing for quite some time about my conclusion that energy and information must really be the same thing. We cannot apply energy to anything without also adding information to it, and the only way to add information to anything is to apply energy to it. We can make our lives physically easier through technology, but only at the expense of making it more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and also less complex. This also represents the exchange of energy and information.
One of the fundamental principles of physics is that energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form. If information and energy are really the same thing, that can only mean that the same rule must also apply to information. We can thus conclude that information can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form.
Suppose that we go to a beach, at low tide, and write information in the sand. But then, at the coming of high tide, the information is washed away. Does this negate the rule that information must be impossible to create or destroy, but only change in form, because it is really the same thing as energy? Or suppose that a computer drive, with information encoded on it, is destroyed.
But these examples involve the encoding and relaying of information by human beings. The fact that information can clearly be both created and destroyed, when it should not be if it is indeed the same thing as energy and energy is the same thing as information, actually reveals how humans operate, with regard to information, in contrast with the inanimate universe around us.
Whatever we know, the information that we have in our brains, can only be a copy of the reality around us. If that information is apparently lost, the original information still remains so that no information is really lost. My rule is that repetition is not complexity, five identical cars do not hold five times as much information as one of the cars. If one of the cars is destroyed, the information is in no way lost. There is more information in five identical cars than in one of the cars, but the additional information is only in the number of cars and not in the internal complexity of any of the cars.
In the same way, if different species of living things are the result of mutations in DNA caused by environmental factors, and a species goes extinct, the information in it's biology has not been lost. If all life on earth was wiped out, the ways that we had altered the earth would remain, and the lost information could be reassembled from that. If there is a set of information, and lost parts of that information could be reassembled from pieces of it, then more such pieces would not be more information than fewer pieces.
As an analogy this means that a sudoku puzzle, a crossword puzzle that uses numbers rather than words, does not contain more information when it is completed than when it was started. This is because the information to fill in the blank spaces is already there, the user just has to figure it out. The user is not adding information by completing the puzzle, just digging out the information that is already there.
Humans have a certain level of complexity, the amount of information within, that is higher than that of our inanimate surroundings. Any technology that we use must have a complexity that is equal to our complexity, even if the technology seems simple to us. A cup may seem like a very simple example of technology. But to really understand the information that went into the cup it would be necessary to understand all of why humans have to drink water, and how we can look for and find and shape the clay or metal that was used to make the cup.
I refer to this as the external, as opposed to the internal, information in man-made technology. Examples of technology that are more complex than the cup, such as a car, have the same level of information overall, the level that is the same as the humans who created it. The car has more of it's inherent information actually within it, internal, while the cup requires us to look into the biology of why the human who made the cup would need it to drink water, this is the external information of the cup.
The same applies to a part of the body, such as a foot. A human foot would make no sense in itself, without being part of the body. The information of the entire body could be gleaned from the foot, the heart that pumps blood to it, the lungs that bring the oxygen into that blood, and the brain that must operate the foot. There is the same internal and external information that there is with any technology.
This also shows how living things have a higher level of information in them than the surrounding universe of inanimate matter, despite being composed of the same kinds of atoms as that inanimate matter. As with the example of the human foot, living things have what I refer to as "alphabetization". This means that there can be such a thing as a human foot, which makes no sense by itself but only as part of the whole body. There is no such alphabetization, so called because a letter of the alphabet makes no sense unless it could be used to build a word, in the universe of inanimate matter.
An electron, for example, "makes sense" whether it is part of an atom or not. The only component of inanimate matter that I can think of that does not "make sense" unless it is part of a larger whole is a neutron, which breaks down into a proton and a neutron in an average of about ten minutes if it is not part of an atom.
The fact that information associated with living things can seemingly be lost, apparently violating the principle that information is really the same thing as the energy that can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form, shows us the nature of life and how it handles information differently than does inanimate matter.
In inanimate matter, any information that is "erased" by interactions between matter or radiation, must be replaced by an equivalent amount of information. This is the same as saying that "energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form". If, for example, two stars should collide and destroy one another, the amount of information before and after the collision would have to remain unchanged.
This makes it clear that the information imposed on reality by living things is completely separate, and operates by different rules, from the information that is otherwise in that reality. This, in turn, shows that living things could not have arisen from inanimate matter because the nature of the information in the two is different. The conclusion is that living things must have been created by God.
Living things have both the information sets of life and also that of the atoms of inanimate matter of which they are composed. Humans use encoded information, such as words and numbers, that are not the actual information that is in the thing that is being described. The universe of inanimate matter has no such process of encoding information, the only information is the actual information that is equivalent to energy. Humans can express information without expenditure of the matching energy, but that is only because we can use encoded information, which is a representation of reality and not the actual reality.
13) WHY WE CANNOT READILY EXPRESS COMPLEXITY WITH NUMBERS
We use our number system to represent and describe reality, and usually it works very well. But have you ever wondered if there may be some aspects of the reality around us that we miss because they somehow fall "outside" our number system?
If nothing else that humans do is perfect, then why should we expect our number system to be perfect? I have concluded that the measurement of complexity with numbers, the potential value of which I have written about extensively, is one of the things that we are missing because it falls outside the number system.
My doctrine is that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot apply energy to something without also adding information to it. We cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it. A sphere is the default form of matter brought together by gravity in the universe, such as stars and planets. This is because a sphere is not only the form with the lowest energy state, with the average point within it as close as possible to the gravitational center, but a sphere is also the three-dimensional form requiring the least information to construct.
It may sometimes seem that energy and information is not really the same thing. A sphere is the dominant form of matter in the universe because it is the shape with the lowest energy state, with the average point being the closest to the gravitational center. The further from the center of a gravitational field matter is, the higher the energy it has contained within it. Remember that, in orbit, the orbital energy is proportional to the space enclosed within the orbit, which represents the potential kinetic energy of position.
We can also see how a sphere or circle is the shape of lowest energy state because it requires the least information to set up what we could call a proportion curve representing any seeking of a lower energy state. Suppose that an object is in free-fall. It's acceleration will be a constant 32 feet (9.8 meters) per second every second. The distance that the object has fallen, within each second of fall or in the total time of fall, can be expressed as a curve outside of a circle where the distance of fall per second continuously increases at a regular rate. If we inscribe a circle inside of a square, this curve will take the form of the four remaining areas that are outside the circle but inside the square.
Another example of this curve being manifested anywhere that the lowest energy state is being sought, in the same way as the spherical surface of a star or planet, is in cooling. A hot object placed in a cooler environment will lose heat at a rate according to the proportion of difference in temperature with the surroundings. At first, the temperature difference with the surroundings is at it's greatest so that heat loss is at it's most rapid. As the object gradually cools, the relative temperature difference with the surroundings decreases and the rate of heat loss slows. This forms a similar curve, but in the opposite direction than the falling object.
In both of these examples, we can see how a seeking of a lower energy state by nature by having the object fall to the ground or the temperature difference between the object and it's surroundings equalize, forms a circular shape on a chart in the same way as the curving spherical surface of a planet or star. The rate of change in temperature decreases, or the rate of free-fall increases, in the form of an arc of a circle because this form requires the least information, and there is no other information available to make it otherwise. The sphere or circle is the form of the lowest energy state because it is also the form with the least information enclosed, because energy and information is actually the same thing.
But if information is equivalent to energy, then why can we manufacture two rectangular bricks or blocks with the same number of bits of information? Either block, whether stout or elongated, could be described just as well as the other with the same number of bits of information, length, width and, height. If the two blocks were naturally-formed asteroids in space, the elongated block would have to be of higher energy, and thus of higher information if energy and information are indeed the same thing, because it's average point would be further from the gravitational center.
The solution to this apparent discrepancy is that we are of a higher level of complexity relative to our inanimate surroundings, and we can impose our own complexity to some extent on our surroundings. The apparent equality of information in a rectangular block that is more elongated than another block, yet requires the same number of pieces of information to describe or construct, is really a reflection of our own higher level of complexity being imposed on our surroundings.
In nature, it takes proportionally more information to create a straight line of matter, because the arrangement of a straight line of matter requires information relative to an otherwise random arrangement. But this is not the case when humans manufacture something by imposing our complexity on our surroundings. There is only a relatively slight difference in the information required to manufacture a more elongated block because higher numbers are required, but this is because it is relative to our much higher level of complexity relative to our surroundings.
If the two blocks were naturally formed asteroids, there could be no way that the more elongated one would not contain both more energy and more information, because energy and information is really the same thing. This would have to be because the average point in the more elongated asteroid would be further from the center, meaning that it would have more potential kinetic energy of position and would take more information to construct, because energy and information must really be the same thing.
In our numbering system, every number is really equal in complexity to every other number. Some numbers are higher than others, but to understand any number, it is necessary to understand the entire system. This is because our number system is of our own definition and reflects us imposing our own complexity on our surrounding environment.
But reality does not operate entirely by our number system. In reality, higher numbers really are more complex than lower numbers. This is true in terms of construction, if not description, of some arrangement of matter.
Consider a straight line. In our way of describing length with numbers, it takes no more information to describe a long line than it does a short line. It requires more digits to express higher numbers, but that is only because we have chosen to use a base-ten number system.
But in reality, a long line does contain more information than a short line because more atoms must be lined up to form the long line and that means more information relative to the otherwise random arrangement of atoms that would result. Any larger collection of matter that contains some information must obviously have more information than an equivalent smaller collection of matter.
This explains why we miss the quantification of complexity, the expressing of complexity with numbers, even though it would be extremely useful to us. The measurement of complexity falls outside our number system and so, even though complexity is a very important concept to us, we tend to express it in words rather than numbers. We refer to complexity with terms such as "more complex than" or "much less complex than".
If we could see reality without ourselves, we could express complexity as numbers representing the information necessary to bring about any given permutation of atoms and events. But we are of a higher level of complexity, relative to our inanimate surroundings, and we impose our level of complexity on our surroundings in the number system that we have developed as well as when we reshape that environment through technology. This effectively blinds us from expressing complexity in terms of numbers, even though this would be extremely useful.
14) THE QUANTIFICATION OF COMPLEXITY
IT WOULD BE VERY USEFUL IF WE COULD EXPRESS COMPLEXITY AS A NUMBER
When we describe the complexity of something, we use general subjective terms, such as "less complex than", "just as complex as" or, "much more complex than". For quite some time, I have been thinking how useful it would be to be able to quantify complexity, that means to express it in terms of actual numbers.
Complexity is simply the amount of information in something. If my doctrine that energy and information is really the same thing, because we cannot apply energy to something without adding information to it, and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it, and we can readily quantify energy, is correct, then there must be a way of acquiring what would be the extremely useful ability to quantify complexity.
I notice that there is a way to go about doing it, so that complexity can be described as actual numbers instead of in vague and subjective terms. There are several steps that we must take to get to thinking of complexity in terms of numbers.
The first thing that we must do is to forget about the units of measure that we use. Units such as kilometers, liters, miles, minutes, grams, and so on, are our own artificial units and we have to get them out of the way if we are going to quantify the innate complexity in the world and universe around us. There are no units of complexity, which is expressed as a dimensionless number.
The next thing that we must do is to forget about decimals. Our system of decimals, and of counting by tens, is also of our own artificial creation, because we have ten fingers. It will only hinder us in seeing how we can quantify complexity.
The key to quantifying complexity is actually fractions. We prefer decimals to fractions, because decimals are easier to handle and to calculate with because we cannot add or subtract fractions without finding a common denominator, but fractions are how information really works. Everything in the world of complexity is ratios, or fractions. There are no whole numbers here either, because a number by itself, with no unit or definition or context, means nothing.
14b) REVIEW OF FRACTIONS
Let's review the basics of fractions. The top number is the numerator, the bottom number the denominator. The quantity expressed is the numerator relative to the denominator. 1/2 means one of of two, which is twice as much as 1/4 or one out of four. What counts in fractions is the proportion or ratio of the numerator relative to the denominator which means that different fractions can mean the same thing. 3/6 is the same as 1/2, for example. This means that fractions can be reduced for convenience to their lowest possible numbers.
Fractions are multiplied straight across, numerators and denominators. 1/2 x 1/4 = 1/8 because 1 x 1 = 1 and 2 x 4 = 8. To divide fractions, the one being divided by must be inverted and than multiply the two since division is the inverse of multiplication. 1/2 divided by 1/4 = 2 because it is the same as multiplying 1/2 x 4/1 = 4/2 or 2.
The difficult operation with fractions is adding or subtracting because it requires changing the fractions to a common denominator. It is not possible to add or subtract fractions with different denominators. To add 1/2 + 1/3, we might convert both to a convenient common denominator like 6, which is 2 x 3. 1/2 would be the same as 3/6 while 1/3 would be the same as 2/6. So, 3/6 + 2/6 = 5/6, which cannot be reduced.
Even though fractions underlie virtually all mathematics, it is this requirement for a common denominator to add or subtract which makes them somewhat difficult to use. The result is that so much of the mathematical system that we use has been constructed to disguise the importance of fractions, and to get around using them and by doing so we also cover up much that we may more readily notice about the nature of the reality around us.
14c) THE DENOMINATOR IS THE MEASURE OF COMPLEXITY
Let's consider the complexity of numbers. A large number is not more complex than a smaller number. All whole numbers are of equal complexity, simply because they are all part of the same number system. Every number has a complexity of 1, which is the lowest possible level of complexity. Remember that complexity is expressed as dimensionless numbers.
Here is my definition of complexity that can be quantified: When a quantity of information, or something that contains information, can be expressed as a fraction, which is a ratio, the level of complexity is the value of the denominator of the fraction. This is why fractions are so useful, and is the way that the universe really works.
All whole numbers are equal in complexity because 26 is really 26 / 1 and 54 is really 54 / 1. A larger and smaller whole number both have the same denominator, which is the definition of complexity. A number by itself essentially means nothing
1 / 6 has a complexity of 6 because there are six places where the one could have been.
The ratios, or fractions, that are the definition of complexity, begin with the fundamental electric charges which I believe comprise everything in the universe. There are two electric charges, negative and positive, the ratio of these charges is 1 / 1. This sets the pattern for everything in the universe to be a ratio.
Energy in the universe which, of course, is the same thing as information makes it possible for there to be ratios of other than this 1 / 1. This means more information, and the value of whatever the denominator is the complexity, or amount, of this information.
Complexity becomes quantifiable, which is what we are seeking, only when there are ratios. It is only the relationship between two numbers that is meaningful because a number by itself, with no context or definition, is meaningless. When considering 3 / 10, the number that we have to deal with is not 3 but 10.
Complexity means: What is / What could have been with an equivalent amount of information, and the denominator is the definition of the complexity.
If we are dealing with pixels, or bits of information on a computer drive, the state of least complexity is if all bits are in an identical state. The state of second-least complexity is when there is an alternating pattern of opposite bits. From there, we have to add as fractions the number of like bits in a row throughout the total set of information. This would be done as, for example, 1 / 2 + 1 / 4 + 1 / 3 + 1 / 1, and so on. The denominator of our total sum would be the complexity level of the bits on the drive.
The more predictable the pattern, the lower the fraction and the less the complexity. We may have large numbers in a ratio, such as 100 / 200, but if the pattern of the information is as predictable as possible it would be reduced to 1 / 2.
But this means that, when dealing with complexity, just because two arrangements of bits, or two of anything else, have the same complexity, that does not mean that they are the same thing.
When dealing with an object at a distance, there is the ratio of the size of the object to the distance. There is more information in a small object than in a large object at the same distance. This is because there are more "places" in the distance that the small object could be located. If we are traveling a distance, the two complexity factors are the distance and either our size scale or the size of the vehicle in which we will be traveling.
With fractions or ratios, we can only add or subtract when we have the same denominator. This is because the denominator represents complexity, and we cannot add with different levels of complexity. We must first find the lowest common denominator by multiplying the denominators. This means that 1 / 4 + 4 / 5 would have to be changed to 5 / 20 + 16 / 20, only then could we add or subtract.
The reason that we cannot add different levels of complexity is that having two levels means more information than one level. Before we can add, each member of the numerators must also relate to each member of the opposite denominator, only then could they be added together. But the complexity would thus be much higher, 20 instead of 4 or 5, in the above example.
14d) FRACTIONS UNDERLIE THE UNIVERSE
Fractions, which are usually presented as a mere branch of basic arithmetic, actually underlie virtually all of mathematics. All real numbers must necessarily be fractions simply because a number expressed by itself is essentially meaningless. Fractions utilize two numbers to relate what is to what is not, and it is this which makes numbers useful.
Fractions are a direct representation of that all-pervading pattern which I referred to on the patterns and complexity blog as "The One And The Many". The numerator is the one, the denominator is the many. All that we express and define comes down to one/many. A word or a name differentiates something from all else that it is not, so that the word or name is the numerator and all else the denominator.
Addresses can be considered as multiple fractions, or compound fractions. An address of 116 Elm Street is really expressing 116/ Elm Street / All streets other than Elm Street. Such a way of addressing actually is used in many computer database systems.
Any kind of comparison is actually a fraction, even if no actual number is used. A fraction uses two numbers to express some proportion or ratio. The formation of molecules from atoms involves a fractional proportion. For a simple example, in the formation of water molecules from hydrogen and oxygen atoms the proportion of hydrogen atoms to oxygen atoms is always 2/1. But expressed by mass, with the molecular mass of water being 18, the proportion of hydrogen to oxygen is 2/18 because hydrogen is the lightest element.
What we do is to try to impose organization on the world around us by establishing common denominators, to avoid the potential messiness of fractions. What does an angle of 30 degrees mean, for example? We have chosen a nice, round easily divisible number to represent a complete circle so that any angle is a numerator with 360 degrees as the denominator. 30 degrees is thus 30/360 or 1/12 of a complete circle. Even though an angle expressed in degrees does not look like a fraction, it most definitely is. Time of day is based on the 12 or 24 hour clock as the denominator, with the given hour as the numerator.
What about the common trigonometric functions? If we have a horizontal line we refer to as the X-axis, and adjoining vertical line we refer to as the Y-axis, and an angle somewhere in between radiating from the intersection of the X- and Y-axis, and referred to as the radius, or R, this gives us three basic trigonometric functions which are widely used. The sine is defined as Y/R, the cosine as X/R and the tangent as Y/X. There are also three inverse functions; secant, cosecant and, cotangent.
Do you notice that, while we do not usually consider the trigonometric functions as fractions, that is exactly what they are. All are ratios of the X-axis, the Y-axis and the radius. It is just that it is easier for us to express the trigonometric functions the way we do, but this only disguises how much the world around us operates by fractions.
Anything expressed in the form of a graph is actually a fraction with the horixontal X-axis being one part of the fraction and the vertical Y-axis the other part. Which one is the numerator and which is the denominator depends on how the given point on the graph is expressed. Since calculus revolves around such graphs it is also just a different way of expressing fractions.
We so often express ratios as percentages. But a percentage is nothing more than a fraction with an agreed-upon common denominator of 100.
The greatest way in which we conceal fractions is by expressing them as decimals. A rational number, like 6.25, is actually a fraction but we are heavily biased toward the number ten because of our fingers and so we enforce this as a common denominator. A rational number means one that is a ratio, in other words a fraction. This may be easier to use than fractions, but fractions represent the way things really operate and we can only imagine the facts and relationships which we might have noticed by now if we had used pure fractions.
I find that fractions are directly related to complexity in the extent to which a fraction can be reduced to it's lowest numbers. Something that can be expressed as 1/3 is simple. 187/561 is about the same thing as 1/3, but if the numbers cannot be reduced further than it must be more complex than something that can be expressed as 1/3. In fact, the complexity with which we are dealing must be directly proportional to the lowest possible denominator of the fraction.
A higher number, or a higher numerator in a fraction, does not mean higher complexity. But a higher denominator, which cannot be reduced, does mean higher complexity. Something expressed as 187/561 must be 561/3 times as complex as something which can be expressed as 1/3.
Complexity is so fundamental to us and I had a feeling that there must be some ready way to express it with numbers. It turns out that the way to do this is to realize how fractions underlie our system of mathematics, and the way to express complexity lies in something as simple and basic as fractions. The denominator is the level of complexity.
15) THE INFORMATION IN HARMONIC MOTION
Harmonic motion means a regular and cyclical motion, such as that of a pendulum or wave. I think that my theory of what information is, which includes the fact that energy and information is really the same thing, offers the best explanation of what harmonic motion actually is.
Suppose that a ball is suspended from a string, so that it can act as a pendulum. Now suppose that we pull the ball sideways, and then let it go. By the simple laws of physics, the ball should obey the law of gravity and drop back down to the lowest position, with the string supporting it making a vertical line.
But, of course, it doesn't. The ball goes back to the original, lowest position, but it does not stop there. It continues past the lowest point, in the opposite direction. However, the ball then seems to "realize" that it has gone too far and then reverses direction, back toward the original lowest position. Once again, it goes too far and continues in the other direction, until the ball reverses direction and starts the cycle again.
This is best explained in terms of information. The ball cannot just get back to the original vertical position, as the law of gravity would seem to dictate that it should, because there is an "information mismatch". The original vertical position of the ball contained only one dimension of information, while we added another dimension of information when we pulled the ball from the side.
There is more information in the motion of the ball, two dimensions when there was formerly only one, and the ball cannot just stop in the lowest position because that would be two dimensions of information trying to squeeze into one. To accomplish this, information would have to be lost and that cannot be done. The motion of the ball continues in the opposite direction past the original vertical position because it must "double" the original information in it by going an equal distance in the opposite direction, because there are now two dimensions of information rather than only the original one.
There is also more energy in the ball with the two dimensions of information. Formerly, there was the potential energy of position, because the ball was suspended above the ground, but now there is also the sideways pendulum motion. This should not be surprising because remember that energy and information is really the same thing, we cannot apply energy to something without also adding information to it and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it. There is already the well-known mass-energy equivalence, that a given amount of mass contains a certain amount of equivalent energy. My theory is adding that information and energy is also the same thing.
Another way of looking at the equivalence of energy and information is that we can make our lives physically easier, by use of technology, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and also less complex.
Another way of looking at the information in the swing of a pendulum is a comparison with paint brushes. Suppose that the walls in a room are being painted with a broad brush, to get the job done faster. Now suppose that there is an artist in the room, working on a painting with narrow brushes. More information can be conveyed with the fine narrow brushes, than with the broad brush, but it takes more work to do it, because energy, which is expended doing work, and information is the same thing.
The swing of the suspended ball is like the broad brush that cannot just neatly go back to the same original vertical position where it was formerly located, before being pulled to the side, because there is now more information, with the fine positioning of the original vertical position being represented by the narrow paint brushes. The unit of information here is the dimension, and there is now two when there was formerly only one.
Exactly the same sequence of events, but more difficult for us to visualize, takes place with electromagnetic waves. My cosmology theory has empty space as being composed of alternating negative and positive electric charges, in multiple dimensions. When energy is applied to this empty space, it initially goes to overcome the repulsion between like electric charges, the basic rules of electric charges being that opposite charges attract while like charges repel.
But this concentration of charge, whether negative or positive, displaces the pattern of alternating electric charges around it. The addition of this concentration of charge causes the like charges of empty space to displace away, and the opposite charges to displace toward. As with the example of the suspended ball, this results in a mismatch of information, because the added concentration of charge is energy (according to the mass-energy equivalence), and thus information because energy and information is the same thing.
The displacement goes beyond where the new point of equilibrium would have been, but then "realizes" it has gone too far and turns back, only to again go too far, and so on. This is what produces an electromagnetic wave, and it is caused by the same mismatch of information, two dimensions of information trying to fit into one. It cannot be done because that would mean that information would be lost. So, the wave has to exist.
The same process also happens with water waves. Gravity creates a smooth surface on the water by pulling straight down. But the addition of information (energy) from the side, introduces a second dimension of information, and so brings about a higher information, which we could also see as energy, state. To accommodate this, the wave has to exist.
So much becomes apparent if we learn to see the universe in terms of the information that it is.
16) ELECTROMAGNETISM IN TERMS OF INFORMATION
If I had explain the universe in very simple terms, the explanation would be easy. "The universe consists of two electric charges, negative and positive, opposite charges attract and like charges repel, and all else about the universe is mere details".
I would like to explain the behavior of electromagnetism in terms of information. This is part of my information theory, "The Theory Of Complexity", which is about what information is and how energy and information are really the same thing. It is not the same theory as the one about the flow of energy through the universe.
It requires some kind of entity to hold information. Information cannot just exist by itself. In our universe, space consists of alternating negative and positive electric charges, in accordance with the fact that opposite charges attract and like charges repel. This empty space is what we could define as the "zero state" or starting point of information. It has the potential to hold information, but has no information itself while in this "zero state".
Energy and information is really the same thing because we cannot apply energy to anything without also adding information to it, and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it. Another way of looking at it is our use of technology. We can, through technology, make our lives physically easier, but only at the expense of making life more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier, and also less complex.
I see information, and thus energy, as being closely related to the surface area of an object. An object contains the least information when it has the lowest surface area. We say that planets and stars take the form of a sphere because that is the geometric form with the lowest energy state, which means the lowest information state, and we know that it is the form with the least surface area per volume. It requires less information to describe a sphere than any other geometric form. The only possible way that we could add any information to such a form is to increase it's surface area, by some application of energy to it.
Since the rules of electric charges form the most fundamental level of reality in the universe, energy must start by somehow opposing the rules of the electric charges that comprise space. These rules are simply that opposite charges attract while like charges repel. When energy is applied to empty space, according to my cosmology theory, it overcomes the repulsion between like charges. This creates what I define as matter. Empty space is alternating negative and positive electric charges, matter is any concentration of like charges that are held together by energy.
This is why we have the Mass-Energy Equivalence as one of the fundamental principles of the universe. A given amount of mass is equivalent to a certain amount of energy. In nuclear processes, some mass is converted directly into energy.
Energy can also overcome the attractive force between opposite charges. When this happens, we get electromagnetic radiation. The overcoming of the repulsion of like charges must come first because the creation of radiation by the overcoming of opposite charges requires some definition of distance for the wavelength and the amplitude, and the only way to define that distance is the creation of matter first.
But if the alternating electric charges of space are the "zero state" of information, as well as energy, that means that the more space we have, the greater the potential for information. This means that distance is actually the fundamental unit of information. Just as on a computer drive, 101010101010 has more potential to hold information than 1010. With the 1 and 0 being, of course, the alternating negative and positive charges of space.
Just as we have to define some starting point to express distance, we have to have a starting point for information. There actually is tension between the alternating electric charges of space, but we can use just the charges themselves as our starting point here.
Also my definition of the complexity of a number, meaning the information in it, is the value of the denominator when expressed as a ratio or fraction. 9 is not more complex than 4 because they are really 9 / 1 and 4 / 1. Suppose that no other information is considered, other than the orbit of the moon around the earth. The only thing that we have in order to compare information is the ratio of the orbital distance to the diameters. The diameter of the moon is about 1 / 120 of the distance to the moon.
If the moon were closer to the earth, this denominator would be lower. This means that a closer orbit contains less information, and information and energy is really the same thing. Sure enough, we know that a higher orbit is also a higher energy orbit. If we give a satellite three times the orbital energy, for example, we know that it will then orbit at nine times the distance, but will move at only one-third the speed.
Now, let's consider magnetism.
When a material can be magnetized, it means that the orbitals of the unpaired electrons in it's atoms can be lined up by force. Most electrons in atoms exist in pairs, with opposite spin, but there are some that are unpaired. Electrons are particles of matter, with a negative electric charge because they are actually concentrations of like negative charges that are held together by energy, as described above. Each piece of magnetic material has two poles, one in which the orbitals are aligned and the opposite direction. Because magnets have been used for so long in compasses to determine direction, the poles of a magnet are referred to as north and south, instead of negative and positive.
The reason that opposite poles of a magnet attract is that when we bring two opposite poles close together, we are moving back toward the "zero state" of the universe, with empty space composed of alternating opposite negative and positive charges. This is a lower information state and, since information is the fundamental unit of distance, this means less distance, and the magnets pull each other together in order to create a state of less distance. We see this as opposite poles attracting.
The reason that the like poles of two magnets would repel one another is that the first thing that energy does, if applied to empty space, is to overcome the repulsion between like charges. This must then represent a higher energy state and, since energy and information is really the same thing, also a higher information state. Since distance is the fundamental unit of energy, this means that two like poles of a magnet in close proximity represent a higher distance, which is a higher information, state. To bring about this greater distance state, the two like poles of the magnets push away from one another.
A concentration of like electric charge, whether positive or negative, is both energy and information, because the two are the same thing. If we have two concentrations of like charge, one positive and one negative, we can access the energy, or the information, as an electric current. We can either use the force of the current as energy, or we can encode the current to convey information.
It should not surprise us that we can easily use an electric current either for it's power, or to convey information in communication devices. That is because, once again, energy and information is really the same thing.
17) HOW REAL ARE WE?
We exist, or you wouldn't be reading this, but have you ever wondered what level of reality we really exist at? Just how "real" are we?
Remember one of the principles of my cosmology theory, that we see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are. An example of this is color, we see different colors because it is how our eyes and brains process different wavelengths of light but, other than this, color does not exist. Another example is time, in my cosmology theory time exists only within us. Our consciousnesses move along the bundles of strings which compose our bodies and brains in the fourth dimension of the space over which the matter from the Big Bang is scattered. This is why we can move in three dimensions of space but perceive the other as time.
We are information that can process other information. We are able to "represent" information, while inanimate matter can't. Everything can be described in terms of numbers, which is information, but with inanimate matter the only information is the matter itself.
We represent the reality around us first, by creating a model of that reality in our minds. We are able to further model or represent reality by such methods as language, drawing and, writing. More recently, we have gained the ability to represent or create a model of reality with photography and then electronic communications, and then computer technology. Another way that we create a model of the reality around us is money It represents thinks that we value, although it has little or no intrinsic value in itself.
Of course the universe seems real to us because it is made of the same information that we are, the only difference being that we are able to create models of reality for ourselves, which contain much less energy than the usual equivalence of information and energy, but just how real is it?
Modeling or representing the information in the universe means that we can transform the information into a form, with much less actual energy relative to the information contained, that is easy for us to deal with. In the universe of inanimate matter, the amount of information or energy is fixed. But we can model or represent it by storing the information as much less energy than it would take with inanimate matter. We can describe an object, by such modeling as language or mathematics, without all of the energy that is within it as per the mass-energy equivalence.
A painting, for example, can be a model of reality but is actually two steps away from the reality around us. First is the reality itself, then the model of that reality in our minds, then the expression of that reality in the painting.
But suppose that one part of the painting could interact with another part. How would the part of the painting that could interact with the other part, by way of processing information, see the part of the painting that it was interacting with? It would have to see the part of the painting that it was interacting with as "real" because the part that was being interacted with would be made of the same level of information as the part that was interacting with it.
Beings that could interact with other information would always see the information that it was interacting with as "real" because, to have such an interaction, the two would have to be on the same level. A being that could interact with the information around it would have to be able to access at least one other level of reality, the representations and models of reality as described above, because it would have to hold some "model" of reality, such as we do with our minds, in order to be able to interact with it.
But if there were higher levels of reality, above ours, we could not interact with those as we do with the information that is at our own level. We are information, like the universe around us, and, if seen from some higher level of reality, would seem like some kind of equation. We express the operation of the universe around us with mathematics, and a drawing is actually a mathematical model of something that uses distance instead of numbers in expression.
Since everything around us, and including us, can be seen to be ultimately numbers, that means that our level of reality is just an equation. We have to see distance because distance is numerical information. We cannot see distance solely as numerical information because we are at the same level of information so, we have to see it as distance. We could only see the reality of the universe around us as an equation if we were "looking down" at it from a higher level of information, which we are not.
So this is what happens when an interaction takes place between two entities at the same informational level. What is actually numerical information seems like distance. We are at the same informational level as the universe around us, and that is why we perceive distance. The only "lower" levels that we can interact with are the representative models that we create, such as language and writing and drawing. This is how we can express something without distance, with writing or mathematics, but only at those lower representative levels. At our usual level of informational reality, we can only see numerical information as distance.
If you are walking or driving to a destination up ahead, the distance to it is really only information. You see it as distance because you have to expend energy to get there. But we have seen that energy is the same thing as information also. All is information but we have to see the information that is at the same level as the information that we are, which means which we have not represented by numbers or other means, as energy or distance.
If you come up to a wall, and can go no further the wall is real to you, rather than merely a mathematical equation, only because it is made of the same level of information that you are.
The entire universe, both space and matter, are composed of negative and positive electric charges. If I were to define the universe in one sentence, I would say "The universe is negative and positive electric charges, opposite charges attract and like charges repel, and everything else is mere details". But these electric charges are just bits of information, and everything is composed of this information.
One of the realizations that I have had is that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it, and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it. Therefore, the two must be the same thing.
Through technology, we can make our lives physically easier, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make our lives both physically easier and also less complex. Since complexity is the amount of information, this shows that energy and information is really the same thing, because one can be transformed into the other.
But if energy and information is really the same thing, then why do we see them as separate? It must tell us something about our perspective on the universe to answer that question. We can create representative models of the universe around us, first in our minds and then through language, writing and drawing, and then through electronic communications and computer technology.
When we model the universe, we see that as information. When we deal more directly with the universe, we see that as energy. It is due to our perspective within the universe, as part of it, that we see energy and information as different when they are really the same thing. When information deals with information that is a model of reality, it will see it as information but when it deals directly with the reality, it will see it as energy.
Information cannot see other information at it's same level as information, it has to see it as energy. But energy cannot just exist as itself, it has to overcome something. What energy overcomes is distance. But since energy is really information, actually just numbers since everything ultimately comes down to numbers, then distance must be just numbers also.
Information can always be expressed as mathematics, and this means that energy and the distance that it overcomes must be just information also. We see the universe as vast distances between galaxies but what it really is, at a higher level, is a mathematical equation. We are part of the equation and so we have to see energy and distance, because we cannot see the equation from outside.
If you see a mathematical equation, as simple as A = B, you see it as information. But if you could actually "step into" the equation, so that the information that you are was on the same level as the information in the equation, it would seem like one side of the equation was energy and the other side was distance. The entire universe is really information but we, because of our perspective as part of the universe, see it as either energy or distance.
We can see an example of energy and distance in opposition to one another, but yet interchangeable, in how a higher orbit contains more energy than a lower orbit. If a spacecraft is in orbit and we give it three times the orbital energy, it will move to a distance in which it orbits at nine times the previous distance but, due to the Inverse Square Law, at only one-third the speed.
Energy, or information which is the same thing, increases the distance over which the negative and positive charges which comprise the universe must balance out. The number one rule of the universe is that negative and positive electric charges must always be exactly equal. But energy, or information, added increases the distance over which the charges must balance out.
The lowest possible energy or information state is empty space, which is alternating negative and positive electric charges like a checkerboard but in multiple dimensions. Any breaking of this pattern, which will bring about a concentration of like charges, will create matter. An atom is the "zero-state" of matter, as the electric charges balance out to zero. The charges still have to exactly balance out, as they do in empty space, but the distance over which they have to balance out is increased.
This shows that, since energy and information is the same thing, distance and information must be the same thing and since energy can move things to overcome distance, distance and energy must also be different forms of the same thing.
We can clearly see that distance is the same thing as energy, which is the same thing as information, by the fact that we can use a lever, which is a simple machine, to exchange distance for force, which is energy. If the two can be exchanged then they must be different forms of the same thing. The reason that they are different forms of the same thing is due to our perspective. We observe and interact with the universe, but we are really made of the same information that it is, that is why we see information, energy and, distance as being separate, when all is really information.
18) COMPLEXITY AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LONG-TERM AND SHORT-TERM
Complexity in a society affects time, as well as distance, but the effect is different. Complexity does not extend time, as it does distance, but it brings about more potential difference over a given span of time. This appears to us not only as the rate of change in society, but also in the potential difference between short-term and long-term. This is, again, governed by the Inverse square Law.
Things appear different over the long term as opposed to the short term. Good or bad events may not seem as good as bad over the long term. An event seems more black and white in the short term, but nuances tend to show up over the long term. Sometimes, when you get what you want in the short term it turns out to be the worst thing in the long term, and vice versa. Just as with increasing distance, this is akin to the widening sphere in space defined by increasing distance from a given point, and governed by the Inverse Square Law.
In brief, we can undergo short term hardship in return for long term gains, but short term ease or enjoyment may bring long term perils.
The rule that I have noticed is this: The more complex a being is, or the more complex life is made for that being, the more potential difference there will be between the long-term and the short-term.
A simpler animal does not have as much potential difference between long-term and short term. Any conscious being, that would be more complex than their surrounding environment, would have to have some potential difference between the long term and the short term.
Remember my doctrine that we can make life physically easier by way of technology, but only at the expense of making it more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and less complex. When we make life more complex, in order to make it physically easier, one consequence is that there must then be a greater potential difference between the long term and the short term.
We have seen that a difference in complexity of a living being with it's surroundings brings about truth possibilities. It is necessary to resolve truth possibility to bring about the higher complexity. But the difference in complexity must then show up as a potential difference between long term and short term. Animals cannot imagine as much that might not be true. This shows up as a potential difference difference between the short term and the long term.
Prehistoric people would not have anywhere near as much potential difference between long term and short term as we do today. In my observation, the very definition of our age is that we have reached the point where we can change the world faster than we can adapt to the changes that we have made in the world.
The mass-manufacturing of food brings the ability of processing unhealthy foods. Our development, and widespread use if, internal combustion engines leads us to build suburbs which require cars and brings the peril of global warming. Worldwide product distribution and electronic communication systems certainly make life easier but are vulnerable to solar storms or other catastrophes. Ultrasound technology brings the possibility of selective abortion of females, in some societies, and the resulting imbalance. A simple illustration of the potential difference between short-term and long-term is our ever-increasing ability to build weapons that can destroy us. Another simple illustration is the pollution and potential environmental destruction that development brings.
Technology and knowledge makes us higher in complexity relative to our inanimate surroundings. This makes it physically easier for us, but also gives us further to fall relative to inanimate surroundings. Think of it as the sphere of increased size, as governed by the Inverse Square Law.
A living body is more complex than it's inanimate surroundings, and thus has the possibility of being broken down or falling down to that level. This is what happens when a person dies, or takes a step in that direction by being ill or injured. Human society as a whole, if life is made easier by technology, must have a similar vulnerability to being broken down. This shows as the potential difference between short-term and long-term.
The ultimate way that the potential difference between short-term and long-term shows up in complex modern society is the effect of a cataclysm. People used to technology and living in cities will be less likely to have the skills to survive off the land if that civilization should be suddenly removed by some cataclysm, such as an asteroid impact or solar storm or nuclear holocaust. Artificial ease, with the price of complexity that can suddenly be removed by being broken back down to the inanimate level, is the potential risk that we take regarding the difference between short-term and long-term.
Think of progress as appearing as a straight line. But, according to this all-encompassing Inverse Square Law, it means a much greater surface area of the resulting sphere defined by distance from the starting point along the line of progress of things and potential consequences that must be taken into account.
19) ROWS OF THE PERIODIC TABLE
The nature of atoms in the Periodic Table of the Elements provides an excellent illustration of the principles explained in "The Lowest Information Point", on this blog, and this posting has also been added to it.
The Periodic Table of the Elements resembles a calendar. The elements are arranged by atomic number, which is the number of protons in the nucleus. Ordinarily, an atom will have the same number of electrons as protons, so that the overall electric charge of the atom is zero.
Just as each successive day in a month has a date that is one number higher than the one before, the periodic table starts with hydrogen, which is the lightest atom with one proton and one electron, and proceeds to successively heavier atoms. Columns are the vertical lines of the periodic table, and rows are the horizontal lines. Each successive element in a row has an atomic number that is one greater than the one before it.
Just as the columns on a calendar have a line of days that are the same day of the week, from Saturday to Friday, columns on the periodic table are of elements that have the same number of electrons in the outer electron shell. The maximum number of electrons in the outer shell of an atom is eight, if it has more than that it will start another shell.
Each electron shell, of any atom, from the lowest to the highest shell, can hold only up to a given number of electrons. The first electron shell, the one closest to the nucleus, can hold only two electrons. The second shell can hold up to 8 electrons. The third shell can hold up to 18 electrons. The fourth shell can hold up to 32.
This means that there are seven rows on the periodic table because all of the atoms in each row have the same number of electron shells, but with one more electron for each successive atom. All of the atoms in the same column have the same number of electrons in the outermost shell. Thus the periodic table is very much like a calendar but with the calendar having seven columns, one for each day of the week, and the periodic table coincidentally having seven rows, one for each possible electron shell in an atom.
The reason that the periodic table is arranged with those atoms with the same number of electrons in the outermost shell being in the same column is that it is the number of electrons in the outermost shell that determines the chemical behavior of the atom. The maximum number of electrons in the outermost shell is eight.
If an atom has only a few electrons in the outermost shell, it will tend to lose those electrons to an atom with the outer shell nearly full so that one atom then has a net negative and the other a net positive electric charge, referred to as ions. The two atoms are then joined together by opposite charge attraction, into what is known as an ionic bond. If two atoms have a medium number of electrons in the outermost shell, they will tend to combine them into one complete shell around both atoms, forming what is known as a covalent bond. Atoms with all eight electrons in their outermost shell will tend to be chemically unreactive, and these are the column at the far right of the periodic table.
But there is something that is very puzzling about the arrangement of the periodic table. As we go across a row of the periodic table to the right, the size of the atoms actually gets smaller even though they are heavier with one more proton and one more electron with each successive step. This requires some special explanation.
My information theory has shown that surface area is proportional to information. Information is the same thing as energy because we cannot apply energy to anything without also adding information to it, and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it. Another way that we see information and energy being the same thing is in how we can make our lives physically easier through technology, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make our lives both physically easier and also less complex.
The reason that the sphere is the default form of matter in the universe is that it represents the lowest energy state that the universe always seeks. Since energy and information are the same thing, if it is the lowest energy state then a sphere should also be the lowest information state. We thus see that the lowest information state also represents the least surface area because a sphere is the three-dimensional geometric form that has the lowest surface area per volume. The only way to add information to it is to somehow increase it's surface area.
So the only way that my information theory can be correct is for the heavier atoms to the right of a row in the periodic table to actually somehow contain less information than the larger but lighter elements to the left of the row, even though the heavier atoms must contain more internal energy as per the mass-energy equivalence.
But let's consider my theory of the Lowest Information Point. This is a separate theory, but related to, the first information theory.
The Lowest Information Point is based on the fact that since energy and information is really the same thing, and the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, then it also seeks the lowest information state. The theory focuses on situations in which two dimensions are involved. It it the Lowest Information Point if both dimensions are equal, since it requires less information to express than if the dimensions are unequal. In the theory, I refer to this as a square because a square has two equal dimensions so that it is preferred over a rectangle which has two unequal dimensions and so contains more information.
So if we have an atom with two electron shells, with each shell being able to hold a maximum of a certain number of electrons, it is actually a lower information state if the ratio of the actual number of electrons to the maximum number of electrons of the two shells is equal. Since surface area is representative of information, this would be reflected in the lower surface area of atoms with this lower information state of the electron orbitals, even though the atoms may actually be heavier and contain more internal information per the mass-energy equivalence.
Electron shells in atoms "try" to be either empty, full or, half full, and this is also representative of seeking the Lowest Information Point. It does not go by the actual number of electrons in a shell, but by the proportion or ratio of how many there are relative to the maximum number that the shell could hold. If this ratio of two shells are 1 / 1 and 1 / 1, that is a lower information state than 1 / 1 and 1 / 2 because the two dimensions of the first are equal, even though the second involves fewer electrons. The first atoms will thus have less surface area, meaning that it will be smaller, even though it is heavier.
The nature of electric charges prevents the two shells having ratios of 1 / 2 and 1 / 2 because the lower shells must fill up, although not totally, before the higher shells.
The reason that the size of the atom is determined by this ratio, rather than by a count of the number of electrons, is due to the rules of numbers in the information theory. Remember that the complexity of a number is the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or ratio.
A higher number, such as 27, is not more complex than a lower number, such as 4, because 27 is really 27 / 1 and 4 is really 4 / 1. This is why more electrons in a shell do not add information and create a larger atom. All electrons are identical and so, at least in this case, more electrons in a shell do not represent more information than fewer electrons.
But 1 / 2 contains more information than 1 / 1. Even though, in the case of the electrons in shells, it would involve fewer electrons. The empty spaces in shells, where electrons could possibly be but aren't, count as well and it is the Lowest Information Point when the two match and the electron shell is full, and this would be the smallest but heaviest atom in the row on the periodic table.
The successively heavier atoms do not get larger until the next electron shell gets started, and we begin a new row on the periodic table.
The reason that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, and thus the Lowest Information Point because energy and information is really the same thing, is explained by my cosmology theory. Matter and energy comes from a former two-dimensional sheet of space that formed amid four dimensions of background space, over which is was scattered by what we perceive as the Big Bang. Two dimensions in four is why there is a "shortage" of energy, relative to the space in which it exists, so that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state.
20) LOST INFORMATION AND EMPTY SPACE
We can see what is but what about what was but is no more and what could have been but isn't? This is information too. Can this information just be lost?
My information theory is that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it. Another way we see that energy and information is really the same thing is in how we can make our lives physically easier through technology, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and also less complex.
We know that energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form. If energy and information is the same thing then that must mean that information can never be lost.
Some people believe that anything that can happen must happen somewhere, even if it has to be in another universe. If a tree falls to the right when it is cut down, there must be another universe where it falls to the left. It seems to fall under the law of Equal and Opposite reactions, that for every action there must be an equal, but opposite, reaction.
My information theory has it that we can see what is but the information of what was but is no longer and of what could have been, but isn't, is also there.
In any theory of the Big Bang, which began the universe, matter began as all together but is now very far apart in space, relative to the scale of the matter. In my information theory, distance is information. Surface area is also information. A sphere is defined as the geometric form with the lowest energy state, and thus also the lowest information state, because it has the lowest surface area per volume. Just as a higher orbit has more orbital energy than a lower orbit, an object with less surface area contains less information.
One way that energy, and thus information, is stored and expressed is as permutations. Suppose that you have a pegboard with 100 holes and one peg. This is information because it requires information to express which of the 100 holes that the peg could possibly be in is it actually in. Now suppose that we have a pegboard with 1,000 holes and one peg, even though we still only have one peg, there is more information because there are more holes that the peg could possibly be in.
This is how matter in space operates, and shows how distance is information. The peg on the pegboard represents matter, the empty holes represent space. The empty holes, like empty space, are where matter could have been, but isn't, or where it was in the past, but is no longer.
This is why the universe must be expanding, as we know that it is. As matter continuously moves and changes, it must be expressed as information. The information cannot just be lost. The only way to avoid this is for the matter in the universe to stay exactly the same as it is. Matter would have to cease all motion, and be at a temperature of absolute zero where all molecular motion ceases, to stop the universe from expanding.
As matter moves and changes, the information of what it was but is no longer, and what it could have been but isn't, has to somehow be stored, it cannot just be lost, and it is stored as empty space. We could think of what is as being at a peak of probability and what could have been but isn't as lower than the peak. That is why matter began all in one place but is now widely scattered.
Heavier elements are formed when lighter atoms, beginning with hydrogen, are crunched together into heavier atoms by the heat and pressure in the centers of stars. Suppose that we have twelve hydrogen atoms, each with one proton and one electron. Now suppose that these atoms are crunched together into three helium atoms, each with two protons and two neutrons. Now suppose that the three helium atoms are crunched together into one carbon atom, which has six protons and six neutrons.
The information of the twelve hydrogen atoms and then the three helium atoms cannot just be lost. It must be stored as empty space. The other possibilities that did not happen must also be stored as empty space. There must be empty space representing eight hydrogen atoms and only four of them crunched into a helium atom.
There must be space for two helium atoms and four hydrogen atoms. There must be space for a beryllium atom, with four protons, and a helium atom, and also space for a beryllium atom and two hydrogen atoms. There must be space that represents the unrealized possibility of a boron atom, with five protons, and a single hydrogen atom. There must be space representing two lithium atoms, each with three protons, as well as a lithium atom, a helium atom and a hydrogen atom, and also a lithium atom and three hydrogen atoms.
We have seen, in the cosmology theory, why this fusion of lighter atoms into heavier ones that takes place in stars means that the expansion of the universe actually has to be speeding up because successively heavier elements are being fused together, and this represents more information.
To use a familiar example from computer technology, suppose that we have six bits and twelve empty spaces. Each bit can fill one of the empty spaces, but the bits are identical and indistinguishable from one another. This gives us 4,096 possible permutations of bits in empty spaces. Each empty space would be either full or empty but, since the bits are identical and indistinguishable from one another, it would not make a difference which bit was in which space.
Now suppose that we consolidate our six bits together so that they are distinguishable from one another. One bit we will leave as it is, and call it "One-Bit". We will combine two bits together and call it "Two-Bit". We will combine the other three together and call it "Three-Bit". Although we have fewer bits than before to put in the twelve empty space, three bits instead of six, the bits are now distinguishable from one another, and this adds information.
But even so, our consolidation of the bits would mean a net loss of information. Having the three distinguishable bits to go in the twelve empty spaces would give us 3,960 possible permutations, in contrast with the 4,096 with six separate but indistinguishable bits.
What this is a model of, of course, is matter in empty space. The bits are atoms and the empty spaces are space. The original six identical bits represent the original hydrogen atoms in the universe. The consolidated bits represent the heavier atoms that come from the nucleo-synthesis that takes place by fusion in stars.
There is one solution. In our simple example of bits in empty spaces, one way that we can maintain the same level of information is to increase the number of empty spaces as we consolidate bits together. The same number of bits in more empty spaces represents more information because it gives us more possible permutations, and that is how information is represented.
1) COMPLEXITY MADE REALLY SIMPLE
There would be tremendous benefits if we could only quantify complexity, meaning to put a number on it as we would measurements of weight, distance or, temperature. Complexity is something that we deal with in everything that we do, and since we have yet to quantify it we express it in vague comparitive subjective terms such "less complex than" or "much more complex than". Imagine what it would be like if we could not quantify weight, distance or, temperature, but could only say "a little bit warmer than" or "a lot further than" or "not much heavier than".
But in order to quantify complexity, we must first thoroughly understand what it is and that is the purpose of my theory. The reason that we cannot readily attach a number to complexity, as we can other physical measurements, is that the complexity that we perceive is very closely linked to what we are.
Complexity is information, the information that is in anything of any complexity about how it came to be. Complexity is related to energy in that there is energy in anything of any complexity that exists from how it came together.
The complexity of any given system is lowered if it contains elements that are non-specific. An example is a machine that contains a piece of steel, and the piece of steel would do just as well as any other similar piece of steel or indeed of any metal of comparable strength. Thus, we would not need to consider the atomic structure of the machine's components as part of it's complexity.
In fact, complexity is a collection of patterns and the number of patterns in manifestation by any system is the complexity of that system. That is why the theory of complexity is on the same blog with the writings about the fundamental patterns that underlie everything.
It is important to understand that repetition is not complexity. When we replicate any system of a given complexity, we are not multiplying it's complexity. We are adding complexity only if the arrangement of the copies of the original system contain meaningful information. Ten identical cars are no more complex than one such car, unless they are parked or driven in some meaningful formation that involves information.
Complexity is like energy that we can never create new complexity, but only rearrange the forms of existing complexity. When we build the most complex machines, we are only replicating the complexity in our brains. The ideas for the machines came from reading books, which were the replications of the complexity of the brains of the authors, or by observing the complexity involved in nature. We, and the universe in which we live, have a certain given complexity and all that we can do is to replicate and change in form this complexity that was given to us. We can never create new complexity, just as we can never create new energy.
An example of how we can rearrange complexity, but can never actually create it, is the principle that I pointed out that we can make life easier for ourselves, on the whole, but only at the expense of making it more complex. Life can get easier but more complex, but can never get both easier and simpler at least not on a large scale. This must mean that energy and complexity are really the same thing, since they are interchangeable.
Randomness is not complexity. What we call random is where any arrangement of something is as meaningful as any other arrangement. But randomness is where we begin to realize that complexity involves ourselves and our perspective, and is not something that is absolute like distance or temperature.
In absolute reality there is no such thing as randomness, everything can be explained in terms of cause and effect. But we are more complex than our inanimate surroundings and this affects the meaning that various arrangements of those surroundings can have to us.
There is a difference between intricacy and complexity. Complexity is information that is contained in some system, such as how the system came to exist. Intricacy is simply the concentration of complexity, it is not more complexity. An example is a watch and a lawnmower engine. The two may be similar in complexity, but the watch is more intricate because it contains the same complexity in less "given", which is matter in this case. While we cannot create complexity, we can rearrange it to create intricacy.
Complexity cannot be measured with a ruler or a meter, but we can measure it by various methods. We know that complexity is the set of information that is required to construct some system, and the volume of that information is thus equal to it's complexity. We also know that the more complex something is, the more there will be that can potentially go wrong with it. This means that the sum total of every possibly injury and ailment in medical books is also an effective measurement of the complexity of the body, in relation to the surrounding inanimate matter.
One way to measure the complexity of a society in relation to an earlier society is simply the total number of job titles in the society. If the components of a system can be grouped into sets of opposites, the more similarity between the opposites in a set the lower will be the complexity of the entire system.
Aside from randomness, another result of our perspective and the incomplete knowledge that we have of reality is that we perceive coincidences and reverse coincidences. These are related to complexity in that a coincidence is an apparently random reduction in the true complexity of a system, and a reverse coincidence is an apparent increase in the complexity of a system as we see it. Of course, neither randomness nor coincidences really exist and are only manifestations of our perspective and our incomplete knowledge.
An all-pervasive pattern in all that we do is what I have named simply "The One And The Many", as described in the posting of that name on the patterns and complexity blog. You are the one, everyone who is not you is the many. Any address or identification number indicates the one, all that it does not indicate are the many. A given word denotes the one, all that is not described by the word are the many. A goal or an ideal situation is the one, anything short of that is the many. An event that is newsworthy is the one, all else is the many. Perfection is the one, all that is short of perfection is the many.
It is this concept of "The One And The Many" that actually makes it possible to measure complexity, in terms of numbers. "The One And The Many" is actually a ratio or fraction, expressed simply as one / many. The one is the permutation of data points that actually are, the many is all of the possible permutations of these data points. The complexity, or amount of information, is simply the numerical value of the many. This means that the more possible permutations, the more information is involved.
You can see that this "One And The Many" pattern is woven into all that we are and all that we do.
We exist in a situation in which we are at a higher level than our surroundings, and this has a profound effect on how we perceive everything. The fact that there is not as much complexity in our surroundings as there is within us means that we will see "truth possibilities" that will turn out to be false because there is not enough complexity for everything that we can perceive to be true. If we were equal in complexity to our surroundings, there would be nothing false, all that we could perceive would have to be true.
This 'complexity gap' between that of ourselves and that of our surroundings also explains why we use both words and numbers to communicate. Numbers are continuous, while words are not. We have to use words to differentiate that which exists from that which does not. This is necessary because we are at a higher level of complexity than our surroundings, and so we can perceive of things that do not exist because there is not enough complexity for all that we can perceive of to exist. We will necessarily perceive our systems of words and numbers as being of infinite complexity, simply because these systems must be as complex as we are. This makes it so that words and numbers can be used to describe our surroundings, which are not as complex as we are.
We know what words mean, but do not know exactly how much complexity they contain. If we did, we could communicate entirely with the much more-precise numbers and would have no need of words. If we were of equal complexity to our sorroundings, there would be no need of words because all could be described with numbers. We could not conceive of anything which did not exist so it would be unnecessary to differentiate that which exists from that which does not.
My complexity theory also explains why we have free will. If a being is more complex than the sum total of the surrounding environment, free will is necessary for the higher level of complexity to be meaningful. I theorized that plants do not have free will because they are actually equal in complexity to the sum total of that of the surrounding environment. Plants are far more intricate, but are no higher in overall complexity. This is why plants have no need of free will, as we do.
Any system contains information about how it came to be. It's complexity is the volume of that information. There are basically two levels of complexity in our universe, the lower level of inanimate matter and plants, and the higher level of beings with free will. What we could call "construction" is rearranging this matter to serve our higher level of complexity, while "destruction" is the effective return of that created system to the lower complexity level of the surrounding reality.
Another way that complexity relates to energy is the apparent contradiction that energy supposedly can never be lost or created, but only changed in form yet we cannot reuse the energy that is used to drive machines and motors. The reason for this involves the two levels of complexity, for us and our surrounding environment. We are at the higher level, and when we design machines we impose our complexity on them. the energy that we use is then lost to our level, but is not lost to the surrounding environment at the lower level of complexity.
Energy is really complexity in that a moving object is more complex than when it is still because the vector and velocity of it's movement is information, and thus complexity. When we break apart the complex molecules of hydrocarbons in fuels, we reduce the complexity of the molecule. But this complexity cannot be lost, it must be manifested in some other way, and it does by making the vehicle more complex by moving it.
The difference between energy and complexity is often simply a matter of perception and scale. If, for example, we apply energy to a block of clay at the molecular level, it will be perceived as heat energy. But if we apply force to the block at a much larger level, it will shape the clay so that it is perceived as complexity.
So much can be understood only by understanding this complexity.
2) LONGEVITY AND COMPLEXITY
I have been wondering about something concerning all forms of life on earth that I cannot find a satisfactory answer to anywhere. Why is the longevity of a species directly related to it's size? Put simply the larger the average size of a species, the longer it's average life expectancy.
This is by no means a strict rule. One of the most obvious exceptions is dogs and cats. Dogs are larger than cats but the average cat lives somewhat longer. Turtles and tortoises are another exception, they tend to live much longer than their average size would indicate.
Humans also live longer than our average size would seem to indicate we should. But that can be attributed to advances in medicine and is not as much the case if we go back hundreds of years. Neither does this apply within a species. For example if a human being is exceptionally large or tall, it only means that their heart will have to work harder in old age.
But while this may not be a strict rule, it is a very broad general rule. Across all species of living things, average longevity is closely proportional to average size. This is even more true if we categorize living things into plants, mammals, fish, etc. I am referring, of course, to natural life span supposing that the creature will not be otherwise killed.
The question is: Why? Logic would seem to dictate that smaller living things require less to survive and so should live longer. Stars are the opposite of living things regarding longevity. There are small stars that have been around for more than half of the age of the universe, while there are very large stars that may last for only a million years or so.
The difference between insects and elephants is that while the larger forms of life may be more complex overall, the smaller forms are far more intricate. A fly has many of the same internal organs as an elephant so it is clear that the fly must be far more intricate. Intricacy is mass divided by complexity.
So, it seems that longevity is inversely proportional to intricacy. It does not seem to matter how complex a species is as long as it is large enough so that it's intricacy is low. High intricacy means short life.
Once again, the question is: Why?
But, what about this complexity theory? What on earth does the underlying complexity level of the universe have to do with the relative longevity of living things? The answer could be "plenty".
Living things are composed of the matter that, along with space, comprises the universe. So, it should come as no surprise that the rules that govern the structure of the universe also have a bearing on living things.
My conclusion is that intricacy is out of harmony with the underlying simplicity of the throw pattern of matter outward in the Big Bang that began the universe. Work can surely be done to concentrate complexity into sublime intricacy and living things are, by far, the finest example of this.
But the fundamental nature of the universe works against such intricacy. It can exist for a while, but the underlying nature of reality eventually pulls it apart. All living things eventually die and generally the more intricate, the sooner. Stars are the opposite simply because they are very low-intricacy.
Consider the general level of complexity of the surrounding inanimate environment as a flat surface. The complexity of any living thing is at some level above that surface. An insect is like a narrow tower reaching to a certain level above the inanimate surface.
An elephant, in terms of complexity, is also like a tower rising to a certain height above the base level of complexity. But, instead of being a narrow tower like the insect, the elephant is represented by a very broad tower. This is because, while the elephant may be more complex then the insect overall, it is far less intricate because it's complexity is spread over much more mass.
Over time, the narrow tower representing the insect is far more likely to topple over than the broad tower representing the elephant. Although the broad tower representing the elephant may be higher overall then the tower representing the insect, it's base to height ratio is much lower, and this makes the broad tower representing the complexity of the elephant more stable than that representing the insect. The height of either tower represents the total complexity, the volume of information enclosed relative to the base level of the surrounding inanimate reality, but the base of either tower represents how much mass that complexity is spread over. The higher the level of complexity within a given amount of mass, the higher the intricacy.
The tower representing the elephant, although it may be higher than the one representing the insect. is more stable, and this is how our complexity theory explains why an elephant has a longer life expectancy then an insect. The surrounding reality is always "trying" to pull any such structures back down to it's own level, and the more stout (base relative to height) such a structure is the more stable it can be expected to be.
This is how this complexity theory explains longevity.
3) STORMS AND COMPLEXITY
In a complex system, with a considerable degree of free movement within and with the system in a less-complex surrounding environment, certain stimulus can cause a portion of the system to accelerate ahead of the rest of the system thus throwing it out of balance. This is the opposite condition of a deterioration of the system which is a return to the lower level of complexity of the surrounding environment, although both are destructive.
This destructive acceleration of part of the complex system is what we could refer to as a storm. It takes many different forms, depending on the host system, of which a meteorological storm is only one example. But the concept of storms is an ideal demonstration of how many apparently different topics have exactly the same underlying patterns. This is the basis of the idea of patterns, that it is the same patterns being manifested in everything no matter how different they may initially appear to be.
Storms can occur only in complex systems, relative to the surrounding environment, with free movement within the system. Machines with moving parts, although they have motion, do not typically have free movement since it is only within certain pre-established parameters that the parts can move. Such machines may deteriorate or break down, but cannot undergo storms.
In the human body, when some outside stimulus causes cell growth which does not normally occur it forms what is known as cancer.
In the atmosphere, when dust from large dry areas such as north Africa and Australia is swept out over the ocean by winds, it forms more condensation nuclei upon which water vapor (vapour) can condense to form the droplets that form clouds and, when joined together form the larger droplets that form rain. This, combined with the rotational force of the earth below, forms a highly-accelerated sub-system in the atmosphere which we usually refer to as a hurricane, typhoon or, cyclone.
In the economy, the basic Law of Supply and Demand usually sets prices. But there are people looking to invest money in order to make a profit. This is not bad in itself, but it may drive up the prices of whatever they are investing in to artificially high levels. This is sometimes known as a bubble, because sooner or later it has to burst. As one example there is a tendency to believe that real estate should, in most cases, never decrease in value. Since there is a fixed supply of real estate to be shared among an ever-increasing population, this seems to make sense. But it also means that there will be investors who will see real estate as an attractive investment, and their demand for it will drive prices to artificially high levels. Sooner or later, these prices will have to crash.
Humans all share the earth. Most of the time, we can all live together. But there are those who feel that something which belongs to others should belong to them. Some feel that they are higher and have the right to tell others what to do, while some feel that they have the right not to be told what to do. Some persons think that they have the best ideas for how society should be run, while others disagree. Such imbalanced create wars and political turmoil.
These four examples may seem like completely different topics. To grasp my theory of patterns, it is necessary to understand that these examples are not different at all. They are, in fact, identical because the underlying patterns are exactly the same no matter what is actually being manifested by it. All are examples of storms in complex systems.
4) THE NATURE OF NAMES
I find that there is a hierarchy in our language with regard to complexity. In ascending order, this hierarchy consists of numbers, words and, names.
Words are based on the overall lack of information in the universe, as a result of the relative simplicity of the Big Bang. There is a vast amount of potential complexity in the universe, in comparison with the available information. The Big Bang, and the laws of physics by which the universe operates are relatively simple. Humans, for one example, are much more alike then they are different. An example of this scarcity of information, relative to the vast potential complexity available. that I often use is how the orbitals of electrons in atoms resemble the orbits of astronomical bodies which are composed of these atoms. Large-scale structures must reflect the nature of the building blocks of which they are composed because that is the only information available.
The result is that the same patterns must occur over and over again. It is for these patterns that we have words. The things that humans do are very repetitive due to this scarcity of information, if the potential complexity exceeds the available information then patterns must repeat. If everything was different from everything else, which would require much more information in the universe, we would have to give everything a name because there would not be the necessary similarity to make use of words.
In my complexity theory, on the Patterns And Complexity blog I have what I call "The Theory Of Puddles". As we know, a puddle is a low spot where water tends to accumulate. There are an infinity of patterns waiting to be manifested by some "given". When the universe of space and matter begins, and patterns do begin to be manifested by reality, it inevitably forms a "slope". This slope of reality means that some patterns are more likely to be manifested than others. The rare patterns are at the "high" end of the slope, and the common patterns form a "puddle" at the low end of the slope. In our universe, hydrogen atoms still comprise maybe 90% of all atoms, so they would definitely be in the puddle of the low end of the slope of reality. Diamonds are rare, they would still be in the puddle of reality because they exist, but would be in the shallows of the puddle high on the slope.
This "slope" of reality could actually be described as a ratio between the potential complexity in the universe, and the available information that was introduced into the universe by the Big Bang. Just as any slope has a ratio between the height on one side and the height on the other side. If the available information in reality and the potential complexity were equal, reality would be flat, there would be no slope and no puddle, everything would be different from everything else so that there would be no words but only names. But that is not the case and the puddle of reality that we have is based on the inequality between the potential complexity in the universe and the information available to create patterns in that complexity.
Physicists tell us that everything is really numbers being manifested. There is nothing in the universe that cannot be described in terms of numbers being manifested by reality. But we are in no way impartial observers of our environment. We have a place in the environment, and see it from our own perspective. This means that the innate numerical definitions of our universe are not all equal to us, and this is the underlying reason why we use words, due to our perspective and scale, as well as numbers. Words would be meaningless in inanimate reality.
Use of words and numbers also depend on how much knowledge we have, and this is part of our perspective. Words are more convenient and expressive, but less precise, than numbers. We must completely understand something in order to be able to describe it with numbers, but this is not the case with words.
A vital part of the perspective which brings about the use of words is the difference in the level of complexity between ourselves and the inanimate surroundings around us. This difference brings about what I call "truth possibilities", meaning that we are capable of envisioning things which may turn out to be false. There is more than enough potential complexity in the universe, relative to available information, that patterns must repeat, but there is not enough potential complexity for all that we are capable of envisioning to be true, due to our higher level of complexity relative to our inanimate surroundings. This is reflected in the fact that the most important words are "yes" and "no". If we were of equal or lesser complexity, relative to our surroundings, these two words would not be necessary.
Our elevated level of complexity relative to our inanimate surroundings also shows up in such things as energy inefficiency, construction and, destruction. Even though we know that energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form, we cannot reuse energy because energy and complexity are really the same thing and once energy is used by us, it passes back to the surrounding lower level of complexity. Construction is the imposition of our complexity on our surroundings, and destruction is a reversion back to that lower level of the surroundings.
(Note-Also, in my complexity theory, creatures with free will are of a higher level of complexity then the inanimate surroundings, without which free will would be unnecessary and meaningless. Plants are of equal complexity to the inanimate surroundings, but of far greater intricacy which is a concentration of complexity. The potential differences between beings, such as humans, within a species, is theoretically equal to the complexity of the inanimate surroundings).
Existence itself brings about numbers. But the scarcity of information in this existence causes repetitive patterns, which brings about our use of words. Enough information to differentiate the repetitive patterns from one another brings about our use of names, instead of the more generic words. If the available information for construction of the universe from the Big Bang matched the potential complexity available there would only be numbers, from the perspective of absolute reality and names, from our perspective. Everything would be different from everything else, so there would be no repetitive patterns for us to assign words to.
In summary, repetition in the patterns of numbers manifested by the universe, due to the scarcity of available information, brings about words from our perspective. Having these repetitive patterns, but with significant variation between them, brings about names. There will be such differences, having all of the universe exactly the same would be the lowest level of complexity, but the lower the amount of information available to create these differences, the larger the scale in the universe between which the differences are likely to be found. For example, atoms of the same element tend to be identical but the stars that are composed of the ese atoms are different from one another. There are recognizable differences in people, which is why we have names. If people were identical, we would more logically be identified with numbers rather than names.
We could describe the use of words and names as a dynamic interplay between repetition and uniqueness, as seen from our perspective in the universe.
5) THE APPARENT INFINITE COMPLEXITY OF WORDS AND NUMBERS
There must be fundamental units of complexity that cannot be defined themselves, but can be used to define other entities. What I defined as the Real Alphabet is sensory elements that cannot be described with words. To make use of words in communication, there must be certain basic elements that cannot be described with words but must be understood by sensory experience alone.
An ideal example is color. We cannot describe color with words, it is impossible. The words just do not exist. How would you describe your favorite color, or the green margins of this blog, to someone who has always been blind? But if a person to which we are communicating understands the basic sensory elements that cannot be described with words then we can put these together, by using language, to convey other information. That is how language works.
Words and numbers are our fundamental units of communication. The conclusion that I have come to is that the actual complexity of a word or a number cannot be defined by us. It must necessarily be as complex as we are, and will therefore appear to us as being of infinite complexity. But we are more complex than our surroundings so that those surroundings appear as of finite complexity so that they can be described by us using words and numbers.
Anything that is as complex as we are, which our words and numbers must necessarily be, will appear to us as of infinite complexity. For something to appear as of finite complexity, it would have to be of less complexity than we are. When we deal with complexity we cannot consider it as an absolute because we, with a certain complexity of our own, are ourselves a part of the scenario.
Energy is also complexity. This means that complexity must be conserved, in the same way as energy. When complexity increases in one place, it must correspondingly decrease somewhere else. There is only a fixed amount of complexity available.
An ideal example is fuel and cars. The molecules in fuel are long and complex. When these fuel molecules are broken, their energy is released and it is used to drive the car.
But we can see this in a parallel way in terms of complexity. When the complex molecules of fuel are broken down, that makes them less complex. But complexity, like energy, must be conserved. The released complexity must go somewhere. One way to make a system more complex is to set it in motion. A system in motion contains more information, and thus more complexity, than the same system at rest. This is why the car moves, in terms of both complexity and energy, when the molecules of fuel are broken down.
The repetition of patterns conserves complexity. We know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state (at least as long as there is no electric charge imbalance). This is known as the conservation of energy. In the same way, the universe tries to conserve complexity.
An obvious way of how complexity must be conserved is how a large-scale structure must reflect the nature of it's component building blocks. Consider orbits, for example. The orbitals of electrons around the nucleus in atoms is reflected in the orbits of moons around planets and of planets around stars, that are composed of the building blocks of atoms. Another conservation of complexity is how all atoms of a given element are all alike due to lack of information, and thus complexity, in the Big Bang.
Technology must also ultimately be as complex as we are, simply because we create the technology. The technology itself may be simple, such as a knife. But to fully describe the operation of the knife, it would be necessary to include all of the fine muscular movements and skills involved in use of the knife. Then we would have to include the complete details of why we would be using the knife, which would go all the way to our nature as human beings and our position in the environment.
I theorized, then, that all examples of technology would ultimately end up as being equal in complexity to each other as well as equal in complexity to us. The total complexity of technology would be the internal component, the design of the technology itself, added to the external component, the environment in which it is used and the nature and reasoning of the human beings using it. With simpler examples of technology, such as the knife, most of the complexity would be external. With human beings ourselves, most of the complexity would be internal.
Words and numbers are likewise tools, just as is technology. The only difference is that words and numbers are used to describe, rather than alter, the surrounding environment. But this does mean that words and numbers must ultimately be equal in complexity to their users, which are us.
The meaning of a word or number is to differentiate something from something else defined by other words or numbers. This can only mean that it must be as complex as the entire set of words or numbers. The entire set of words or numbers that we use to define anything that we perceive must ultimately be as complex as we are. If something is defined by what it is not then the definition of anything must be as complex as the entire set.
If we see a basket, and define it as such, that means that we are defining it by differentiating it from everything that is not a basket. The basket is not a cloud or a car or a tree or a rock, it is a basket. But since we have to define things by what they are, which must necessarily be in relation to what they are not, then any definition must actually be as complex as all of the definitions of all things combined. Since the more complex we are, the more we will see and perceive that can be defined, that means that the totality of all of our definitions must be as complex as we are.
That means that a comprehensive system of definition, such as words or numbers, must be as complex as the entire system, including what it is not. The systems of words and numbers are examples of the pattern that I refer to as "The One And The Many", as described in the posting on the complexity blog by that name. Each one must be as complex as the entire system because the things that it is not define what it is.
Such a system of definition is essentially listing all of the numbers or words, or sets of words, that something could possibly be, and then eliminating all of those that it is not. But this necessarily involves the complexity of the entire system. A point on a map must be as complex as the entire map because everything on the map, every other point, contributes to the definition of the point. To show what the point is, it must show all of the points that it is not, thus requiring the complexity of the entire map to define even one point on the map.
The reason that everything in the universe is not different from everything else in the universe comes back, once again, to complexity. Things in the universe tend to have a similarity to other things. As in the example above, there are clouds and cars and trees and rocks and baskets. This is because there is only a limited amount of information to go around about the forms that things must take, so that complexity must be conserved.
What is the complexity of a number then? Is the number 36 more complex than the number 4? It is true that a meaningful arrangement of 36 objects is more complex than an arrangement of 4 of the same object but one number cannot in itself be any more complex than any other number because numbers are essentially an address system, the complexity of which must involve the entire system. Remember the basic rule that repetition is not complexity, meaning that 36 of something contains no more information that 4 of it.
The complexity of something is simply the information within it, including it’s location if that is meaningful. With a word or number, each is defined by the others that it is not. This means that every word or number must be equal in complexity to every other word and every other number. The number of numbers is infinite, while the number of words that we use is not, but words can be put together in an essentially infinite number of combinations.
The sets of words and numbers is not really infinite, but that is how we will perceive it due to our own limited complexity. We see our surroundings with a complexity that is a reflection of our own complexity. This must mean that we will perceive the total number of ways that we can describe those surroundings, using our tools of words and numbers, as infinite. If we were to see our tools of communication as of finite complexity, that could only mean that we would not be using our full complexity.
6) ENERGY IS REALLY COMPLEXITY
There is no such thing as energy. It is merely a crude term for the transfer of complexity that we do not fully understand. Energy is another one of those terms like "random" or "coincidence". We know that nothing is really random, everything has a definite cause and effect. Neither is there any such thing as a coincidence, it is just an illusion of our complexity perspective.
What we conveniently describe as energy is really the transfer of complexity. The use of energy is complexity decreasing in one place so that it can increase in another, because complexity can never be lost or destroyed but only transferred in form. Complexity is simply the information in something as to how it came to be or to be where it is. Complexity is taking a given number of some basic unit, such as atoms, and arranging them so that they have meaning relative to one another.
What we refer to as energy is liberated complexity that must be added to something, by moving or otherwise affecting it. A moving object contains more information, it's vector and velocity, than the object at rest. Thus, a moving object is more complex than the same object at rest.
Consider the complexity in the arrangement of atoms in the complex hydrocarbons of fuel molecules. When those molecules are broken apart in the cylinders of a vehicle engine by heat, the complexity is decreased. Complexity cannot simply be lost, it has to go somewhere. The liberated complexity goes onto the vehicle itself, making it more complex by adding motion to it, because remember that a moving object, including the vehicle, is more complex than the object at rest.
Molecules of food in the body operate in exactly the same way. The molecules, such as carbohydrates, are broken apart in the stomach, making them less complex. The complexity has to go somewhere, so it increases the complexity of the body in the form of motion.
Consider nuclear fission, the release of binding energy by breaking apart a large atomic nucleus into two smaller nuclei by means of a fast-moving neutron. This can only be done with plutonium or the 235 isotope of uranium. Remember that complexity is arrangement of some basic units so that they have meaning relative to one another. In a nucleus, the component protons and neutrons have such an arrangement. But the complexity increases at a faster rate than the number of units, in other words it is not linear. 4 x 4 is greater than (2 x 2) + (2 x 2).
This means that there is more complexity in a large nucleus than there is in two smaller nuclei added together, with the same total number of protons and neutrons. The result is that, when a large nucleus is split in two during nuclear fission, the two resulting nuclei together have less complexity than the original nucleus. This complexity cannot just be lost so, the complexity goes into motion of the two resulting nuclei along a certain vector and velocity. It is the kinetic energy of these resulting nuclei which provides us with nuclear energy.
But in nuclear fusion, the opposite takes place. In fusion, small atoms such as hydrogen are crunched together into larger atoms. But the resulting larger atom contains less total information, less complexity, than the original smaller atoms because all of the vectors and velocities of the moving smaller atoms are now combined into one. This complexity cannot just disappear, so it gets transformed into velocity and vector of the resulting atom that provides nuclear energy.
Nuclear fusion takes place in the sun, and it imparts the liberated complexity outward into space, so that some of it finds it's way to earth. (By the way, only about one part in two thousand million of the sun's energy lands on the earth).
If you wonder how fusion and fission can work in opposite directions like this, the answer is that larger atoms have proportionally to protons many more neutrons in the nucleus, to hold the like-charged protons together, and the placement of these neutrons in the nucleus requires a lot of information. These large numbers of neutrons in the nucleus are lacking in smaller atoms.
When hydrogen is used as fuel to produce "energy", a different process takes place. Hydrogen is diatomic, two atoms together. These two hydrogen atoms split upon combustion and join themselves to an oxygen atom in the atmosphere. The three atoms then form one molecule, of H2O or water, and than move as one. This decreases their total complexity, since before they had two separate vectors and velocities and now they have only one. This means that complexity has been liberated, and we perceive it as energy. (The process is actually more complex than this because atmospheric oxygen is also diatomic).
We could call this route to "energy", in hydrogen fuel and nuclear fusion, "vector condensation".
7) THE NUMBER LANDSCAPE AND THE EVEN NUMBER BIAS
I would like to illustrate how, in my complexity theory, energy and complexity is really the same thing. When energy is applied, it must make changes, and these changes are a storage of information and thus complexity. This equivalence between the two shows up in that we could call the Number Landscape, which is the manifestation of numbers in everything.
In terms of physics, there are two fundamental ways of looking at the universe. The first is that mathematics is just a convenient way to describe what happens in the reality around us. The second is that mathematics is actually that reality and that everything in the universe is a manifestation of the numbers and patterns of mathematics. It is rather like the old question of "Which came first, the chicken or the egg"? Most likely, neither way of seeing the universe with regard to mathematics is "right" or "wrong", it is just two different ways of looking at things.
Today, I would like to present this point of view that the patterns of mathematics are actually the underlying reality by introducing what I have termed "The Number Landscape". Suppose we did a survey of the universe and counted every time each number was manifested in reality in any way. I think we could logically conclude that, under normal circumstances, the rank of the numbers in terms of appearance would be identical to their sequence.
Since the universe is mostly empty space, the number manifested most often by reality would be zero. The next most common number would be 1 and then 2, and so on. This is simply because numbers are most often used to describe matter and matter in the universe is scarce in comparison with space. This is what I mean by the Number Landscape.
I surmise that the rules of this Number Landscape are that it seeks equilibrium toward low numbers, few numbers manifested and, adherence to the number sequence 1,2,3,... If reality had it's way, the only number manifested would be 0, at most 1.
The reason that this is not the case and we have numbers manifested like 67,301,232,851 is that the Number Landscape has been upset by events. The primary driving force behind this disequilibrium in the Number Landscape is the Big Bang that began the universe as we know it. When energy is applied to the universe, it brings about more numbers, higher numbers and, non-sequential numbers, because these are the ways that the Number Landscape can accommodate complexity. This number landscape is then more complex than it was originally, and this is another way we can see that energy and complexity is really the same thing.
I notice that this Number Landscape is actually a useful tool. We can use it do describe the activity factor of any given system, which is another way of stating a change in both energy and complexity. The universe, of course, increased dramatically in activity upon the Big Bang but has been decreasing ever since as large-scale structures form by gravity. But every time a supernova occurs, it creates another splash in the Number Landscape.
The activity of the universe as a whole, or of any limited portion of it, can be expressed in the divergence in the manifested sequence of numbers from it's natural sequence, which is the usual 1,2,3... My hypothesis is that when activity increases in any given system, it puts stresses on the manifestation of the natural sequence of numbers. This is because some numbers have more factors than others and this causes them to be manifested more often until the natural sequence of numbers is not the same as the manifested sequence of numbers. As an example, 12 is a higher number than 11 and this would seem to mean that it would be manifested less often. But, when activity increases and alters the Number Landscape, 12 has more factors than 11 and eventually overtakes it in manifestation.
Suppose there is the titanic explosion of a star in space, a supernova. Chunks of matter made of the various elements cooked up in the star's interior fly all around. Some collide and break into smaller chunks and some of those eventually pull back together by gravity. When a chunk of matter breaks apart in a collision, the number of pieces it is most likely to break into is 2, this must be the case to maintain the number sequence.
But if a chunk of matter breaks into two pieces, and then each of those is in a collision and also breaks into two pieces, we then have the number 4. Thus, this activity opens the possibility that the number 4 may be manifested more often than the number 3 because, even though 3 is lower and thus closer to a state of equilibrium, 4 has more factors (2x2). This is what I referred to as a splash in the number landscape.
Not only will higher numbers be manifested due to objects breaking apart into smaller objects, but there is the possibility that the natural number sequence will be upset by the activity. Even if we have a system in which no such breaking apart of chunks of matter occurs, velocities and rates of change as well as differences in those and ratios between them will similarly affect the number landscape.
What this all comes down to is that energy and complexity are really the same thing. When energy is applied to the universe, it must increase the complexity of the universe. Since everything is really numbers being manifested, the underlying way that this is done is to add complexity to the Number Landscape by enlarging it and then by upsetting it's sequential order. The non-sequential set of numbers 1,2,4,3 has more complexity than the corresponding sequential set 1,2,3,4 because it requires more information to describe it.
A familiar way in which we can see that energy and complexity is really the same thing is in how we can make life physically easier by developing technology. We can make life physically easier, but only at the expense of making it more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and also less complex. This shows that energy and complexity must really be different manifestations of the same thing.
My view is that the shift in the natural number landscape of any active system of numbers that are manifested in any observation will begin with the higher numbers. In the Number Landscape, higher numbers are further from the ground state of zero and thus their position and manifestation is less secure.
For example, as activity increases in a given system 12 begins to be manifested more often than 11 because of it's factors. 12 may even move ahead of 10. 8 moves ahead of 7 and 9 may even move in front of 7. If the system is really active, 6 may move in front of 5 in manifestation and finally, the number landscape is really unsettled if 4 is manifested more often than 3 on a large scale.
An ideal example of such variations in the natural number landscape due to the fact that some numbers have more factors than others is the chemical elements. As we might expect hydrogen, the simplest element with only 1 proton, is by far the most abundant and helium with 2 is the next most abundant.
But elements with lower numbers of protons are in no way always more abundant than those with more protons. This is because stars cook up elements in their interiors by fusing lighter elements together and there are more of elements whose number of protons have more factors then those of lower numbers of protons but which do not have as many factors. This is possibly the best example of the upsetting of the Number Landscape by the application of energy, and thus complexity. I got to thinking that, if numbers represent reality, then the nature of the numbers that we find so useful should reveal something about the nature of the universe that we use those numbers to represent.
Almost everything is empty space, and this includes atoms themselves. An example that is often used is that, if an atom was represented by a sports stadium the nucleus, which is the only dense part of the atom, would be about like a strawberry in the middle of the playing field. A galaxy in space is virtually all empty space, yet it is about a million times as dense in matter as the vastness of inter-galactic space.
We can thus state with certainty that actual matter is indeed exceedingly scarce in comparison with the space in which it exists, and this is why zero is by far the most common number that is manifested and lower numbers must get manifested first..
Now, what about the numbers that we use to represent reality? Our number system ranges from zero to infinity but the vast majority of numbers that we use to express quantity, excluding identification numbers or addresses, are very low, much closer to zero than to infinity.
Zero represents nothingness, infinity represents the endlessness of space and ordinary finite numbers represents matter. If there was no matter in the universe, then the only meaningful numbers would be zero and infinity. Have you noticed that the finite, and mostly low, numbers that we use are very much a mirror of the density of matter in space?
The vast majority of numbers in daily use, other than identification numbers, are below one hundred. The average number that we use to express quantity will always be a reflection of the density of matter in space. This average number also encompasses units, because the units that we choose are also reflections of the density of matter in space. This is because, as described in my cosmology theory, energy was applied to the universe in the Big Bang to bring about matter, and this energy must be manifested as complexity because the two are the same thing.
7b) THE EVEN NUMBER BIAS
Numbers are manifested in the world all around us, that is why we find mathematics to be such a useful descriptive tool. I have concluded that, if we exclude the number 1, there must be more even numbers being manifested by the world and the universe around us than odd numbers.
At the lowest scale, that of the electric charges which comprise the universe, there is no such thing as odd numbers. There are two electric charges, negative and positive, which attract one another and must always be balanced. Two is thus the fundamental even number. Because there are two electric charges which comprise space and the universe, there must be two possible directions from a given point in a given dimension of space, and two is an even number.
At a higher scale, that of atoms, the even number bias still shows, but now odd numbers can be manifested as well. Of the ten most common elements in the universe, eight have even atomic numbers, which is the number of protons in the nucleus. The most stable atomic nuclei are those with an even number of protons and an even number of neutrons. The least stable atomic nuclei are those with an odd number of protons and an odd number of neutrons. This shows that the even number bias starts with the electric charges, but then shows up to a somewhat lesser extent in higher scales as well.
In a star exploding in a supernova, and scattering it's component matter across space, or the entire Big Bang for that matter, the least information state would be an equal thrust outward from opposite sides, and this can only mean an even number of fragments being thrown outward. This is in accordance with Newton's Law of Equal and Opposite Reactions.
Symmetry is of even numbers, asymmetry is of odd numbers. The universe is overall symmetric due to the action-reaction principle and due to the charge symmetry of even numbers. This also makes exponents of two more likely to be manifested than nearby multiples, but non-exponents of two. To have an odd number would require more information. Since we live in an even-numbered universe, founded on two electric charges, this makes odd numbers a higher-energy state.
The number system that we use is useful because it is an effective representation of the universe. Addition and multiplication operations show the bias toward even numbers. If we add two even numbers or two odd numbers, we get an even number. If we add an even and an odd number, then we get an odd number. This makes the operation of addition favor odd and even numbers equally.
But multiplication clearly favors even numbers. If we multiply two even numbers, or an even and an odd number, we get an even number. It is only when we multiply two odd numbers that we get an odd number.
This illustration of arithmetical operations shows why we should exclude 1 as an odd number, and say that odd numbers begin with 3. Addition favors neither odd nor even numbers, both are equal. But addition is one-dimensional in nature, while multiplication is two-dimensional. The two-dimensional multiplication clearly shows the bias toward even numbers, in a proportion of four to one.
Do you notice a relationship here? In addition, which is one-dimensional, even and odd numbers have an equal chance of being produced. But in multiplication, which is two-dimensional, even numbers have four times the chance of being produced as odd numbers. This is yet another application of the Inverse Square Law.
The reason that this even-numbered bias is not more apparent is the way we count and measure. This bias only shows up in "natural" numbers. Our number system is an artificial tool that we use to describe the reality around us. But this conceals the even-number bias.
To see the even-number bias more clearly, we would have to use only a "natural" number and measurement system. This means doing away with our artificial units of measure like meters, grams, pounds, minutes, degrees, etc. Also artificial are any kind of addressing system such as coordinates or altitude and longitude. Decimal is our artificial creation, in a natural number system, all portions of a number must be expressed in fractions. A "natural" measurement system is where everything is expressed in ratios and proportions, and not in artificial units.
Even numbers represent space, because it is composed of the two electric charges. Odd numbers are a higher information state, requiring an input of energy to bring about, and can be said to be represented by matter. There are no odd numbers in empty space along, as long as we exclude 1. It is only by joining like electric charges together to form matter that odd numbers can be manifested, and even then even numbers must still be predominant.
Do you see the connection, with regard to my cosmology theory, between this concept of even numbers representing space, while odd numbers represent matter, and the Inverse Square Law? We see the Inverse Square Law at work in how odd and even numbers are equally likely to be produced by addition, which is one-dimensional, while even numbers are four times as likely to be produced by multiplication, which is two-dimensional. My cosmology theory has a two-dimensional sheet of space disintegrating in one of it's two dimensions into the one-dimensional strings that compose matter as we know it.
This two-dimensional sheet was scattered by the dissolution, which we perceive as the explosion of the Big Bang, over four dimensions of background space. Four is twice as many as the two dimensions of the sheet. This is why the interaction of matter and space is governed by the Inverse square Law, in the same way that multiplication favors the production of even numbers (which we saw represent space) at a rate four times that of addition, which is one-dimensional..
Remember that, in my cosmology theory, matter began with a two-dimensional sheet of space that was within, but not contiguous to, the surrounding multi-dimensional background space. This was the first asymmetry of the universe. Matter originated from this sheet, and has been the basis for odd number manifestation ever since.
Odd numbers, as introduced into the universe, are a second-tier higher-information state. If we have twice (an even number) of one quantity than another, and the two quantities are combined together, the lower quantity will represent 1/3 of the total. In my cosmology theory, odd numbers come into play when it requires three times the energy to hold like charges together into matter than there is between the usual pattern of adjacent opposite charges. But matter is second-tier after space, just as odd numbers are second tier after even numbers.
8) ENERGY AND THE TRANSFER OF COMPLEXITY
There is no such thing as energy. It is merely a crude term for the transfer of complexity that we do not fully understand. Energy is another one of those terms like "random" or "coincidence". We know that nothing is really random, everything has a definite cause and effect. Neither is there any such thing as a coincidence, it is just an illusion of our complexity perspective.
What we conveniently describe as energy is really the transfer of complexity. The use of energy is complexity decreasing in one place so that it can increase in another, because complexity can never be lost or destroyed but only transferred in form. Complexity is simply the information in something as to how it came to be or to be where it is. Complexity is taking a given number of some basic unit, such as atoms, and arranging them so that they have meaning relative to one another.
What we refer to as energy is liberated complexity that must be added to something, by moving or otherwise affecting it. A moving object contains more information, it's vector and velocity, than the object at rest. Thus, a moving object is more complex than the same object at rest.
Consider the complexity in the arrangement of atoms in the complex hydrocarbons of fuel molecules. When those molecules are broken apart in the cylinders of a vehicle engine by heat, the complexity is decreased. Complexity cannot simply be lost, it has to go somewhere. The liberated complexity goes onto the vehicle itself, making it more complex by adding motion to it, because remember that a moving object, including the vehicle, is more complex than the object at rest.
Molecules of food in the body operate in exactly the same way. The molecules, such as carbohydrates, are broken apart in the stomach, making them less complex. The complexity has to go somewhere, so it increases the complexity of the body in the form of motion.
Consider nuclear fission, the release of binding energy by breaking apart a large atomic nucleus into two smaller nuclei by means of a fast-moving neutron. This can only be done with plutonium or the 235 isotope of uranium. Remember that complexity is arrangement of some basic units so that they have meaning relative to one another. In a nucleus, the component protons and neutrons have such an arrangement. But the complexity increases at a faster rate than the number of units, in other words it is not linear. 4 x 4 is greater than (2 x 2) + (2 x 2).
This means that there is more complexity in a large nucleus than there is in two smaller nuclei added together, with the same total number of protons and neutrons. The result is that, when a large nucleus is split in two during nuclear fission, the two resulting nuclei together have less complexity than the original nucleus. This complexity cannot just be lost so, the complexity goes into motion of the two resulting nuclei along a certain vector and velocity. It is the kinetic energy of these resulting nuclei which provides us with nuclear energy.
But in nuclear fusion, the opposite takes place. In fusion, small atoms such as hydrogen are crunched together into larger atoms. But the resulting larger atom contains less total information, less complexity, than the original smaller atoms because all of the vectors and velocities of the moving smaller atoms are now combined into one. This complexity cannot just disappear, so it gets transformed into velocity and vector of the resulting atom that provides nuclear energy.
Nuclear fusion takes place in the sun, and it imparts the liberated complexity outward into space, so that some of it finds it's way to earth. (By the way, only about one part in two thousand million of the sun's energy lands on the earth).
If you wonder how fusion and fission can work in opposite directions like this, the answer is that larger atoms have proportionally to protons many more neutrons in the nucleus, to hold the like-charged protons together, and the placement of these neutrons in the nucleus requires a lot of information. These large numbers of neutrons in the nucleus are lacking in smaller atoms.
When hydrogen is used as fuel to produce "energy", a different process takes place. Hydrogen is diatomic, two atoms together. These two hydrogen atoms split upon combustion and join themselves to an oxygen atom in the atmosphere. The three atoms then form one molecule, of H2O or water, and than move as one. This decreases their total complexity, since before they had two separate vectors and velocities and now they have only one. This means that complexity has been liberated, and we perceive it as energy. (The process is actually more complex than this because atmospheric oxygen is also diatomic).
We could call this route to "energy", in hydrogen fuel and nuclear fusion, "vector condensation".
9) THE EQUIVALENCE OF SURFACE AREA TO ENERGY AND INFORMATION
I find that there are more than we already have of what we could call equivalences. We already know about the equivalence between mass and energy. That a certain amount of mass contains a given amount of energy. This is called simply the Mass-Energy Equivalence, and is a fundamental principle of physics.
I have previously written about how I have concluded that energy is really the same thing as information because we cannot apply energy to anything without also adding information to it, and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it.
I now find that there is also a relationship between the surface area of matter and the information and energy within it.. Just as mass multiplies by energy equals a constant figure, so surface area multiplied by energy also equals a constant figure. This basically means that the energy and information in something manifests as surface area.
9b) SURFACE AREA
How would we expect an object to manifest it's information, other than location or velocity? The logical answer is in it's surface area. A sphere has the least surface area per volume of all three-dimensional geometric shapes. This is because it has the least information. It requires the least information to describe. An irregular surface on a sphere has information added to it, and thus energy, because we cannot add information to it without applying energy to it, and cannot apply energy to it without adding information to it.
Suppose that a potter takes a concentrated lump of clay, and shapes it into a pot. Energy has to be applied to the clay in order to do this. The energy is also information as to how the finished pot should be shaped, because energy and information is really the same thing. But this will inevitably show up as the finished pot having more surface area than the original lump of clay.
If we then break the pot, by applying still more energy and thus information to it, the broken pieces will have a greater total surface area than did the intact pot.
The same can be said of shaping a lump of metal into a tool. The finished tool will have more surface area, or at least more surface area per volume, than the original metal. The additional surface area is a reflection of the energy, and thus information, that was added in shaping the metal.
A sphere is not only the form of lowest energy state, but also lowest information state in that it requires the least information to describe of any geometric form. The equivalence between information and surface area can be seen in that the sphere is the form requiring the least information to construct, and also the form with the least surface area per volume. But this should not surprise us because we have seen that energy and information is really the same thing.
This also explains why objects tend to expand when heated. The heat is energy, and thus information, and so it must increase the surface area of the object, because surface area is equivalent to both energy and information, which are equivalent to one another.
If two perfectly smooth spheres, that have come together in space by gravity, are of different size, it may not seem that the larger one contains more information, but it does. Even though a higher number, by itself, is not more complex and does not contain more information than a lower number. But the spheres are made of atoms and it takes more information to have more atoms arranged in a smooth sphere.
A perfectly smooth sphere is not exactly a "blank slate", with no information on it. It could be thought of as a series of zeros, with each being a point of information about the elevation of the surface. The more points that are described, the more information there is. There is more information in shorter wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, even if amplitude and frequency are the same. The sameness of the waves represent what could have been, but isn't.
Etching mountains and valleys onto a sphere increases it's surface area because we are adding information, and must have applied energy to it because energy and information are the same thing. But if a higher number has no more information than a lower number, then a large valley should not add any more information than a small valley. But yet it must, because it means more increase in the surface area of the sphere.
But the sphere is not the ultimate repository of information, it came together itself only as an expression of the equivalence of energy and surface area. Here, we are actually dealing with the fundamental mass-energy equivalence. This means that a larger valley on the sphere involves more energy, and thus more information, than a smaller valley.
Another way to consider the difference in the energy, and thus information, of a large valley compared to a small valley, on the smooth sphere of a planet is by having it expressed as a fraction. My way of quantifying complexity is that it is equal to the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction.
A large number, such as 100, is not more complex than a small number, such as 10, because they are really 100/1 and 10/1, and thus have a denominator of the same value. But the energy, or information, to create the large and small valleys, which would also apply to mountains, would be expressed relative to the energy or information that was used to create the smooth sphere of the planet before the application of energy which created either of the valleys.
It would be expressed as follows:
Energy and information to create sphere before the valley / Energy to create large valley.
Energy and information to create sphere before the valley / Energy to create small valley.
Thus the large valley would be a higher denominator, which would represent more energy and information. In reality outside that of human beings, there are no units, such as kilograms, joules, watts or, miles, and so the only way to express such interactions as the formation of a valley on a smooth planet is as ratios, and this makes it more clear how energy, information and, surface area is all the same thing.
The basic equivalence of energy and surface area is the surface areas of atoms. The energy in atoms is that of the basic Mass-Energy Equivalence. If energy, and the information that it also is, is indeed equivalent to surface area, then the atom must have a surface area that represents the energy within it, even though atoms are mostly empty space. This surface area is formed by the outermost electron orbitals of the atom.
Fusion takes place in the centers of stars because that is where there is enough energy and gravitational pressure to overcome the electron repulsion between atoms and crunch smaller atoms together into larger ones. Energy is released as this is done, up to the element iron.
As successive fusion proceeds from lighter to heavier elements, there is ever-less surface area of the atom per mass contained. This is because combining two equal spheres together gives us twice the volume, but less than twice the surface area because that does not increase at the same rate as volume due to the nature of a sphere.
This energy that is released by fusion within the star, to compensate for the lesser surface area of the fewer heavier atoms that have been fused together from more lighter atoms, also pushes against the inward gravity of the star, to "inflate" the star over what it would be if there were no fusion taking place. This increases the surface area of the star, over what it would be if there were no fusion taking place, to make up for the lost surface area of the atoms being fused together at the center of the star. Energy is radiated away, which is why the star does not keep on growing in surface area, but is continuously replaced by more energy from within the star.
But, since energy and information are equivalent to surface area according to this theory, there must be leftover energy that could also be described as information as smaller atoms are crunched into larger ones by the fusion process in the centers of stars.
This is why electromagnetic radiation is released during the fusion process, which can be described as either energy or information. Stars shine, and there is sunlight every day, because surface area must remain equivalent to energy and information.
The energy of the radiation which occurs during the successive fusion of lighter atoms into heavier ones, which takes place in stars and this shows us more of how the surface area, in comparison with energy and information, of matter in the universe operates.
9e) ATOMS GET SMALLER IN ROWS ACROSS THE PERIODIC TABLE
One reason that heavier atoms have less surface area per mass then the smaller atoms from which they were fused together is that there is a stronger force pulling the larger atoms together, by opposite charge attraction, simply because there are more of both protons and electrons in the close confines of the atom. There is back pressure on electrons by like-charged electrons above, in all but the outermost orbital shell. This is why the maximum number of electrons that can exist in any orbital shell is 32, but for the outermost shell it is only 8.
If there was a similar variation in gravity, we would expect that a satellite with a given orbital energy would have a higher orbit, with a larger circumference, if gravity were weaker or a lower orbit, with a smaller circumference, if gravity were stronger.
One important factor in the orbital energy and surface areas of atoms is the so-called K-capture of electrons. This refers to an electron being crunched into a proton during fusion to create a neutron. This is why elements above about atomic number 20 have more and more neutrons relative to protons in the nucleus. This elimination of electron orbitals, to form neutrons from protons, is another factor in decreasing surface area of the atom per mass as we move to heavier atoms. A neutron is less information, and thus less energy and surface area, than a separate proton and electron.
When moving to heavier atoms, the size and thus the surface area per nucleon of atoms would seem to decrease, rather than increase, by the rule of the Inverse Square Law. Twice as many protons and electrons within the atom would mean four times as much inward opposite charge attraction. But the orbital energy, which is the same as the total displacement of the alternating electric charges of space, would be the same for electrons in the same orbital shell. It would just be compressed into a lesser area.
Across a row on the periodic table, atoms actually get smaller because there are more opposite charges pulling together. This means that there is less energy and less information, even though there is more mass. But energy and information is also distance. A 1 in a line of ten zeros represents more information than a 1 in a line of five zeros. The distance of electric charges in space is information because of the place it is relative to the places that it could be. A fraction is complexity.
Energy is information, but with given units of energy, such as electrons, less energy is just as much information as more energy, just as a lower number has just as much information as a higher number. Information in atoms goes not by electrons, but by electron shells. With discrete units, such as electron shells, information is only in the number of shells, which correspond to the surface area of the atom. Information is energy, but also energy that could be there but isn't.
Remember my doctrine that the complexity of a number is the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction. This is why we can multiply, but cannot add, fractions with different denominators. Addition is one-dimensional, but multiplication is two-dimensional so that the dimensions do not have to be equal in multiplication. Different denominators cannot be added because they are of different complexity. Complexity must be expressed in whole numbers. With regard to denominators, there is the 0 line, 1 line, the 2 line, the 3 line, and so on. To add fractions, we must first multiply to get a common denominator. Because multiplication is two-dimensional, this bridges the gap between parallel lines of denominators in fractions.
Atoms actually get smaller as we move across a row in the periodic table to heavier elements, which would seem to contradict this hypothesis because we are dealing with greater energy with regard to the mass-energy equivalence, and this does not apply to gravitational spheres. But we are dealing with electric charges, that involve both attraction and repulsion. This causes electrons to exist in orbitals composed of shells. Each shell has the capacity for a certain number of electrons.
This makes the orbital shells act like pegboards, with a certain number of pegs in a certain number of holes. An empty hole represents just as much information as a full one. There is more information in a set of pegs that is partially filled than in one that is completely filled, because we would then have to describe the arrangement of the partially-filled pegs.
This is why atoms to the left in a row on the periodic table are actually larger. It is not just a fraction, which would have a complexity equal in value to the denominator, because it must also account for the information of which ones are which. it does not reach the low point, and then increase, because a shell does not fill completely before the next one starts.
Atoms getting smaller in size across a row on the periodic table, even there are more electrons and nucleons, can be accounted for by considering empty spaces, rather than just electrons, as information.
9f) SUPERNOVA AND RADIOACTIVITY
To balance this relationship between surface area and energy during nuclear fusion, we must bring in the factor of excess energy that is radiated away, as electromagnetic radiation, during nuclear fusion. As the total surface area per orbital energy of the atoms within the star decreases, the excess energy must be radiated away as electromagnetic radiation.
A nova is the blasting away of the outer layers of a star, a supernova is an explosion of the entire star from the center. A nova or a supernova, like the emission of radiation or particles by radioactivity is, again, an issue of surface area. A star is an equilibrium between gravity pulling inward and energy radiating outward. A nova or supernova occurs when that balance is upset.
The only thing that could upset it, and cause the star to explode from within, is changes brought about by the successive fusion process. More energy must be released as the process progresses, at least in the large stars which explode, and the explosion is an effort to regain the balance that must exist between energy and surface area. A star crunches atoms together according to it's volume, but radiates away the resulting excess energy according to it's surface area. As we increase the size of a sphere, volume increases faster than surface area. This is why an increase in energy output cannot radiate away fast enough and the explosion of a nova is necessary to bring about the higher surface area to volume ratio of a smaller sphere.
It takes more pressure to fuse heavier atoms together than lighter ones. Eventually, the star reaches a point where the fusion process stops because there is not enough gravitational force from the star's mass to continue the fusion process. But it is also true that more energy is released by fusing together two heavier atoms than two lighter ones, even though the energy released by the heavier atoms is less then proportional to the mass difference as compared to the lighter atoms because energy in previous fusion steps had to be radiated away from the star in order to maintain the surface area to energy equivalence.
If the greater energy that is released by this successive fusing of heavier atoms cannot be radiated away from the star's surface area fast enough, it bring about the imbalance which can result in the explosion of a nova or even a supernova. The increased surface area of matter that is brought about by a nova or supernova is a compensation for the energy that could not be radiated away fast enough.
We see this continuous adjustment in both atoms and stars to maintain equilibrium between surface area and energy. A nova is an attempt to re-balance by increasing surface area relative to the volume of the star in which the successive fusion of heavy elements is taking place. But this can bring about too much surface area due to the fragments of solid matter such as rock and metal which are ejected into space. This, in turn, brings about the coalescing together of these fragments into a sphere, which has the lowest surface area per volume. This brings the relationship between energy and surface area full circle.
9g) COSMOLOGY AND SURFACE AREA
But yet this equivalence between energy and surface area that we saw here has an obvious application to the cosmological theory, reviewed in the posting on this blog "The Universe Made Really Simple". My cosmological theory has the matter in the universe, but not the space which preceded it, originating from a two-dimensional sheet of space within the multiple dimensions of the outer background space. When one of the two dimensions of this two-dimensional sheet disintegrated, as the negative side came into contact with the positive side, it resulted in the explosion that we perceive as the Big Bang. Long one-dimensional strings remained, which we see as the particles of matter today, and the other dimension became energy as the energy of the bonds that had been in the former one-dimension of the sheet were released into the background space.
The remaining dimension is seen today as the surface area of matter objects, which I described in this posting. The other dimension has, of course, been released into space as energy. Now, do you see the cosmological angle on this concept of the equivalence of energy and surface area? The two dimensions of the original sheet of space must have been equivalent and, since the remaining dimension of the sheet was what remained of it's "surface area", this is why today there must be an equivalence between energy and surface area.
10) NUCLEAR PROCESSES DESCRIBED IN TERMS OF INFORMATION
There has to be an information balance within atoms. Just as negative and positive charges must ordinarily be equal, so the information in the nucleus and the electron orbitals must be equal to one another.
As smaller atoms are crunched together into larger atoms by nucleo-synthesis in stars, the larger atom gains more of both protons and electrons. But this causes an information imbalance to arise. The protons in the nucleus would be all bound together, but the electrons are all in distinct orbitals, each with a different quantum address. There are four parts to the quantum "address' that each electron has and, according to the Pauli Exclusion Principle, no two electrons in a given atom can have the same quantum address.
This can only mean that the electron orbitals contain more information than the nucleus, but this creates the information imbalance which is not supposed to exist. Having different information states in the nucleus and the electron orbitals in itself creates a higher information state in the matter of the universe as a whole, and we know that the universe always seeks the lowest information state. This is because energy and information is really the same thing, and the universe always seeks the lowest energy state.
My hypothesis is that the atom avoids such an imbalance, keeping the levels of information in the orbitals and the nucleus equal, by creating neutrons. Aside from ordinary hydrogen, with just one proton and one electron and referred to as protium, there are always more nucleons in atoms than electrons. A nucleon is any particle in the nucleus, whether a proton or neutron. As we move to heavier elements in the periodic table there are more and more neutrons, relative to protons.
In terms of information, the purpose of this is to add information to the nucleus, and thus to maintain a balance with the information in the electron orbitals. All that electric charges ultimately are is points of information, and so a charge balance is really an information balance.
With elements up to iron and nickel, which form by the ordinary S-process, for slow, of nucleo-synthesis, there is never a permanent information imbalance, although atoms can exist as ions and isotopes. But heavier elements are formed by the R-process, for rapid, only during the explosion of a large star that is known as a supernova. Smaller atoms are forced together into larger ones, which would never exist otherwise if not for the tremendous amount of energy released when the star explodes. Since these heavier elements are created only when a supernova occurs it explains why lighter elements up to iron, such as carbon, nitrogen and, oxygen, are exponentially more common than heavy elements such as lead, silver, gold and, uranium.
In such conditions, an information imbalance between the nucleus and the orbitals of an atom can very easily arise. We say that the process of radioactivity occurs because an atom is seeking greater stability. But what exactly is meant by this stability? What I am describing here is that this stability that is being sought by the atom is the correction of an information imbalance between the nucleus and the electron orbitals. There is no such imbalance in the lighter elements, iron and below, that are formed by the S-process, because if there was such an imbalance then the atom would not have formed in the first place.
Neutrons are formed by crunching an electron into a proton. Since an electron has a negative charge and the proton a positive charge, this creates a nucleon that is slightly more massive then a proton but has a neutral charge. As we saw neutrons add information to the nucleus, relative to the electron orbitals, by creating an additional information point in the nucleus.
There are three types of radioactivity, Alpha, Beta and, Gamma.
Beta decay is either a neutron turning into a proton, or vice-versa. A neutron can turn into a proton which, of course, changes the atom into a different element since elements are defined by the number of protons, by creating an electron, along with an anti-neutrino, and releasing it. The new electron exits the atoms altogether, as a high-speed particle, and does not join the other electrons in the orbitals.
Beta decay can also change a proton into a neutron by emission of a positron and a neutrino, instead of an electron and an anti-neutrino. A positron is the antimatter equivalent of an electron, basically a positively-charged electron. One of the basic forces of the universe, the Weak Force, brings about beta decay. The Weak Force changes one quark into another by the exchange of a W-boson and the creation of a electron-anti-neutrino or positron-neutrino pair.
If there were more neutrons than protons, as is the case with heavier R-process atoms that can be radioactive, and a neutron were changed into a proton, this would increase the amount of information in the nucleus by increasing the number of possible neutron-proton arrangements. With two types or bits, or points of information, there is the maximum potential information with any given number of total bits, when there is an equal number of the two bits.
To understand this, let's use a simple example. Suppose that we are using the two computer bits, 1 and 0. 1 could be represented by a proton while 0 would be a neutron.
If we have four bits, and none is different from the others, there is only one possible permutation of the bits, either 1111 or 0000.
If we have four bits, and one is different from the others, then there are four possible permutations. Either 1000, 0100, 0010, and, 0001 or 0111, 1011, 1101 and, 1110.
But if we have four bits, and two are different from the other two, we have six possible permutations, 1001, 0110, 0101, 1010, 1100 and, 0011.
This shows how, with a given number of points of information, and at least two different types of points, the set of points can hold the maximum information when there are equal numbers of the different types of points which, in this case, are protons and neutrons. This storage of information as permutations of data is what I refer to as "The One And The Many". The one is the permutation that is, the many are the ones that could have been if the points of information were arranged differently.
Remember my doctrine that the complexity of a number is the value of the denominator, when the number is expressed as a fraction or ratio. "The One And The Many", as I refer to it, is simply 1 / many. The complexity of the number, and thus the amount of information within it, is the numerical value of the many. The many is all of the possible permutations of the data points or information, the one is the actual permutation that is.
But what this means is that Beta decay can be a tool to "adjust" the amount of information in the nucleus, to bring it closer to that of the electron orbitals, and thus eliminate the instability in the atom that is caused by the information imbalance between the two.
In contrast to Beta decay, Alpha decay is another type of radioactivity that emits an entire alpha particle from the nucleus. An alpha particle is basically a helium nucleus, two protons and two neutrons. This changes the atom into a different element, two steps lower in the periodic table. The helium that is on earth is usually found where Alpha decay has taken place.
But by lowering the number of both the protons and neutrons, Alpha decay lowers the number of possible permutations and thus the information in the nucleus. Thus, if the information in the electron orbitals is lower than that of the nucleus of an atom, due to so many possible permutations of protons and neutrons in the nucleus, Alpha decay can be a tool to correct that imbalance.
The third type of radioactivity is Gamma. This is not a particle but rather electromagnetic radiation. Gamma radiation has the shortest wavelength, and thus the highest energy, of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Gamma radiation is usually given off by an atoms just after either Alpha or Beta decay has taken place.
But electromagnetic radiation is information, and this information is being given off by the atoms in order to close the imbalance between the electron orbitals and the nucleus. We describe this as seeking stability.
Gamma radiation is also energy. We know that a lot of energy is given off by radioactivity because it is largely heat from radioactive decay that keeps the iron core of the earth molten. But remember my doctrine that energy and information is really the same thing because we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it, and we cannot apply energy to something without adding information to it. Another way of looking at it is that we can make our lives physically easier, through technology, but only at the expense of making it more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and also less complex.
How about nuclear fission? When we "split the atom", by striking the nucleus with a high-velocity neutron, a tremendous amount of energy is released. But if energy and information is really the same thing, then there should be an informational model of this, and there is.
Let's go back to our simple informational model of the four bits, two 1s and two 0s, and the information that is stored in the possible permutations of these bits. When we have all four bits together, we saw that there are six possible permutations of the bits. But now suppose that, with the 1s representing protons and the 0s representing neutrons, we "split" the bits into two sets, with a 1 and a 0 in each set.
Whereas with the bits all together, we had six possible permutations. But now, with the bits split in half, we have only four, 10 + 10, 01 + 10, 10 + 01 and, 01 + 01.
This means that there is a loss of information by splitting the set of bits in half. If this stood for an atom, with 1s and 0s representing protons and neutrons, this loss of information would also have to show as a release of energy, because energy and information is really the same thing.
This is exactly what happens when we "split" an atom of uranium isotope 235, meaning 92 protons and 143 neutrons in the nucleus, into two "daughter" atoms of krypton and barium. Actually, several free neutrons are also released because heavier elements must have proportionally more neutrons in the nucleus, relative to protons. These free neutrons travel at high velocity, and split other nuclei, which produces the self-sustaining "chain reaction".
But these two new atoms together have fewer possible permutations of protons and neutrons in the nuclei then the uranium atom had. This is thus released information, which must appear to us as released energy, because energy and information is really the same thing.
But, you may be wondering, if the two smaller atoms are at a lower energy state than the larger atom, the uranium, then why did they come together to form uranium in the first place?
Under ordinary nuclear fusion, they would not have. But remember that elements heavier then iron and nickel form not by ordinary stellar fusion, the S-process for slow, but are forced together by the tremendous energy that is released when a large star explodes in a supernova, known as the R-process for rapid. It is this excess energy that it took to force smaller atoms together into larger atoms, many of which are radioactive because the forced arrangement has an unstable information imbalance, that is released when we split atoms of Uranium isotope 235 or plutonium.
But then what about the opposite nuclear process, that of fusion? One thing that is so confusing about nuclear physics is that if we split a large atom, our uranium, into smaller atoms, energy is released. But if we crunch small atoms together into larger ones, nuclear fusion as is done in stars, energy is also released. If one process releases energy, shouldn't the opposite process not release it?
The sun is now in the process of crunching four hydrogen atoms into one helium atom and, of course, releasing the excess energy. But how can we account for this excess energy in terms of information?
An ordinary hydrogen atom has just one proton and one electron, the simplest of all atoms. In the fusion process, two electrons are crunched into two of those protons to create neutrons. This leaves us with a helium atom of two protons, two neutrons, and two electrons. This leaves us with six possible permutations of the neutrons and protons in the helium nucleus, remember the simple four-bit example above, but only a total of our permutations of the four hydrogen atoms that were brought together to produce it, since a character by itself, such as a 1 representing a proton, as only one possible permutation.
How does the fusion process manage to make six out of four, and then also has the energy to release as sunlight? Remember the information in the electron orbitals. Each electron in an atom has it's own four-part quantum "address". According to the Pauli Exclusion Principle, no two electrons in an atom can have the same quantum address.
But when an electron is crunched into a proton, to create a neutron, this information in the electron's orbital is no longer needed. Since energy and information is really the same thing, we perceive it as being released as the energy of sunlight or starlight. There is less information in a neutron than there is in an electron and a proton together.
We could also think of it in terms of surface area being equivalent to both energy and information. Energy is released by nuclear fusion because the larger atom that is formed by smaller atoms being crunched together has less surface area than did the atoms which were crunched together. The excess energy, which is also information, is released as radiation.
This goes back to what I wrote several years ago, the posting "Energy And Nuclear Fusion", on the physics and astronomy blog www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com . That was about my conclusion that the energy of sunlight, that is released by nuclear fusion, is actually the released energy from the orbitals of electrons that have been crunched into neutrons.
We could conclude that when information is added to matter, that is more than the natural information in that matter, something that is artificial or that "doesn't otherwise make sense" has to be created in order to make possible the additional permutations that are required to hold the information.
A neutron "does not make any sense" outside of the nucleus, and a free neutron will decay in an average of about ten minutes. But this is not true at all of the other components of the atom, the protons and electrons.
Liquids are a secondary state of matter. If there is matter in open space, it will exist as either a solid or a gas, and never as a liquid. Liquids come into being only when enough matter comes together by gravitational attraction, such as a planet. The existence of liquid requires a solid beneath it, and a gas applying pressure from above it.
But this additional state of matter is also additional information, just as the addition of neutrons to atoms increases the information by increasing the number of possible permutations. This shows that when matter is collected together by gravity, to form a planet, there is less information about the positions of all of the atoms in the consolidated form than there is when they were all floating in space with their own trajectories and velocities. But this information cannot just be lost and so shows up in some of the matter taking on the additional state of matter of liquid.
But then this reduction of information by consolidation must also apply when the sun crunches four hydrogen atoms into one helium atoms, and releases the leftover energy as sunlight. Each of the four hydrogen atoms had it's own trajectory and velocity, whereas the final helium atom has only one trajectory and velocity. This reduction in information goes into fusing the nuclei together into one. The Nuclear Force then takes over and converts some of the mass of the nucleons into binding energy, but they have to be thrust together first. There is no energy in the basic forces of the universe, such as the Nuclear Force, they can only act on what is.
Notice that two atoms with identical trajectories and velocities can never collide, and those which are most likely to collide are those with opposite trajectories. This is also a matter of information. Opposite trajectories together have the greatest total information, which we perceive as the greatest energy of collision, because energy and information is really the same thing.
11) MATTER AND ANTIMATTER ANNIHILATION IN TERMS OF INFORMATION
Here is one of those questions of the ages that we encounter periodically.
My cosmological theory has space as alternating negative and positive electric charges, and matter as concentrations of like charge held together by energy, so that there are charged particles such as negatively-charged electrons.
There are two varieties of matter, conventional matter and antimatter. The two are similar, except that the same electric charges are reversed, so that conventional matter has negatively-charged electrons in orbitals around a positively-charged nucleus. While antimatter has an atom of positively-charged positrons in orbitals around a negatively-charged nucleus.
If matter and antimatter are brought together, the two will mutually annihilate and release all of the energy that is holding their like charges together, against mutual repulsion, to form the matter which my cosmological theory has as concentrations of like charges. The energy holding like charges together to form matter, according to the mass-energy equivalence, is released in a great burst of energy and the electric charges that composed the matter go back to the alternating negative and positive charge pattern of empty space.
But if the space in the universe is composed of alternating opposite charges in a checkerboard pattern, then why can't oppositely-charged atoms also exist in an alternating checkerboard pattern?
It can easily be seen that the default shape for matter in the universe is a sphere. This means that if there is a significant amount of matter together, and no other factors present, the matter will shape itself by gravity into a sphere. This is why the earth, moon, sun and, other planets are all spherical in shape.
Science books will explain that the sphere is the default shape for matter because it has the lowest surface area per volume of all geometric shapes, and thus the lowest energy level. Since the universe always seeks the lowest energy level, the default shape for matter is a sphere. Put another way, the sphere is the most compact form because there is the least average distance from the center to each point in the mass, so that it requires the least energy to maintain.
A cube requires more information than does a sphere. Suppose that nuclei in atoms mutually repelled and attracted electrons, as they do now, but that electrons in adjacent atoms mutually attracted rather than repelled, while electrons within the same atom continued to mutually repel.
Atoms would have to be cubes, rather than spheres, because the mutually repelling nuclei would keep atoms intact and the nucleus would hold the electrons in orbit by mutual attraction, but the mutually attracting electrons in adjacent atoms would stay in contact as much as possible and this would mean a cube with each orbiting electron changing direction at a right angle at four points in each orbit. Atoms, as we have them, are spheres because electrons in orbit mutually repel and a sphere is the shape which has the least contact with adjacent spheres while cubes have the most contact.
Like atoms, whether matter or antimatter, have outer electrons that repel adjacent atoms because the outer electrons of both atoms have like charges. This is known as electron repulsion, and lowers the density of matter from what it would be otherwise. If atoms of matter could alternate with atoms of antimatter, adjacent atoms would attract, rather than repel, one another so we can presume that such mixed matter would be more dense than conventional matter.
Having adjacent atoms with their charges reversed, as matter and antimatter, would be a higher information state, and thus a higher energy state because energy and information is really the same thing. We know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state and so, even though this would reflect the pattern of alternating electric charges next to one another, it cannot be. The universe will seek a lower-energy state, and this is found by simply having matter and antimatter mutually annihilate when brought into contact.
A sphere is the shape with the lowest energy level but another way of looking at it is the shape with the least complexity, meaning that it requires the least information to construct. A cube is more complex in that it requires more information to construct than a sphere, and the change in the behavior of the electrons, as described above, represents the difference in information required to construct a cube, in comparison with a sphere.
This is why matter and antimatter will mutually annihilate when brought into contact. The universe is composed of alternating negative and positive electric charges and, since the information to construct the large-scale universe must come from the information in the most fundamental levels of the universe, there would seem to be no reason why alternating atoms with their electric charges reversed, matter and antimatter, should not exist next to one another.
But this would mean that the outer electrons of adjacent atoms would attract, rather than repel, one another, and this would mean that atoms would have to be shaped like cubes, rather than spheres. Since cubes involve more information than spheres, and energy and information is really the same thing, this means that cubic atoms would represent a higher energy state and, since the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, it cannot be.
The universe attains the lowest energy state by simply having matter and antimatter mutually annihilate one another when brought into contact.
Another way to express this is as surface area. A cube has more information than a sphere, and also has a greater surface area per volume. This additional surface area represents the additional information and, since energy and information is really the same thing, the additional surface area also represents additional energy in the cube. When smaller atoms are crunched together, by the nuclear fusion in stars, into larger atoms, the larger atom has less surface area than the smaller ones that produced it. This represents extra energy that has to go somewhere, and it is released as radiation into space. This is why stars shine.
The fact that the sphere is the default shape of matter in the universe also demonstrates that my cosmological theory of matter originating from a two-dimensional sheet of space, that disintegrated in one of it's two dimensions, in what we perceive as the Big Bang, to leave the one-dimensional strings of charged particles, such as electrons, that form matter as we know it.
The dimensions of space form right angles, which is why cubes and squares are the only shapes that fit together with no leftover space. So why doesn't matter, when brought together by gravity, also form right angles, as cubes? Instead, the default shape of stars and planets is as spheres.
It is because the form of matter is trying to conserve energy, seeking the lowest energy state. Matter comes from my two-dimensional sheet, yet is now scattered across three-dimensional space, excepting the dimension of space that we perceive as time. Since surface area is a reflection of energy, the form of matter does not have enough energy to adapt the form of the space around it. Instead, it seeks to conserve energy, as well as information, by adapting the form of a sphere even though that is an alien form to the shape of the space all around it.
12) INFORMATION, ENERGY AND, LIVING THINGS
I have been writing for quite some time about my conclusion that energy and information must really be the same thing. We cannot apply energy to anything without also adding information to it, and the only way to add information to anything is to apply energy to it. We can make our lives physically easier through technology, but only at the expense of making it more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and also less complex. This also represents the exchange of energy and information.
One of the fundamental principles of physics is that energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form. If information and energy are really the same thing, that can only mean that the same rule must also apply to information. We can thus conclude that information can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form.
Suppose that we go to a beach, at low tide, and write information in the sand. But then, at the coming of high tide, the information is washed away. Does this negate the rule that information must be impossible to create or destroy, but only change in form, because it is really the same thing as energy? Or suppose that a computer drive, with information encoded on it, is destroyed.
But these examples involve the encoding and relaying of information by human beings. The fact that information can clearly be both created and destroyed, when it should not be if it is indeed the same thing as energy and energy is the same thing as information, actually reveals how humans operate, with regard to information, in contrast with the inanimate universe around us.
Whatever we know, the information that we have in our brains, can only be a copy of the reality around us. If that information is apparently lost, the original information still remains so that no information is really lost. My rule is that repetition is not complexity, five identical cars do not hold five times as much information as one of the cars. If one of the cars is destroyed, the information is in no way lost. There is more information in five identical cars than in one of the cars, but the additional information is only in the number of cars and not in the internal complexity of any of the cars.
In the same way, if different species of living things are the result of mutations in DNA caused by environmental factors, and a species goes extinct, the information in it's biology has not been lost. If all life on earth was wiped out, the ways that we had altered the earth would remain, and the lost information could be reassembled from that. If there is a set of information, and lost parts of that information could be reassembled from pieces of it, then more such pieces would not be more information than fewer pieces.
As an analogy this means that a sudoku puzzle, a crossword puzzle that uses numbers rather than words, does not contain more information when it is completed than when it was started. This is because the information to fill in the blank spaces is already there, the user just has to figure it out. The user is not adding information by completing the puzzle, just digging out the information that is already there.
Humans have a certain level of complexity, the amount of information within, that is higher than that of our inanimate surroundings. Any technology that we use must have a complexity that is equal to our complexity, even if the technology seems simple to us. A cup may seem like a very simple example of technology. But to really understand the information that went into the cup it would be necessary to understand all of why humans have to drink water, and how we can look for and find and shape the clay or metal that was used to make the cup.
I refer to this as the external, as opposed to the internal, information in man-made technology. Examples of technology that are more complex than the cup, such as a car, have the same level of information overall, the level that is the same as the humans who created it. The car has more of it's inherent information actually within it, internal, while the cup requires us to look into the biology of why the human who made the cup would need it to drink water, this is the external information of the cup.
The same applies to a part of the body, such as a foot. A human foot would make no sense in itself, without being part of the body. The information of the entire body could be gleaned from the foot, the heart that pumps blood to it, the lungs that bring the oxygen into that blood, and the brain that must operate the foot. There is the same internal and external information that there is with any technology.
This also shows how living things have a higher level of information in them than the surrounding universe of inanimate matter, despite being composed of the same kinds of atoms as that inanimate matter. As with the example of the human foot, living things have what I refer to as "alphabetization". This means that there can be such a thing as a human foot, which makes no sense by itself but only as part of the whole body. There is no such alphabetization, so called because a letter of the alphabet makes no sense unless it could be used to build a word, in the universe of inanimate matter.
An electron, for example, "makes sense" whether it is part of an atom or not. The only component of inanimate matter that I can think of that does not "make sense" unless it is part of a larger whole is a neutron, which breaks down into a proton and a neutron in an average of about ten minutes if it is not part of an atom.
The fact that information associated with living things can seemingly be lost, apparently violating the principle that information is really the same thing as the energy that can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form, shows us the nature of life and how it handles information differently than does inanimate matter.
In inanimate matter, any information that is "erased" by interactions between matter or radiation, must be replaced by an equivalent amount of information. This is the same as saying that "energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form". If, for example, two stars should collide and destroy one another, the amount of information before and after the collision would have to remain unchanged.
This makes it clear that the information imposed on reality by living things is completely separate, and operates by different rules, from the information that is otherwise in that reality. This, in turn, shows that living things could not have arisen from inanimate matter because the nature of the information in the two is different. The conclusion is that living things must have been created by God.
Living things have both the information sets of life and also that of the atoms of inanimate matter of which they are composed. Humans use encoded information, such as words and numbers, that are not the actual information that is in the thing that is being described. The universe of inanimate matter has no such process of encoding information, the only information is the actual information that is equivalent to energy. Humans can express information without expenditure of the matching energy, but that is only because we can use encoded information, which is a representation of reality and not the actual reality.
13) WHY WE CANNOT READILY EXPRESS COMPLEXITY WITH NUMBERS
We use our number system to represent and describe reality, and usually it works very well. But have you ever wondered if there may be some aspects of the reality around us that we miss because they somehow fall "outside" our number system?
If nothing else that humans do is perfect, then why should we expect our number system to be perfect? I have concluded that the measurement of complexity with numbers, the potential value of which I have written about extensively, is one of the things that we are missing because it falls outside the number system.
My doctrine is that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot apply energy to something without also adding information to it. We cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it. A sphere is the default form of matter brought together by gravity in the universe, such as stars and planets. This is because a sphere is not only the form with the lowest energy state, with the average point within it as close as possible to the gravitational center, but a sphere is also the three-dimensional form requiring the least information to construct.
It may sometimes seem that energy and information is not really the same thing. A sphere is the dominant form of matter in the universe because it is the shape with the lowest energy state, with the average point being the closest to the gravitational center. The further from the center of a gravitational field matter is, the higher the energy it has contained within it. Remember that, in orbit, the orbital energy is proportional to the space enclosed within the orbit, which represents the potential kinetic energy of position.
We can also see how a sphere or circle is the shape of lowest energy state because it requires the least information to set up what we could call a proportion curve representing any seeking of a lower energy state. Suppose that an object is in free-fall. It's acceleration will be a constant 32 feet (9.8 meters) per second every second. The distance that the object has fallen, within each second of fall or in the total time of fall, can be expressed as a curve outside of a circle where the distance of fall per second continuously increases at a regular rate. If we inscribe a circle inside of a square, this curve will take the form of the four remaining areas that are outside the circle but inside the square.
Another example of this curve being manifested anywhere that the lowest energy state is being sought, in the same way as the spherical surface of a star or planet, is in cooling. A hot object placed in a cooler environment will lose heat at a rate according to the proportion of difference in temperature with the surroundings. At first, the temperature difference with the surroundings is at it's greatest so that heat loss is at it's most rapid. As the object gradually cools, the relative temperature difference with the surroundings decreases and the rate of heat loss slows. This forms a similar curve, but in the opposite direction than the falling object.
In both of these examples, we can see how a seeking of a lower energy state by nature by having the object fall to the ground or the temperature difference between the object and it's surroundings equalize, forms a circular shape on a chart in the same way as the curving spherical surface of a planet or star. The rate of change in temperature decreases, or the rate of free-fall increases, in the form of an arc of a circle because this form requires the least information, and there is no other information available to make it otherwise. The sphere or circle is the form of the lowest energy state because it is also the form with the least information enclosed, because energy and information is actually the same thing.
But if information is equivalent to energy, then why can we manufacture two rectangular bricks or blocks with the same number of bits of information? Either block, whether stout or elongated, could be described just as well as the other with the same number of bits of information, length, width and, height. If the two blocks were naturally-formed asteroids in space, the elongated block would have to be of higher energy, and thus of higher information if energy and information are indeed the same thing, because it's average point would be further from the gravitational center.
The solution to this apparent discrepancy is that we are of a higher level of complexity relative to our inanimate surroundings, and we can impose our own complexity to some extent on our surroundings. The apparent equality of information in a rectangular block that is more elongated than another block, yet requires the same number of pieces of information to describe or construct, is really a reflection of our own higher level of complexity being imposed on our surroundings.
In nature, it takes proportionally more information to create a straight line of matter, because the arrangement of a straight line of matter requires information relative to an otherwise random arrangement. But this is not the case when humans manufacture something by imposing our complexity on our surroundings. There is only a relatively slight difference in the information required to manufacture a more elongated block because higher numbers are required, but this is because it is relative to our much higher level of complexity relative to our surroundings.
If the two blocks were naturally formed asteroids, there could be no way that the more elongated one would not contain both more energy and more information, because energy and information is really the same thing. This would have to be because the average point in the more elongated asteroid would be further from the center, meaning that it would have more potential kinetic energy of position and would take more information to construct, because energy and information must really be the same thing.
In our numbering system, every number is really equal in complexity to every other number. Some numbers are higher than others, but to understand any number, it is necessary to understand the entire system. This is because our number system is of our own definition and reflects us imposing our own complexity on our surrounding environment.
But reality does not operate entirely by our number system. In reality, higher numbers really are more complex than lower numbers. This is true in terms of construction, if not description, of some arrangement of matter.
Consider a straight line. In our way of describing length with numbers, it takes no more information to describe a long line than it does a short line. It requires more digits to express higher numbers, but that is only because we have chosen to use a base-ten number system.
But in reality, a long line does contain more information than a short line because more atoms must be lined up to form the long line and that means more information relative to the otherwise random arrangement of atoms that would result. Any larger collection of matter that contains some information must obviously have more information than an equivalent smaller collection of matter.
This explains why we miss the quantification of complexity, the expressing of complexity with numbers, even though it would be extremely useful to us. The measurement of complexity falls outside our number system and so, even though complexity is a very important concept to us, we tend to express it in words rather than numbers. We refer to complexity with terms such as "more complex than" or "much less complex than".
If we could see reality without ourselves, we could express complexity as numbers representing the information necessary to bring about any given permutation of atoms and events. But we are of a higher level of complexity, relative to our inanimate surroundings, and we impose our level of complexity on our surroundings in the number system that we have developed as well as when we reshape that environment through technology. This effectively blinds us from expressing complexity in terms of numbers, even though this would be extremely useful.
14) THE QUANTIFICATION OF COMPLEXITY
IT WOULD BE VERY USEFUL IF WE COULD EXPRESS COMPLEXITY AS A NUMBER
When we describe the complexity of something, we use general subjective terms, such as "less complex than", "just as complex as" or, "much more complex than". For quite some time, I have been thinking how useful it would be to be able to quantify complexity, that means to express it in terms of actual numbers.
Complexity is simply the amount of information in something. If my doctrine that energy and information is really the same thing, because we cannot apply energy to something without adding information to it, and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it, and we can readily quantify energy, is correct, then there must be a way of acquiring what would be the extremely useful ability to quantify complexity.
I notice that there is a way to go about doing it, so that complexity can be described as actual numbers instead of in vague and subjective terms. There are several steps that we must take to get to thinking of complexity in terms of numbers.
The first thing that we must do is to forget about the units of measure that we use. Units such as kilometers, liters, miles, minutes, grams, and so on, are our own artificial units and we have to get them out of the way if we are going to quantify the innate complexity in the world and universe around us. There are no units of complexity, which is expressed as a dimensionless number.
The next thing that we must do is to forget about decimals. Our system of decimals, and of counting by tens, is also of our own artificial creation, because we have ten fingers. It will only hinder us in seeing how we can quantify complexity.
The key to quantifying complexity is actually fractions. We prefer decimals to fractions, because decimals are easier to handle and to calculate with because we cannot add or subtract fractions without finding a common denominator, but fractions are how information really works. Everything in the world of complexity is ratios, or fractions. There are no whole numbers here either, because a number by itself, with no unit or definition or context, means nothing.
14b) REVIEW OF FRACTIONS
Let's review the basics of fractions. The top number is the numerator, the bottom number the denominator. The quantity expressed is the numerator relative to the denominator. 1/2 means one of of two, which is twice as much as 1/4 or one out of four. What counts in fractions is the proportion or ratio of the numerator relative to the denominator which means that different fractions can mean the same thing. 3/6 is the same as 1/2, for example. This means that fractions can be reduced for convenience to their lowest possible numbers.
Fractions are multiplied straight across, numerators and denominators. 1/2 x 1/4 = 1/8 because 1 x 1 = 1 and 2 x 4 = 8. To divide fractions, the one being divided by must be inverted and than multiply the two since division is the inverse of multiplication. 1/2 divided by 1/4 = 2 because it is the same as multiplying 1/2 x 4/1 = 4/2 or 2.
The difficult operation with fractions is adding or subtracting because it requires changing the fractions to a common denominator. It is not possible to add or subtract fractions with different denominators. To add 1/2 + 1/3, we might convert both to a convenient common denominator like 6, which is 2 x 3. 1/2 would be the same as 3/6 while 1/3 would be the same as 2/6. So, 3/6 + 2/6 = 5/6, which cannot be reduced.
Even though fractions underlie virtually all mathematics, it is this requirement for a common denominator to add or subtract which makes them somewhat difficult to use. The result is that so much of the mathematical system that we use has been constructed to disguise the importance of fractions, and to get around using them and by doing so we also cover up much that we may more readily notice about the nature of the reality around us.
14c) THE DENOMINATOR IS THE MEASURE OF COMPLEXITY
Let's consider the complexity of numbers. A large number is not more complex than a smaller number. All whole numbers are of equal complexity, simply because they are all part of the same number system. Every number has a complexity of 1, which is the lowest possible level of complexity. Remember that complexity is expressed as dimensionless numbers.
Here is my definition of complexity that can be quantified: When a quantity of information, or something that contains information, can be expressed as a fraction, which is a ratio, the level of complexity is the value of the denominator of the fraction. This is why fractions are so useful, and is the way that the universe really works.
All whole numbers are equal in complexity because 26 is really 26 / 1 and 54 is really 54 / 1. A larger and smaller whole number both have the same denominator, which is the definition of complexity. A number by itself essentially means nothing
1 / 6 has a complexity of 6 because there are six places where the one could have been.
The ratios, or fractions, that are the definition of complexity, begin with the fundamental electric charges which I believe comprise everything in the universe. There are two electric charges, negative and positive, the ratio of these charges is 1 / 1. This sets the pattern for everything in the universe to be a ratio.
Energy in the universe which, of course, is the same thing as information makes it possible for there to be ratios of other than this 1 / 1. This means more information, and the value of whatever the denominator is the complexity, or amount, of this information.
Complexity becomes quantifiable, which is what we are seeking, only when there are ratios. It is only the relationship between two numbers that is meaningful because a number by itself, with no context or definition, is meaningless. When considering 3 / 10, the number that we have to deal with is not 3 but 10.
Complexity means: What is / What could have been with an equivalent amount of information, and the denominator is the definition of the complexity.
If we are dealing with pixels, or bits of information on a computer drive, the state of least complexity is if all bits are in an identical state. The state of second-least complexity is when there is an alternating pattern of opposite bits. From there, we have to add as fractions the number of like bits in a row throughout the total set of information. This would be done as, for example, 1 / 2 + 1 / 4 + 1 / 3 + 1 / 1, and so on. The denominator of our total sum would be the complexity level of the bits on the drive.
The more predictable the pattern, the lower the fraction and the less the complexity. We may have large numbers in a ratio, such as 100 / 200, but if the pattern of the information is as predictable as possible it would be reduced to 1 / 2.
But this means that, when dealing with complexity, just because two arrangements of bits, or two of anything else, have the same complexity, that does not mean that they are the same thing.
When dealing with an object at a distance, there is the ratio of the size of the object to the distance. There is more information in a small object than in a large object at the same distance. This is because there are more "places" in the distance that the small object could be located. If we are traveling a distance, the two complexity factors are the distance and either our size scale or the size of the vehicle in which we will be traveling.
With fractions or ratios, we can only add or subtract when we have the same denominator. This is because the denominator represents complexity, and we cannot add with different levels of complexity. We must first find the lowest common denominator by multiplying the denominators. This means that 1 / 4 + 4 / 5 would have to be changed to 5 / 20 + 16 / 20, only then could we add or subtract.
The reason that we cannot add different levels of complexity is that having two levels means more information than one level. Before we can add, each member of the numerators must also relate to each member of the opposite denominator, only then could they be added together. But the complexity would thus be much higher, 20 instead of 4 or 5, in the above example.
14d) FRACTIONS UNDERLIE THE UNIVERSE
Fractions, which are usually presented as a mere branch of basic arithmetic, actually underlie virtually all of mathematics. All real numbers must necessarily be fractions simply because a number expressed by itself is essentially meaningless. Fractions utilize two numbers to relate what is to what is not, and it is this which makes numbers useful.
Fractions are a direct representation of that all-pervading pattern which I referred to on the patterns and complexity blog as "The One And The Many". The numerator is the one, the denominator is the many. All that we express and define comes down to one/many. A word or a name differentiates something from all else that it is not, so that the word or name is the numerator and all else the denominator.
Addresses can be considered as multiple fractions, or compound fractions. An address of 116 Elm Street is really expressing 116/ Elm Street / All streets other than Elm Street. Such a way of addressing actually is used in many computer database systems.
Any kind of comparison is actually a fraction, even if no actual number is used. A fraction uses two numbers to express some proportion or ratio. The formation of molecules from atoms involves a fractional proportion. For a simple example, in the formation of water molecules from hydrogen and oxygen atoms the proportion of hydrogen atoms to oxygen atoms is always 2/1. But expressed by mass, with the molecular mass of water being 18, the proportion of hydrogen to oxygen is 2/18 because hydrogen is the lightest element.
What we do is to try to impose organization on the world around us by establishing common denominators, to avoid the potential messiness of fractions. What does an angle of 30 degrees mean, for example? We have chosen a nice, round easily divisible number to represent a complete circle so that any angle is a numerator with 360 degrees as the denominator. 30 degrees is thus 30/360 or 1/12 of a complete circle. Even though an angle expressed in degrees does not look like a fraction, it most definitely is. Time of day is based on the 12 or 24 hour clock as the denominator, with the given hour as the numerator.
What about the common trigonometric functions? If we have a horizontal line we refer to as the X-axis, and adjoining vertical line we refer to as the Y-axis, and an angle somewhere in between radiating from the intersection of the X- and Y-axis, and referred to as the radius, or R, this gives us three basic trigonometric functions which are widely used. The sine is defined as Y/R, the cosine as X/R and the tangent as Y/X. There are also three inverse functions; secant, cosecant and, cotangent.
Do you notice that, while we do not usually consider the trigonometric functions as fractions, that is exactly what they are. All are ratios of the X-axis, the Y-axis and the radius. It is just that it is easier for us to express the trigonometric functions the way we do, but this only disguises how much the world around us operates by fractions.
Anything expressed in the form of a graph is actually a fraction with the horixontal X-axis being one part of the fraction and the vertical Y-axis the other part. Which one is the numerator and which is the denominator depends on how the given point on the graph is expressed. Since calculus revolves around such graphs it is also just a different way of expressing fractions.
We so often express ratios as percentages. But a percentage is nothing more than a fraction with an agreed-upon common denominator of 100.
The greatest way in which we conceal fractions is by expressing them as decimals. A rational number, like 6.25, is actually a fraction but we are heavily biased toward the number ten because of our fingers and so we enforce this as a common denominator. A rational number means one that is a ratio, in other words a fraction. This may be easier to use than fractions, but fractions represent the way things really operate and we can only imagine the facts and relationships which we might have noticed by now if we had used pure fractions.
I find that fractions are directly related to complexity in the extent to which a fraction can be reduced to it's lowest numbers. Something that can be expressed as 1/3 is simple. 187/561 is about the same thing as 1/3, but if the numbers cannot be reduced further than it must be more complex than something that can be expressed as 1/3. In fact, the complexity with which we are dealing must be directly proportional to the lowest possible denominator of the fraction.
A higher number, or a higher numerator in a fraction, does not mean higher complexity. But a higher denominator, which cannot be reduced, does mean higher complexity. Something expressed as 187/561 must be 561/3 times as complex as something which can be expressed as 1/3.
Complexity is so fundamental to us and I had a feeling that there must be some ready way to express it with numbers. It turns out that the way to do this is to realize how fractions underlie our system of mathematics, and the way to express complexity lies in something as simple and basic as fractions. The denominator is the level of complexity.
15) THE INFORMATION IN HARMONIC MOTION
Harmonic motion means a regular and cyclical motion, such as that of a pendulum or wave. I think that my theory of what information is, which includes the fact that energy and information is really the same thing, offers the best explanation of what harmonic motion actually is.
Suppose that a ball is suspended from a string, so that it can act as a pendulum. Now suppose that we pull the ball sideways, and then let it go. By the simple laws of physics, the ball should obey the law of gravity and drop back down to the lowest position, with the string supporting it making a vertical line.
But, of course, it doesn't. The ball goes back to the original, lowest position, but it does not stop there. It continues past the lowest point, in the opposite direction. However, the ball then seems to "realize" that it has gone too far and then reverses direction, back toward the original lowest position. Once again, it goes too far and continues in the other direction, until the ball reverses direction and starts the cycle again.
This is best explained in terms of information. The ball cannot just get back to the original vertical position, as the law of gravity would seem to dictate that it should, because there is an "information mismatch". The original vertical position of the ball contained only one dimension of information, while we added another dimension of information when we pulled the ball from the side.
There is more information in the motion of the ball, two dimensions when there was formerly only one, and the ball cannot just stop in the lowest position because that would be two dimensions of information trying to squeeze into one. To accomplish this, information would have to be lost and that cannot be done. The motion of the ball continues in the opposite direction past the original vertical position because it must "double" the original information in it by going an equal distance in the opposite direction, because there are now two dimensions of information rather than only the original one.
There is also more energy in the ball with the two dimensions of information. Formerly, there was the potential energy of position, because the ball was suspended above the ground, but now there is also the sideways pendulum motion. This should not be surprising because remember that energy and information is really the same thing, we cannot apply energy to something without also adding information to it and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it. There is already the well-known mass-energy equivalence, that a given amount of mass contains a certain amount of equivalent energy. My theory is adding that information and energy is also the same thing.
Another way of looking at the equivalence of energy and information is that we can make our lives physically easier, by use of technology, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and also less complex.
Another way of looking at the information in the swing of a pendulum is a comparison with paint brushes. Suppose that the walls in a room are being painted with a broad brush, to get the job done faster. Now suppose that there is an artist in the room, working on a painting with narrow brushes. More information can be conveyed with the fine narrow brushes, than with the broad brush, but it takes more work to do it, because energy, which is expended doing work, and information is the same thing.
The swing of the suspended ball is like the broad brush that cannot just neatly go back to the same original vertical position where it was formerly located, before being pulled to the side, because there is now more information, with the fine positioning of the original vertical position being represented by the narrow paint brushes. The unit of information here is the dimension, and there is now two when there was formerly only one.
Exactly the same sequence of events, but more difficult for us to visualize, takes place with electromagnetic waves. My cosmology theory has empty space as being composed of alternating negative and positive electric charges, in multiple dimensions. When energy is applied to this empty space, it initially goes to overcome the repulsion between like electric charges, the basic rules of electric charges being that opposite charges attract while like charges repel.
But this concentration of charge, whether negative or positive, displaces the pattern of alternating electric charges around it. The addition of this concentration of charge causes the like charges of empty space to displace away, and the opposite charges to displace toward. As with the example of the suspended ball, this results in a mismatch of information, because the added concentration of charge is energy (according to the mass-energy equivalence), and thus information because energy and information is the same thing.
The displacement goes beyond where the new point of equilibrium would have been, but then "realizes" it has gone too far and turns back, only to again go too far, and so on. This is what produces an electromagnetic wave, and it is caused by the same mismatch of information, two dimensions of information trying to fit into one. It cannot be done because that would mean that information would be lost. So, the wave has to exist.
The same process also happens with water waves. Gravity creates a smooth surface on the water by pulling straight down. But the addition of information (energy) from the side, introduces a second dimension of information, and so brings about a higher information, which we could also see as energy, state. To accommodate this, the wave has to exist.
So much becomes apparent if we learn to see the universe in terms of the information that it is.
16) ELECTROMAGNETISM IN TERMS OF INFORMATION
If I had explain the universe in very simple terms, the explanation would be easy. "The universe consists of two electric charges, negative and positive, opposite charges attract and like charges repel, and all else about the universe is mere details".
I would like to explain the behavior of electromagnetism in terms of information. This is part of my information theory, "The Theory Of Complexity", which is about what information is and how energy and information are really the same thing. It is not the same theory as the one about the flow of energy through the universe.
It requires some kind of entity to hold information. Information cannot just exist by itself. In our universe, space consists of alternating negative and positive electric charges, in accordance with the fact that opposite charges attract and like charges repel. This empty space is what we could define as the "zero state" or starting point of information. It has the potential to hold information, but has no information itself while in this "zero state".
Energy and information is really the same thing because we cannot apply energy to anything without also adding information to it, and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it. Another way of looking at it is our use of technology. We can, through technology, make our lives physically easier, but only at the expense of making life more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier, and also less complex.
I see information, and thus energy, as being closely related to the surface area of an object. An object contains the least information when it has the lowest surface area. We say that planets and stars take the form of a sphere because that is the geometric form with the lowest energy state, which means the lowest information state, and we know that it is the form with the least surface area per volume. It requires less information to describe a sphere than any other geometric form. The only possible way that we could add any information to such a form is to increase it's surface area, by some application of energy to it.
Since the rules of electric charges form the most fundamental level of reality in the universe, energy must start by somehow opposing the rules of the electric charges that comprise space. These rules are simply that opposite charges attract while like charges repel. When energy is applied to empty space, according to my cosmology theory, it overcomes the repulsion between like charges. This creates what I define as matter. Empty space is alternating negative and positive electric charges, matter is any concentration of like charges that are held together by energy.
This is why we have the Mass-Energy Equivalence as one of the fundamental principles of the universe. A given amount of mass is equivalent to a certain amount of energy. In nuclear processes, some mass is converted directly into energy.
Energy can also overcome the attractive force between opposite charges. When this happens, we get electromagnetic radiation. The overcoming of the repulsion of like charges must come first because the creation of radiation by the overcoming of opposite charges requires some definition of distance for the wavelength and the amplitude, and the only way to define that distance is the creation of matter first.
But if the alternating electric charges of space are the "zero state" of information, as well as energy, that means that the more space we have, the greater the potential for information. This means that distance is actually the fundamental unit of information. Just as on a computer drive, 101010101010 has more potential to hold information than 1010. With the 1 and 0 being, of course, the alternating negative and positive charges of space.
Just as we have to define some starting point to express distance, we have to have a starting point for information. There actually is tension between the alternating electric charges of space, but we can use just the charges themselves as our starting point here.
Also my definition of the complexity of a number, meaning the information in it, is the value of the denominator when expressed as a ratio or fraction. 9 is not more complex than 4 because they are really 9 / 1 and 4 / 1. Suppose that no other information is considered, other than the orbit of the moon around the earth. The only thing that we have in order to compare information is the ratio of the orbital distance to the diameters. The diameter of the moon is about 1 / 120 of the distance to the moon.
If the moon were closer to the earth, this denominator would be lower. This means that a closer orbit contains less information, and information and energy is really the same thing. Sure enough, we know that a higher orbit is also a higher energy orbit. If we give a satellite three times the orbital energy, for example, we know that it will then orbit at nine times the distance, but will move at only one-third the speed.
Now, let's consider magnetism.
When a material can be magnetized, it means that the orbitals of the unpaired electrons in it's atoms can be lined up by force. Most electrons in atoms exist in pairs, with opposite spin, but there are some that are unpaired. Electrons are particles of matter, with a negative electric charge because they are actually concentrations of like negative charges that are held together by energy, as described above. Each piece of magnetic material has two poles, one in which the orbitals are aligned and the opposite direction. Because magnets have been used for so long in compasses to determine direction, the poles of a magnet are referred to as north and south, instead of negative and positive.
The reason that opposite poles of a magnet attract is that when we bring two opposite poles close together, we are moving back toward the "zero state" of the universe, with empty space composed of alternating opposite negative and positive charges. This is a lower information state and, since information is the fundamental unit of distance, this means less distance, and the magnets pull each other together in order to create a state of less distance. We see this as opposite poles attracting.
The reason that the like poles of two magnets would repel one another is that the first thing that energy does, if applied to empty space, is to overcome the repulsion between like charges. This must then represent a higher energy state and, since energy and information is really the same thing, also a higher information state. Since distance is the fundamental unit of energy, this means that two like poles of a magnet in close proximity represent a higher distance, which is a higher information, state. To bring about this greater distance state, the two like poles of the magnets push away from one another.
A concentration of like electric charge, whether positive or negative, is both energy and information, because the two are the same thing. If we have two concentrations of like charge, one positive and one negative, we can access the energy, or the information, as an electric current. We can either use the force of the current as energy, or we can encode the current to convey information.
It should not surprise us that we can easily use an electric current either for it's power, or to convey information in communication devices. That is because, once again, energy and information is really the same thing.
17) HOW REAL ARE WE?
We exist, or you wouldn't be reading this, but have you ever wondered what level of reality we really exist at? Just how "real" are we?
Remember one of the principles of my cosmology theory, that we see the universe as we do not only because of what it is but also because of what we are. An example of this is color, we see different colors because it is how our eyes and brains process different wavelengths of light but, other than this, color does not exist. Another example is time, in my cosmology theory time exists only within us. Our consciousnesses move along the bundles of strings which compose our bodies and brains in the fourth dimension of the space over which the matter from the Big Bang is scattered. This is why we can move in three dimensions of space but perceive the other as time.
We are information that can process other information. We are able to "represent" information, while inanimate matter can't. Everything can be described in terms of numbers, which is information, but with inanimate matter the only information is the matter itself.
We represent the reality around us first, by creating a model of that reality in our minds. We are able to further model or represent reality by such methods as language, drawing and, writing. More recently, we have gained the ability to represent or create a model of reality with photography and then electronic communications, and then computer technology. Another way that we create a model of the reality around us is money It represents thinks that we value, although it has little or no intrinsic value in itself.
Of course the universe seems real to us because it is made of the same information that we are, the only difference being that we are able to create models of reality for ourselves, which contain much less energy than the usual equivalence of information and energy, but just how real is it?
Modeling or representing the information in the universe means that we can transform the information into a form, with much less actual energy relative to the information contained, that is easy for us to deal with. In the universe of inanimate matter, the amount of information or energy is fixed. But we can model or represent it by storing the information as much less energy than it would take with inanimate matter. We can describe an object, by such modeling as language or mathematics, without all of the energy that is within it as per the mass-energy equivalence.
A painting, for example, can be a model of reality but is actually two steps away from the reality around us. First is the reality itself, then the model of that reality in our minds, then the expression of that reality in the painting.
But suppose that one part of the painting could interact with another part. How would the part of the painting that could interact with the other part, by way of processing information, see the part of the painting that it was interacting with? It would have to see the part of the painting that it was interacting with as "real" because the part that was being interacted with would be made of the same level of information as the part that was interacting with it.
Beings that could interact with other information would always see the information that it was interacting with as "real" because, to have such an interaction, the two would have to be on the same level. A being that could interact with the information around it would have to be able to access at least one other level of reality, the representations and models of reality as described above, because it would have to hold some "model" of reality, such as we do with our minds, in order to be able to interact with it.
But if there were higher levels of reality, above ours, we could not interact with those as we do with the information that is at our own level. We are information, like the universe around us, and, if seen from some higher level of reality, would seem like some kind of equation. We express the operation of the universe around us with mathematics, and a drawing is actually a mathematical model of something that uses distance instead of numbers in expression.
Since everything around us, and including us, can be seen to be ultimately numbers, that means that our level of reality is just an equation. We have to see distance because distance is numerical information. We cannot see distance solely as numerical information because we are at the same level of information so, we have to see it as distance. We could only see the reality of the universe around us as an equation if we were "looking down" at it from a higher level of information, which we are not.
So this is what happens when an interaction takes place between two entities at the same informational level. What is actually numerical information seems like distance. We are at the same informational level as the universe around us, and that is why we perceive distance. The only "lower" levels that we can interact with are the representative models that we create, such as language and writing and drawing. This is how we can express something without distance, with writing or mathematics, but only at those lower representative levels. At our usual level of informational reality, we can only see numerical information as distance.
If you are walking or driving to a destination up ahead, the distance to it is really only information. You see it as distance because you have to expend energy to get there. But we have seen that energy is the same thing as information also. All is information but we have to see the information that is at the same level as the information that we are, which means which we have not represented by numbers or other means, as energy or distance.
If you come up to a wall, and can go no further the wall is real to you, rather than merely a mathematical equation, only because it is made of the same level of information that you are.
The entire universe, both space and matter, are composed of negative and positive electric charges. If I were to define the universe in one sentence, I would say "The universe is negative and positive electric charges, opposite charges attract and like charges repel, and everything else is mere details". But these electric charges are just bits of information, and everything is composed of this information.
One of the realizations that I have had is that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it, and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it. Therefore, the two must be the same thing.
Through technology, we can make our lives physically easier, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make our lives both physically easier and also less complex. Since complexity is the amount of information, this shows that energy and information is really the same thing, because one can be transformed into the other.
But if energy and information is really the same thing, then why do we see them as separate? It must tell us something about our perspective on the universe to answer that question. We can create representative models of the universe around us, first in our minds and then through language, writing and drawing, and then through electronic communications and computer technology.
When we model the universe, we see that as information. When we deal more directly with the universe, we see that as energy. It is due to our perspective within the universe, as part of it, that we see energy and information as different when they are really the same thing. When information deals with information that is a model of reality, it will see it as information but when it deals directly with the reality, it will see it as energy.
Information cannot see other information at it's same level as information, it has to see it as energy. But energy cannot just exist as itself, it has to overcome something. What energy overcomes is distance. But since energy is really information, actually just numbers since everything ultimately comes down to numbers, then distance must be just numbers also.
Information can always be expressed as mathematics, and this means that energy and the distance that it overcomes must be just information also. We see the universe as vast distances between galaxies but what it really is, at a higher level, is a mathematical equation. We are part of the equation and so we have to see energy and distance, because we cannot see the equation from outside.
If you see a mathematical equation, as simple as A = B, you see it as information. But if you could actually "step into" the equation, so that the information that you are was on the same level as the information in the equation, it would seem like one side of the equation was energy and the other side was distance. The entire universe is really information but we, because of our perspective as part of the universe, see it as either energy or distance.
We can see an example of energy and distance in opposition to one another, but yet interchangeable, in how a higher orbit contains more energy than a lower orbit. If a spacecraft is in orbit and we give it three times the orbital energy, it will move to a distance in which it orbits at nine times the previous distance but, due to the Inverse Square Law, at only one-third the speed.
Energy, or information which is the same thing, increases the distance over which the negative and positive charges which comprise the universe must balance out. The number one rule of the universe is that negative and positive electric charges must always be exactly equal. But energy, or information, added increases the distance over which the charges must balance out.
The lowest possible energy or information state is empty space, which is alternating negative and positive electric charges like a checkerboard but in multiple dimensions. Any breaking of this pattern, which will bring about a concentration of like charges, will create matter. An atom is the "zero-state" of matter, as the electric charges balance out to zero. The charges still have to exactly balance out, as they do in empty space, but the distance over which they have to balance out is increased.
This shows that, since energy and information is the same thing, distance and information must be the same thing and since energy can move things to overcome distance, distance and energy must also be different forms of the same thing.
We can clearly see that distance is the same thing as energy, which is the same thing as information, by the fact that we can use a lever, which is a simple machine, to exchange distance for force, which is energy. If the two can be exchanged then they must be different forms of the same thing. The reason that they are different forms of the same thing is due to our perspective. We observe and interact with the universe, but we are really made of the same information that it is, that is why we see information, energy and, distance as being separate, when all is really information.
18) COMPLEXITY AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LONG-TERM AND SHORT-TERM
Complexity in a society affects time, as well as distance, but the effect is different. Complexity does not extend time, as it does distance, but it brings about more potential difference over a given span of time. This appears to us not only as the rate of change in society, but also in the potential difference between short-term and long-term. This is, again, governed by the Inverse square Law.
Things appear different over the long term as opposed to the short term. Good or bad events may not seem as good as bad over the long term. An event seems more black and white in the short term, but nuances tend to show up over the long term. Sometimes, when you get what you want in the short term it turns out to be the worst thing in the long term, and vice versa. Just as with increasing distance, this is akin to the widening sphere in space defined by increasing distance from a given point, and governed by the Inverse Square Law.
In brief, we can undergo short term hardship in return for long term gains, but short term ease or enjoyment may bring long term perils.
The rule that I have noticed is this: The more complex a being is, or the more complex life is made for that being, the more potential difference there will be between the long-term and the short-term.
A simpler animal does not have as much potential difference between long-term and short term. Any conscious being, that would be more complex than their surrounding environment, would have to have some potential difference between the long term and the short term.
Remember my doctrine that we can make life physically easier by way of technology, but only at the expense of making it more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and less complex. When we make life more complex, in order to make it physically easier, one consequence is that there must then be a greater potential difference between the long term and the short term.
We have seen that a difference in complexity of a living being with it's surroundings brings about truth possibilities. It is necessary to resolve truth possibility to bring about the higher complexity. But the difference in complexity must then show up as a potential difference between long term and short term. Animals cannot imagine as much that might not be true. This shows up as a potential difference difference between the short term and the long term.
Prehistoric people would not have anywhere near as much potential difference between long term and short term as we do today. In my observation, the very definition of our age is that we have reached the point where we can change the world faster than we can adapt to the changes that we have made in the world.
The mass-manufacturing of food brings the ability of processing unhealthy foods. Our development, and widespread use if, internal combustion engines leads us to build suburbs which require cars and brings the peril of global warming. Worldwide product distribution and electronic communication systems certainly make life easier but are vulnerable to solar storms or other catastrophes. Ultrasound technology brings the possibility of selective abortion of females, in some societies, and the resulting imbalance. A simple illustration of the potential difference between short-term and long-term is our ever-increasing ability to build weapons that can destroy us. Another simple illustration is the pollution and potential environmental destruction that development brings.
Technology and knowledge makes us higher in complexity relative to our inanimate surroundings. This makes it physically easier for us, but also gives us further to fall relative to inanimate surroundings. Think of it as the sphere of increased size, as governed by the Inverse Square Law.
A living body is more complex than it's inanimate surroundings, and thus has the possibility of being broken down or falling down to that level. This is what happens when a person dies, or takes a step in that direction by being ill or injured. Human society as a whole, if life is made easier by technology, must have a similar vulnerability to being broken down. This shows as the potential difference between short-term and long-term.
The ultimate way that the potential difference between short-term and long-term shows up in complex modern society is the effect of a cataclysm. People used to technology and living in cities will be less likely to have the skills to survive off the land if that civilization should be suddenly removed by some cataclysm, such as an asteroid impact or solar storm or nuclear holocaust. Artificial ease, with the price of complexity that can suddenly be removed by being broken back down to the inanimate level, is the potential risk that we take regarding the difference between short-term and long-term.
Think of progress as appearing as a straight line. But, according to this all-encompassing Inverse Square Law, it means a much greater surface area of the resulting sphere defined by distance from the starting point along the line of progress of things and potential consequences that must be taken into account.
19) ROWS OF THE PERIODIC TABLE
The nature of atoms in the Periodic Table of the Elements provides an excellent illustration of the principles explained in "The Lowest Information Point", on this blog, and this posting has also been added to it.
The Periodic Table of the Elements resembles a calendar. The elements are arranged by atomic number, which is the number of protons in the nucleus. Ordinarily, an atom will have the same number of electrons as protons, so that the overall electric charge of the atom is zero.
Just as each successive day in a month has a date that is one number higher than the one before, the periodic table starts with hydrogen, which is the lightest atom with one proton and one electron, and proceeds to successively heavier atoms. Columns are the vertical lines of the periodic table, and rows are the horizontal lines. Each successive element in a row has an atomic number that is one greater than the one before it.
Just as the columns on a calendar have a line of days that are the same day of the week, from Saturday to Friday, columns on the periodic table are of elements that have the same number of electrons in the outer electron shell. The maximum number of electrons in the outer shell of an atom is eight, if it has more than that it will start another shell.
Each electron shell, of any atom, from the lowest to the highest shell, can hold only up to a given number of electrons. The first electron shell, the one closest to the nucleus, can hold only two electrons. The second shell can hold up to 8 electrons. The third shell can hold up to 18 electrons. The fourth shell can hold up to 32.
This means that there are seven rows on the periodic table because all of the atoms in each row have the same number of electron shells, but with one more electron for each successive atom. All of the atoms in the same column have the same number of electrons in the outermost shell. Thus the periodic table is very much like a calendar but with the calendar having seven columns, one for each day of the week, and the periodic table coincidentally having seven rows, one for each possible electron shell in an atom.
The reason that the periodic table is arranged with those atoms with the same number of electrons in the outermost shell being in the same column is that it is the number of electrons in the outermost shell that determines the chemical behavior of the atom. The maximum number of electrons in the outermost shell is eight.
If an atom has only a few electrons in the outermost shell, it will tend to lose those electrons to an atom with the outer shell nearly full so that one atom then has a net negative and the other a net positive electric charge, referred to as ions. The two atoms are then joined together by opposite charge attraction, into what is known as an ionic bond. If two atoms have a medium number of electrons in the outermost shell, they will tend to combine them into one complete shell around both atoms, forming what is known as a covalent bond. Atoms with all eight electrons in their outermost shell will tend to be chemically unreactive, and these are the column at the far right of the periodic table.
But there is something that is very puzzling about the arrangement of the periodic table. As we go across a row of the periodic table to the right, the size of the atoms actually gets smaller even though they are heavier with one more proton and one more electron with each successive step. This requires some special explanation.
My information theory has shown that surface area is proportional to information. Information is the same thing as energy because we cannot apply energy to anything without also adding information to it, and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it. Another way that we see information and energy being the same thing is in how we can make our lives physically easier through technology, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make our lives both physically easier and also less complex.
The reason that the sphere is the default form of matter in the universe is that it represents the lowest energy state that the universe always seeks. Since energy and information are the same thing, if it is the lowest energy state then a sphere should also be the lowest information state. We thus see that the lowest information state also represents the least surface area because a sphere is the three-dimensional geometric form that has the lowest surface area per volume. The only way to add information to it is to somehow increase it's surface area.
So the only way that my information theory can be correct is for the heavier atoms to the right of a row in the periodic table to actually somehow contain less information than the larger but lighter elements to the left of the row, even though the heavier atoms must contain more internal energy as per the mass-energy equivalence.
But let's consider my theory of the Lowest Information Point. This is a separate theory, but related to, the first information theory.
The Lowest Information Point is based on the fact that since energy and information is really the same thing, and the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, then it also seeks the lowest information state. The theory focuses on situations in which two dimensions are involved. It it the Lowest Information Point if both dimensions are equal, since it requires less information to express than if the dimensions are unequal. In the theory, I refer to this as a square because a square has two equal dimensions so that it is preferred over a rectangle which has two unequal dimensions and so contains more information.
So if we have an atom with two electron shells, with each shell being able to hold a maximum of a certain number of electrons, it is actually a lower information state if the ratio of the actual number of electrons to the maximum number of electrons of the two shells is equal. Since surface area is representative of information, this would be reflected in the lower surface area of atoms with this lower information state of the electron orbitals, even though the atoms may actually be heavier and contain more internal information per the mass-energy equivalence.
Electron shells in atoms "try" to be either empty, full or, half full, and this is also representative of seeking the Lowest Information Point. It does not go by the actual number of electrons in a shell, but by the proportion or ratio of how many there are relative to the maximum number that the shell could hold. If this ratio of two shells are 1 / 1 and 1 / 1, that is a lower information state than 1 / 1 and 1 / 2 because the two dimensions of the first are equal, even though the second involves fewer electrons. The first atoms will thus have less surface area, meaning that it will be smaller, even though it is heavier.
The nature of electric charges prevents the two shells having ratios of 1 / 2 and 1 / 2 because the lower shells must fill up, although not totally, before the higher shells.
The reason that the size of the atom is determined by this ratio, rather than by a count of the number of electrons, is due to the rules of numbers in the information theory. Remember that the complexity of a number is the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or ratio.
A higher number, such as 27, is not more complex than a lower number, such as 4, because 27 is really 27 / 1 and 4 is really 4 / 1. This is why more electrons in a shell do not add information and create a larger atom. All electrons are identical and so, at least in this case, more electrons in a shell do not represent more information than fewer electrons.
But 1 / 2 contains more information than 1 / 1. Even though, in the case of the electrons in shells, it would involve fewer electrons. The empty spaces in shells, where electrons could possibly be but aren't, count as well and it is the Lowest Information Point when the two match and the electron shell is full, and this would be the smallest but heaviest atom in the row on the periodic table.
The successively heavier atoms do not get larger until the next electron shell gets started, and we begin a new row on the periodic table.
The reason that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, and thus the Lowest Information Point because energy and information is really the same thing, is explained by my cosmology theory. Matter and energy comes from a former two-dimensional sheet of space that formed amid four dimensions of background space, over which is was scattered by what we perceive as the Big Bang. Two dimensions in four is why there is a "shortage" of energy, relative to the space in which it exists, so that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state.
20) LOST INFORMATION AND EMPTY SPACE
We can see what is but what about what was but is no more and what could have been but isn't? This is information too. Can this information just be lost?
My information theory is that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it. Another way we see that energy and information is really the same thing is in how we can make our lives physically easier through technology, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and also less complex.
We know that energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form. If energy and information is the same thing then that must mean that information can never be lost.
Some people believe that anything that can happen must happen somewhere, even if it has to be in another universe. If a tree falls to the right when it is cut down, there must be another universe where it falls to the left. It seems to fall under the law of Equal and Opposite reactions, that for every action there must be an equal, but opposite, reaction.
My information theory has it that we can see what is but the information of what was but is no longer and of what could have been, but isn't, is also there.
In any theory of the Big Bang, which began the universe, matter began as all together but is now very far apart in space, relative to the scale of the matter. In my information theory, distance is information. Surface area is also information. A sphere is defined as the geometric form with the lowest energy state, and thus also the lowest information state, because it has the lowest surface area per volume. Just as a higher orbit has more orbital energy than a lower orbit, an object with less surface area contains less information.
One way that energy, and thus information, is stored and expressed is as permutations. Suppose that you have a pegboard with 100 holes and one peg. This is information because it requires information to express which of the 100 holes that the peg could possibly be in is it actually in. Now suppose that we have a pegboard with 1,000 holes and one peg, even though we still only have one peg, there is more information because there are more holes that the peg could possibly be in.
This is how matter in space operates, and shows how distance is information. The peg on the pegboard represents matter, the empty holes represent space. The empty holes, like empty space, are where matter could have been, but isn't, or where it was in the past, but is no longer.
This is why the universe must be expanding, as we know that it is. As matter continuously moves and changes, it must be expressed as information. The information cannot just be lost. The only way to avoid this is for the matter in the universe to stay exactly the same as it is. Matter would have to cease all motion, and be at a temperature of absolute zero where all molecular motion ceases, to stop the universe from expanding.
As matter moves and changes, the information of what it was but is no longer, and what it could have been but isn't, has to somehow be stored, it cannot just be lost, and it is stored as empty space. We could think of what is as being at a peak of probability and what could have been but isn't as lower than the peak. That is why matter began all in one place but is now widely scattered.
Heavier elements are formed when lighter atoms, beginning with hydrogen, are crunched together into heavier atoms by the heat and pressure in the centers of stars. Suppose that we have twelve hydrogen atoms, each with one proton and one electron. Now suppose that these atoms are crunched together into three helium atoms, each with two protons and two neutrons. Now suppose that the three helium atoms are crunched together into one carbon atom, which has six protons and six neutrons.
The information of the twelve hydrogen atoms and then the three helium atoms cannot just be lost. It must be stored as empty space. The other possibilities that did not happen must also be stored as empty space. There must be empty space representing eight hydrogen atoms and only four of them crunched into a helium atom.
There must be space for two helium atoms and four hydrogen atoms. There must be space for a beryllium atom, with four protons, and a helium atom, and also space for a beryllium atom and two hydrogen atoms. There must be space that represents the unrealized possibility of a boron atom, with five protons, and a single hydrogen atom. There must be space representing two lithium atoms, each with three protons, as well as a lithium atom, a helium atom and a hydrogen atom, and also a lithium atom and three hydrogen atoms.
We have seen, in the cosmology theory, why this fusion of lighter atoms into heavier ones that takes place in stars means that the expansion of the universe actually has to be speeding up because successively heavier elements are being fused together, and this represents more information.
To use a familiar example from computer technology, suppose that we have six bits and twelve empty spaces. Each bit can fill one of the empty spaces, but the bits are identical and indistinguishable from one another. This gives us 4,096 possible permutations of bits in empty spaces. Each empty space would be either full or empty but, since the bits are identical and indistinguishable from one another, it would not make a difference which bit was in which space.
Now suppose that we consolidate our six bits together so that they are distinguishable from one another. One bit we will leave as it is, and call it "One-Bit". We will combine two bits together and call it "Two-Bit". We will combine the other three together and call it "Three-Bit". Although we have fewer bits than before to put in the twelve empty space, three bits instead of six, the bits are now distinguishable from one another, and this adds information.
But even so, our consolidation of the bits would mean a net loss of information. Having the three distinguishable bits to go in the twelve empty spaces would give us 3,960 possible permutations, in contrast with the 4,096 with six separate but indistinguishable bits.
What this is a model of, of course, is matter in empty space. The bits are atoms and the empty spaces are space. The original six identical bits represent the original hydrogen atoms in the universe. The consolidated bits represent the heavier atoms that come from the nucleo-synthesis that takes place by fusion in stars.
There is one solution. In our simple example of bits in empty spaces, one way that we can maintain the same level of information is to increase the number of empty spaces as we consolidate bits together. The same number of bits in more empty spaces represents more information because it gives us more possible permutations, and that is how information is represented.
We may not be able to see it locally, but the universe must be expanding to accommodate the increasingly manifested information of what was but is no more and of what could have been but isn't.
What isn't is information just as much as what is. If you ask someone a question, the answer "no" contains just as much information as "yes". We could think of it as either positive or negative information, but it is information nonetheless, and information of what could have been but isn't or what was but is no more is stored as empty space.
I do not see a universe where everything that could be has to be, in the form of matter, but I do see a universe where there is information of everything that could be and that information, other than what actually is, is there as empty space.
What this ultimately brings us to is atoms. Matter did not necessarily have to take the form of atoms, and we can see this in how the vast majority of an atom is empty space. The model of an atom that is often used is that of a large sports stadium. The nucleus would be about the size of a strawberry, in the middle of the playing field, and the electrons would be pinheads orbiting the nucleus out in the stands.
This means that atoms must be very complex, relative to what other forms of matter could possibly have been. Atoms brought baryons and leptons together into the usual arrangement of matter. The complexity of the quark structure of hadrons shows up in the vast internal space of the atom, relative to the scale of it's components.
We can see that atoms must be complex, relative to that they could have possibly been, in how the mass of an electron is 1 / 1836 the mass of the proton, but both have equal, but opposite, electrical charges. Remember that the complexity of a number is not it's integral value but the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or ratio.
21) THE WEATHER CYCLE
Suppose we set up a system of interconnected gears. One of the gears will have a handle attached so that when someone turns it, all of the gears will turn. We could draw lines across each point where gears are joined and if all of the gears was the same size, with the same number of teeth, the lines would match up each time the system of gears went through one cycle.
But things would get complicated if the gears were of different sizes, with different numbers of teeth. The fewer the teeth on a gear, the faster it will turn. A gear with 12 teeth will turn twice as fast as one with 24 teeth.
If we had several interconnected gears, of different sizes, the starting lines would eventually line up again, but it might require an extended period of turning. However, we can safely say that any finite system of interconnected gears will return to it's starting line-up if the system is turned for long enough.
So, you may be wondering what on earth this has to do with the weather. The answer is everything.
The factors which create the weather are all cyclical in nature, just like a rotating gear. The rotation of the earth causes the temperature fluctuations associated with day and night, as well as driving the prevailing winds on a large scale. The revolution of the earth around the sun, which drives the seasons, is also cyclical in nature.
The evaporation and precipitation, which is the main component of weather, is cyclical as well. Water evaporates, but air gets thinner and cooler as we go higher in altitude until we reach a point where water vapor condenses as tiny droplets on various particles of dust, smoke and, salt that act as condensation nuclei, forming clouds.
Eventually, these droplets become crowded close together so that they merge by hydrogen bonding into drops too heavy for the air to support and fall as precipitation, especially if sudden cooling takes place which lowers the ability of the air to hold water vapor.
This is a fairly simple process. The reason that weather is so complex is because the surface of the earth is messy. The distribution of land, sea, dust and, mountains is far from regular. It is further complicated by ocean currents moving warm and cold water around.
The result is that it is very difficult to forecast the weather much in advance.
Now, back to our gear system. No matter how complex we make the system of gears it must, as long as it is not infinite, eventually return to it's starting line-up. We can calculate just how many turns of the main gear, the one with the handle, will be required to bring this about.
All of the factors driving the weather are cyclic in nature, just like our gears. The messiness of the earth's surface complicates the weather greatly, but this messiness remains relatively constant over thousands of years and is not one of the cycles.
Weather is very much the product of the earth's rotation and revolution. Without this movement, the evaporation of the water and the movement of the air would reach a condition of equilibrium and remain there. But the movements of the earth continuously upsets any such equilibrium, and the result is the weather.
Today, I would like to introduce the idea that all weather on earth is a part of a long cycle which repeats itself over and over. Alternating storms and nice days are literally teeth in the gears. this does not only apply to large-scale effects like a warmer than usual winter, but to every local storm and nice day and also to warm and cold fronts. however, this does not apply all the way down to the molecular level so that repetitions of the weather cycle involve the same water molecules.
Warm and cold ocean currents, like the messiness of the earth's surface, complicate the weather cycle, and thus increase it's duration, but are not a part of the cycle. Just as the gear system would be simpler, and it's cycle much shorter, if all of the gears were the same size, the weather cycle would be much simpler if the earth's northern and southern hemispheres handled heat in the same way. But the southern hemisphere has a far higher proportion of water.
I do not have the length of the weather cycle, it may well be longer than a human lifetime, but this has got to be the way it is. The factors driving the weather are all cyclical. The other factors affecting the weather are complex, but constant. The weather must repeat itself, at some level.
The weather in every place, and on the earth as a whole, must follow a long-term cycle that we have not yet noticed. An understanding of this cycle would greatly assist in forecasting well in advance and also understanding how it is being affected by global warming. It may become apparent with the keeping of detailed weather records and the development of computer technology to search out patterns in data. Weather is another one of those things that seem random to us, but actually follows and orderly pattern we do not yet understand.
The objective is to find out what the length of the Weather Cycle is. Since every factor involving the weather is cyclical in nature, like a gear, let's have a look at the factors that we are dealing with.
Earth's rotation- one day
Earth's revolution around sun which brings seasons- one year
The Precipitation Cycle- a molecule of water that evaporates remains in the air, before falling as some kind of precipitation, an average of about ten days
The sunspot cycle also affects the weather- the cycle is eleven years
The Hadley, Ferrell and, Polar Cells are circulations of air rising, moving away from the equator, descending, and then flowing back toward the equator. This would have an effect on the weather but does not necessarily involve precipitation.
If we multiply all of these together, it gives us a starting point to begin looking at about 110 years for the weather cycle. It may be that there are two cycles, with a cycle within a cycle, with the shorter cycle not involving the sunspot cycle and the longer one including it.
If we could find the length of the Weather Cycle, and there must be such a length of a cycle because all of the factors are cyclical and there is a finite set of information involved, we could tell what the weather was going to be by the past records that length of time ago.
The weather should not be expected to be exactly the same because there are non-cyclical "linear" factors involved also that affect the weather. These linear factors include the building of cities, deforestation and, of course, global warming. But the pattern of weather would still be visible and predictable, even if it was not exactly the same as on the last Weather Cycle.
22) SIMPLE EXAMPLES OF HOW INFORMATION WORKS
21) THE WEATHER CYCLE
Suppose we set up a system of interconnected gears. One of the gears will have a handle attached so that when someone turns it, all of the gears will turn. We could draw lines across each point where gears are joined and if all of the gears was the same size, with the same number of teeth, the lines would match up each time the system of gears went through one cycle.
But things would get complicated if the gears were of different sizes, with different numbers of teeth. The fewer the teeth on a gear, the faster it will turn. A gear with 12 teeth will turn twice as fast as one with 24 teeth.
If we had several interconnected gears, of different sizes, the starting lines would eventually line up again, but it might require an extended period of turning. However, we can safely say that any finite system of interconnected gears will return to it's starting line-up if the system is turned for long enough.
So, you may be wondering what on earth this has to do with the weather. The answer is everything.
The factors which create the weather are all cyclical in nature, just like a rotating gear. The rotation of the earth causes the temperature fluctuations associated with day and night, as well as driving the prevailing winds on a large scale. The revolution of the earth around the sun, which drives the seasons, is also cyclical in nature.
The evaporation and precipitation, which is the main component of weather, is cyclical as well. Water evaporates, but air gets thinner and cooler as we go higher in altitude until we reach a point where water vapor condenses as tiny droplets on various particles of dust, smoke and, salt that act as condensation nuclei, forming clouds.
Eventually, these droplets become crowded close together so that they merge by hydrogen bonding into drops too heavy for the air to support and fall as precipitation, especially if sudden cooling takes place which lowers the ability of the air to hold water vapor.
This is a fairly simple process. The reason that weather is so complex is because the surface of the earth is messy. The distribution of land, sea, dust and, mountains is far from regular. It is further complicated by ocean currents moving warm and cold water around.
The result is that it is very difficult to forecast the weather much in advance.
Now, back to our gear system. No matter how complex we make the system of gears it must, as long as it is not infinite, eventually return to it's starting line-up. We can calculate just how many turns of the main gear, the one with the handle, will be required to bring this about.
All of the factors driving the weather are cyclic in nature, just like our gears. The messiness of the earth's surface complicates the weather greatly, but this messiness remains relatively constant over thousands of years and is not one of the cycles.
Weather is very much the product of the earth's rotation and revolution. Without this movement, the evaporation of the water and the movement of the air would reach a condition of equilibrium and remain there. But the movements of the earth continuously upsets any such equilibrium, and the result is the weather.
Today, I would like to introduce the idea that all weather on earth is a part of a long cycle which repeats itself over and over. Alternating storms and nice days are literally teeth in the gears. this does not only apply to large-scale effects like a warmer than usual winter, but to every local storm and nice day and also to warm and cold fronts. however, this does not apply all the way down to the molecular level so that repetitions of the weather cycle involve the same water molecules.
Warm and cold ocean currents, like the messiness of the earth's surface, complicate the weather cycle, and thus increase it's duration, but are not a part of the cycle. Just as the gear system would be simpler, and it's cycle much shorter, if all of the gears were the same size, the weather cycle would be much simpler if the earth's northern and southern hemispheres handled heat in the same way. But the southern hemisphere has a far higher proportion of water.
I do not have the length of the weather cycle, it may well be longer than a human lifetime, but this has got to be the way it is. The factors driving the weather are all cyclical. The other factors affecting the weather are complex, but constant. The weather must repeat itself, at some level.
The weather in every place, and on the earth as a whole, must follow a long-term cycle that we have not yet noticed. An understanding of this cycle would greatly assist in forecasting well in advance and also understanding how it is being affected by global warming. It may become apparent with the keeping of detailed weather records and the development of computer technology to search out patterns in data. Weather is another one of those things that seem random to us, but actually follows and orderly pattern we do not yet understand.
The objective is to find out what the length of the Weather Cycle is. Since every factor involving the weather is cyclical in nature, like a gear, let's have a look at the factors that we are dealing with.
Earth's rotation- one day
Earth's revolution around sun which brings seasons- one year
The Precipitation Cycle- a molecule of water that evaporates remains in the air, before falling as some kind of precipitation, an average of about ten days
The sunspot cycle also affects the weather- the cycle is eleven years
The Hadley, Ferrell and, Polar Cells are circulations of air rising, moving away from the equator, descending, and then flowing back toward the equator. This would have an effect on the weather but does not necessarily involve precipitation.
If we multiply all of these together, it gives us a starting point to begin looking at about 110 years for the weather cycle. It may be that there are two cycles, with a cycle within a cycle, with the shorter cycle not involving the sunspot cycle and the longer one including it.
If we could find the length of the Weather Cycle, and there must be such a length of a cycle because all of the factors are cyclical and there is a finite set of information involved, we could tell what the weather was going to be by the past records that length of time ago.
The weather should not be expected to be exactly the same because there are non-cyclical "linear" factors involved also that affect the weather. These linear factors include the building of cities, deforestation and, of course, global warming. But the pattern of weather would still be visible and predictable, even if it was not exactly the same as on the last Weather Cycle.
22) SIMPLE EXAMPLES OF HOW INFORMATION WORKS
I wonder if a good way to illustrate how my theory of information works is just to use a few examples that everyone will be able to relate to.
There is information in everything. This theory is not the same thing as the cosmology theory, "The Theory Of Stationary Space", or the theory of how information flows through the universe, from the lowest to the highest levels, "The Flow Of Information Through The Universe". The primary points of this theory are as follows:
1) Energy and information are really the same thing because we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it, and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it. Another way we see that energy and information is really the same thing is how we can make our lives physically easier, meaning less expenditure of energy, by way of technology, but only at the expense of making life more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and also less complex. This shows that energy and information (complexity) is interchangeable, meaning that they must be different forms of the same thing.
2) The complexity of a number is equal to the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or ratio. Whole numbers are all equal in complexity because 48 and 2 are really 48 / 1 and 2 / 1, the denominators are both 1.
3) Surface area is information. A sphere has the lowest surface area per volume of any three-dimensional geometric form, this means that it is the lowest information state. It is also the lowest energy state, which is why planets and stars tend to form spheres. But this should not be surprising, because energy and information is really the same thing.
Here are ten examples, that will be familiar to just about everyone, which show how this theory of information works.
1) GEARS
Distance is information because it has the potential to hold information. If you define a line and then put a marker somewhere on that line, then that is information based on the pattern that I refer to as "The One And The Many". The longer the line is, the more potential places on that line the marker could have been placed. Since the position of the marker on the line is information, the longer the line the more information there is.
We can apply this concept of distance being information to a set of two interconnected gears. Suppose that we draw a line across both gears at the point where the two intersect. Then we begin turning a handle on one of the gears so that both gears turn. There is information in how long we have to turn the gears before they get back to the starting point, with the mark that was originally drawn across the two gears lining up again.
This arrangement of gears illustrates my concept of the complexity of a number, which is the same as the information within it, being equal to the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or ratio. The angular distance, which is information, that the gears have to turn before they get back to the original line-up depends on the value of the denominator in the ratio of the two gears, reduced to it's lowest form.
If the two gears are identical, with the same number of teeth, this will be the lowest information state because the two will pass the original line-up on every turn.
If one gear has twice as many teeth as the other then this will be the next lowest information state, with a ratio of 1 / 2. The larger gear will have to turn once and the smaller one twice to reach the original line-up.
If the two gears have a tooth ratio of 7 / 15, that will give us the 15th lowest information state, which we could just call a value of 15. The smaller gear will have to turn 15 times to reach the starting point again, while the larger one will have to turn 7 times.
But if we use a ratio of 9 / 15, that will be a lower information state due to divisibility. 9 and 15 can both be divided by 3 so that the ratio of the gears is really 3 / 5, for a value of 5.
2) THE CIRCLE
A circle, in two dimensions, or a sphere, in three dimensions, is defined as a polygon with an infinite number of sides. Since my definition of the complexity of a number is the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or a ratio. That would make it seem as if the circle was of infinite complexity, since it has an infinite number of sides.
But this is a reflection of the two-dimensional circle, compared with a one-dimensional line. If we wanted to get perfectly accurate, there would indeed be an infinite number of different diameters by which a line could cross a circle. This is reflected in the value of pi, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter.
Pi can indeed be taken to an infinite number of decimal places. Computers have calculated it into millions of digits. I can remember it to 3.1415927.
But if a circle has an infinite number of infinitesimal sides, how do we express that as a ratio, since my information theory defines the complexity of a number as the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or a ratio?
There is one simple way to express infinity, and it is as a ratio. Just have a denominator of zero and a whole number, 1 will do just fine, as the numerator. Infinity then is simply 1 / 0, since an infinite number of zeroes can fit into 1.
But since the complexity of a number is equal to the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or ratio, and infinity is expressed as 1 / 0, that means that infinity must have a complexity of zero.
Indeed it does, simply because it is a descriptive term that doesn't really mean anything. If someone asks how high numbers go, and we answer to infinity, that is not really giving a definitive answer.
But what that means is that a circle, once it has been defined as a circle, and it's diameter or circumference is not relevant, actually has zero complexity or zero information. The reason that a sphere is the default gravitational state of matter in the universe is that it is the lowest energy state of all geometric forms. Since energy and information is really the same thing, that must mean that it has the lowest information state.
Of all geometric forms the circle, in two dimensions, or the sphere, in three dimensions, does have the lowest surface area per are or volume. Surface area is information because it has the potential to hold information. If it holds no information then that information is simply zero.
Given that the circle or sphere exists, from that point a smooth sphere or a perfect circle can be said to have zero information because it does have the potential to hold information. Information and complexity are the same thing, complexity is the volume of information. This shows my concept that the complexity of a number is equivalent to the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or ratio. A circle is defined as a polygon with an infinite number of sides and infinity is defined as 1 / 0.
3) HOT AND COLD
The temperature of two objects in contact tends to even itself out, seeking one consistent value. If a hot object and a cold object are brought together, the hot object will become colder and the cold one hotter, until they reach the same temperature. In terms of energy, heat energy flows from the hot to the cold object until an equilibrium is reached.
Having the two objects at different temperatures is a higher information state than having them at one temperature. That is simply because two pieces of information contain more information than one piece. Since the universe seeks the lowest energy state, and we know that energy and information is really the same thing, heat energy will flow from the hotter to the colder object until they reach the same temperature.
Even though the overall energy state of the two objects remains the same presuming, of course, that the energy lost to the air by the hot object was exactly equal to the energy absorbed by the cold object from the air, the information state does not. One value is less than two so the universe seeks not only the lowest energy state, but also the even distribution of that energy.
4) EQUILIBRIUM
We know that the universe seeks the lowest energy state, because there is not enough energy to go around for all that could happen to happen. But if energy and information are really the same thing then it should also seek the lowest information state.
This is why the universe seeks to come to an equilibrium, because it is a lower information state than a disequilibrium. The complexity of a number is defined as the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or ratio. An equilibrium would be represented by a ratio of 1 / 1. A disequilibrium would be represented by a value of 1 / (something other than 1).
Thus the universe prefers an equilibrium because it is the lowest information state that can be reached. A star is such an equilibrium between the outward pressure of the energy released by nuclear fusion and the inward pull of gravity.
5) A SHARP KNIFE AND A DULL KNIFE
It takes less energy to cut something with a sharp knife than it does with a dull knife. But a sharp knife is a higher state of information than a dull knife. Remember my concept that the complexity of a number is not the value of a whole number but the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or ratio. A higher whole number does not have a higher complexity than a lower one simply because the denominator of any whole number is really 1. The number 45 is actually 45 / 1.
On a sharp knife, the edge of the blade may be only 1 / 500 the overall width of the blade. On a dull knife, the edge of the blade may be 1 / 100 the overall width of the blade. This means that a sharp knife actually holds more information than a dull knife because there is more possibilities of where the edge of the blade could possibly have been located.
When we cut something, the edge of the blade of the sharp knife likewise represents a higher ratio to the scale of the object or material being cut than the edge of the blade of the dull knife.
This higher ratio of the sharp knife is complexity, and thus information, because complexity is the volume of information. My information theory has energy and information really being the same thing. Since the sharp knife starts out with more information than the dull knife, and that energy and information is really the same thing, that is why it takes less energy to cut something with a sharp knife than it does with a dull knife.
6) COMMUNICATION
One thing that is special about humans, and other species that have the ability to communicate, is that, with energy and information really being the same thing, we can communicate the information in something with far less energy than that which is equal to the mass-energy equivalence and other energy within the object.
In the universe of inanimate matter, there is no such thing as communicating information. Everything that exists is information, but the only place that information is located is in the object itself. The information in a planet, for example, is equal to the energy in the planet, both the mass-energy equivalence of the planet, as well as any other inherent energy such as gravitational kinetic energy.
But humans can describe the planet, or any other object, with far less energy than what is in the object itself. This is done by such means as words, illustrations or, photographs.
Part of the reason that we can do this is that we can generalize and see patterns in the object that is the subject of the communication. We do not need to describe every atom in the object, only what material it is made of. All of the information about the object does not have to be conveyed, only that which is relevant and necessary.
The universe of inanimate matter has no ability to do any of this. Energy is really the same thing as information but the only source of that is the energy in the object itself. There is no way to separate the energy from the information in the object.
But humans are far more complex than the inanimate matter in the universe that they inhabit. Humans are made of the same kind of matter, but with far more information per energy than inanimate matter. This extra information exists in the extremely complex organization of matter in the human body and brain.
The result is similar in nature to the example of the sharp knife requiring less energy to make a cut than with the dull knife. Since humans contain far more information per energy than inanimate matter to begin with, we can describe the universe around us with a far higher rate of information per energy, that is a reflection of our own higher complexity.
The factor that makes the difference is how much more complex human beings are, relative to an equivalent mass of inanimate matter. Remembering that information and energy is really the same thing, it is not actually that humans need much less energy to communicate an equivalent amount of information then inanimate matter, it is just that the information, which is really the same thing as energy, is within us already.
Since a human being is so much more complex, containing more information, than an equivalent amount of inanimate matter, the human being is like a sharp knife while the inanimate matter is like a dull knife. Since we already contain more information, we have to expend less information to convey information to another human being than inanimate matter does.
But this can only be done by way of codes that we use, such as language or mathematics, which inanimate matter cannot use. With inanimate matter, the only information about something is the thing itself. Humans have to be able to use codes to convey information to each other, with far less energy than with inanimate matter, because of the higher complexity of humans. The missing energy, of which information is the same thing, is already present in humans, just as the higher information of the sharp knife is already present in the higher denominator of it's ratio.
It doesn't really take less energy for humans to convey information by language than by inanimate matter. It is just that energy is really the same thing as information and the higher level of information is already present in humans.
But if we use physical strength to move inanimate matter then we are not making use of this higher complexity and must "play by the same rules" as inanimate matter.
7) FUEL
Hydrocarbon fuels consist of long chains of molecules primarily hydrogen and carbon, hence the name. Each molecule is a system of atoms. What I mean by that is each atom in the molecule has an electrical relationship with each other atom. These interrelationships between atoms in the same molecule are information.
When hydrocarbon fuel undergoes combustion, the long molecules are broken apart by heat into many smaller molecules. Since the atoms in each molecule have an electrical relationship with one another that is information, that must mean that there is less information in the many small molecules that are the products of the combustion than there were in the original large molecules.
There are the same number of atoms in the product molecules after the combustion as there were in the original larger molecules, but fewer total electrical interrelationships between atoms in the same molecule.
Suppose that there is a molecule with 8 atoms, with each atom having an electrical interrelationship with every other atom in the molecule. This means a total of 56 interrelationships.
Now suppose that we split the molecule in half, so that we get two molecules with four atoms each. Even though we still have the same number of atoms as before we now have only 24 interrelationships, 12 in each molecule.
These interrelationships between atoms in a molecule are information. When a large molecule is split, the information cannot just be lost. Remember that information is really the same thing as energy, because we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it and cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it.
So the information of the interrelationships between atoms in the molecule are released as energy, and that is why we burn fuels for energy.
8) STATES OF MATTER
Hydrocarbon fuels consist of polymers, which are large molecules composed of long chains of atoms. There is energy in these molecular bonds and that energy is released when the molecule is broken apart by heat.
But that brings us to a question. Water also consists of long chains of molecules. Each water molecule is individual, consisting of one hydrogen atom and two hydrogen atoms. But the way the hydrogen atoms bond to the much-larger oxygen atom leaves the water molecule with a polarity. This means that one side of the molecule is more negatively-charged and the other side more positively-charged.
The result is that many water molecules line up, negative to positive, in what is known as hydrogen bonding. The result of this is liquid water. Individual water molecules will form a gas, water vapor.
This is what causes weather. Water is actually lighter than air, by molecule. But when many water molecules join together by hydrogen bonding the result is liquid water which, at sea level, is 800 times as heavy as air. This makes it so that water evaporates as vapor but falls as rain after the molecules have bonded together on condensation nuclei in clouds.
These differences are known as states of matter. Ordinary matter has three possible states: solid, liquid and, gas. The difference is in heat. Molecules move around faster when there is more heat. That makes it more difficult for them to bond together by hydrogen bonding and the heat can break existing hydrogen bonds. if the temperature gets cold enough, cross-link bonding can form between atoms in adjacent lines of water molecules. That turns water into it's solid form, which is ice.
But why is there such a difference between the polymers of hydrocarbon fuels and the long lines of water molecules in liquid or solid form? Both require heat to break the bonds but the water molecules, unlike the fuels, do not release any energy when the bonds are broken. That is why we cannot use water for fuel.
The answer lies in how information works. Even though the water molecules held in a line by hydrogen bonding have an electrical interrelationship between them, there is no information because the molecules are identical. The water molecules are identical and repetitive so that the only information is that of their position.
Remember that my theory of how information works stipulates that repetition is not complexity, meaning that it is not information. The complexity of a number is the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a ratio or fraction. Since the water molecules are identical, no matter how many are in a line the denominator is always 1.
But that is not the case with the polymers of the hydrocarbons that are used for fuels. There is information because these are genuine molecules with an interrelationship between the electrons of adjacent atoms, which is not the case with the simple hydrogen bonding of water molecules.
Since energy and information is really the same thing, when the bonds between atoms in these hydrocarbon molecules is broken by the heat in an engine that information is released as energy.
9) DISTANCE
A simple way to see how distance is information is by surface area. We know that information and energy is really the same thing, because we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it, and cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it.
We also know that a sphere is the default gravitational form of matter in the universe because it has the lowest energy state, and the universe always seeks the lowest energy state. With the lowest energy state, the sphere is also characterized as having the lowest surface area per volume of all geometric forms.
That means that surface area is equivalent to energy, or information. We add information to something by applying energy to it, and the only way to add information to a smooth sphere is to increase it's surface area. Since increased surface area means that the average distance between all points on that surface is greater, that must mean that since distance is related to surface area then distance is also information.
This makes sense because the distance between two points is information. Anything involving information is defined by what it is not, but potentially could have been. The further apart two points actually are, the more distances in between there are at which they could have been, but aren't.
But repetition is not complexity. Remember that the complexity of a number, meaning the information in it, is equal to the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a ratio or fraction. That means that distance across space, where there is no gravitational field, is repetitive.
That is why we have Newton's Law that an object in motion will remain in motion until stopped by an outside force. We only need to fire the engine of a spacecraft to get it moving toward it's target and it will keep going in that direction after the engine is shut off. That is because the empty space across which it is moving is repetitive, equivalent to a fraction with a denominator of 1.
But if there is a gravitational field, or if the spacecraft runs into an asteroid, then that is information and the original energy applied to the spacecraft will no longer suffice to keep it moving in exactly the same direction.
This shows how dimensions are information. The initial thrust got the spacecraft moving, and it continued moving across empty space, but only in a straight line, which is one-dimensional. When we add a gravitational field, or another object, to the situation, we are adding information. That information will affect the spacecraft, to change or stop it's course, unless further information, from an additional engine thrust which is energy and thus information, is added to it.
10) FALLING
A falling object is seeking a lower-energy state, which the universe always does. But energy and information is really the same thing so if the falling object is seeking a lower-energy state, we should also be able to see how it is seeking a lower-information state.
Remember the element of the information theory that the complexity of a number, which is the information in it, is not equal to the value of the number itself but to the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a ratio or fraction. 24 is no more complex than 3 because 24 is really 24 / 1 and 3 is really 3 / 1.
Suppose that we have an object of a certain dimension. It doesn't matter if we use the entire object or a part of the object as it's dimension. Let's just describe the object's width or height as 1.
Now suppose that we place the object unsupported at a height twenty times it's width or height. The dimension of the object will be 1 / 20 it's altitude above the ground. Remembering that the complexity of a number is the value of the denominator when it is expressed as a ratio, and that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state which is the same as the lowest information state, the object and the earth seek to lower the 20 of the denominator to the lowest possible value.
The only way to do that is to lower the altitude of the object, in other words for the object to fall. When the height of the object as the numerator of the ratio and the altitude of the top of the object above the ground is 1 / 1 that is both the lowest achievable information state for a solid object, and it also means that the object is on the ground.
23) INFORMATION OF POSITION
27) ENERGY AND INFORMATION IN WATER AND PLANETARY IMPACTS
There is information in everything. This theory is not the same thing as the cosmology theory, "The Theory Of Stationary Space", or the theory of how information flows through the universe, from the lowest to the highest levels, "The Flow Of Information Through The Universe". The primary points of this theory are as follows:
1) Energy and information are really the same thing because we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it, and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it. Another way we see that energy and information is really the same thing is how we can make our lives physically easier, meaning less expenditure of energy, by way of technology, but only at the expense of making life more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make life both physically easier and also less complex. This shows that energy and information (complexity) is interchangeable, meaning that they must be different forms of the same thing.
3) Surface area is information. A sphere has the lowest surface area per volume of any three-dimensional geometric form, this means that it is the lowest information state. It is also the lowest energy state, which is why planets and stars tend to form spheres. But this should not be surprising, because energy and information is really the same thing.
Here are ten examples, that will be familiar to just about everyone, which show how this theory of information works.
1) GEARS
Distance is information because it has the potential to hold information. If you define a line and then put a marker somewhere on that line, then that is information based on the pattern that I refer to as "The One And The Many". The longer the line is, the more potential places on that line the marker could have been placed. Since the position of the marker on the line is information, the longer the line the more information there is.
We can apply this concept of distance being information to a set of two interconnected gears. Suppose that we draw a line across both gears at the point where the two intersect. Then we begin turning a handle on one of the gears so that both gears turn. There is information in how long we have to turn the gears before they get back to the starting point, with the mark that was originally drawn across the two gears lining up again.
This arrangement of gears illustrates my concept of the complexity of a number, which is the same as the information within it, being equal to the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or ratio. The angular distance, which is information, that the gears have to turn before they get back to the original line-up depends on the value of the denominator in the ratio of the two gears, reduced to it's lowest form.
If the two gears are identical, with the same number of teeth, this will be the lowest information state because the two will pass the original line-up on every turn.
If one gear has twice as many teeth as the other then this will be the next lowest information state, with a ratio of 1 / 2. The larger gear will have to turn once and the smaller one twice to reach the original line-up.
If the two gears have a tooth ratio of 7 / 15, that will give us the 15th lowest information state, which we could just call a value of 15. The smaller gear will have to turn 15 times to reach the starting point again, while the larger one will have to turn 7 times.
But if we use a ratio of 9 / 15, that will be a lower information state due to divisibility. 9 and 15 can both be divided by 3 so that the ratio of the gears is really 3 / 5, for a value of 5.
2) THE CIRCLE
A circle, in two dimensions, or a sphere, in three dimensions, is defined as a polygon with an infinite number of sides. Since my definition of the complexity of a number is the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or a ratio. That would make it seem as if the circle was of infinite complexity, since it has an infinite number of sides.
But this is a reflection of the two-dimensional circle, compared with a one-dimensional line. If we wanted to get perfectly accurate, there would indeed be an infinite number of different diameters by which a line could cross a circle. This is reflected in the value of pi, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter.
Pi can indeed be taken to an infinite number of decimal places. Computers have calculated it into millions of digits. I can remember it to 3.1415927.
But if a circle has an infinite number of infinitesimal sides, how do we express that as a ratio, since my information theory defines the complexity of a number as the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or a ratio?
There is one simple way to express infinity, and it is as a ratio. Just have a denominator of zero and a whole number, 1 will do just fine, as the numerator. Infinity then is simply 1 / 0, since an infinite number of zeroes can fit into 1.
But since the complexity of a number is equal to the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or ratio, and infinity is expressed as 1 / 0, that means that infinity must have a complexity of zero.
Indeed it does, simply because it is a descriptive term that doesn't really mean anything. If someone asks how high numbers go, and we answer to infinity, that is not really giving a definitive answer.
But what that means is that a circle, once it has been defined as a circle, and it's diameter or circumference is not relevant, actually has zero complexity or zero information. The reason that a sphere is the default gravitational state of matter in the universe is that it is the lowest energy state of all geometric forms. Since energy and information is really the same thing, that must mean that it has the lowest information state.
Of all geometric forms the circle, in two dimensions, or the sphere, in three dimensions, does have the lowest surface area per are or volume. Surface area is information because it has the potential to hold information. If it holds no information then that information is simply zero.
Given that the circle or sphere exists, from that point a smooth sphere or a perfect circle can be said to have zero information because it does have the potential to hold information. Information and complexity are the same thing, complexity is the volume of information. This shows my concept that the complexity of a number is equivalent to the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or ratio. A circle is defined as a polygon with an infinite number of sides and infinity is defined as 1 / 0.
3) HOT AND COLD
The temperature of two objects in contact tends to even itself out, seeking one consistent value. If a hot object and a cold object are brought together, the hot object will become colder and the cold one hotter, until they reach the same temperature. In terms of energy, heat energy flows from the hot to the cold object until an equilibrium is reached.
Having the two objects at different temperatures is a higher information state than having them at one temperature. That is simply because two pieces of information contain more information than one piece. Since the universe seeks the lowest energy state, and we know that energy and information is really the same thing, heat energy will flow from the hotter to the colder object until they reach the same temperature.
Even though the overall energy state of the two objects remains the same presuming, of course, that the energy lost to the air by the hot object was exactly equal to the energy absorbed by the cold object from the air, the information state does not. One value is less than two so the universe seeks not only the lowest energy state, but also the even distribution of that energy.
4) EQUILIBRIUM
We know that the universe seeks the lowest energy state, because there is not enough energy to go around for all that could happen to happen. But if energy and information are really the same thing then it should also seek the lowest information state.
This is why the universe seeks to come to an equilibrium, because it is a lower information state than a disequilibrium. The complexity of a number is defined as the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or ratio. An equilibrium would be represented by a ratio of 1 / 1. A disequilibrium would be represented by a value of 1 / (something other than 1).
Thus the universe prefers an equilibrium because it is the lowest information state that can be reached. A star is such an equilibrium between the outward pressure of the energy released by nuclear fusion and the inward pull of gravity.
5) A SHARP KNIFE AND A DULL KNIFE
It takes less energy to cut something with a sharp knife than it does with a dull knife. But a sharp knife is a higher state of information than a dull knife. Remember my concept that the complexity of a number is not the value of a whole number but the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or ratio. A higher whole number does not have a higher complexity than a lower one simply because the denominator of any whole number is really 1. The number 45 is actually 45 / 1.
On a sharp knife, the edge of the blade may be only 1 / 500 the overall width of the blade. On a dull knife, the edge of the blade may be 1 / 100 the overall width of the blade. This means that a sharp knife actually holds more information than a dull knife because there is more possibilities of where the edge of the blade could possibly have been located.
When we cut something, the edge of the blade of the sharp knife likewise represents a higher ratio to the scale of the object or material being cut than the edge of the blade of the dull knife.
This higher ratio of the sharp knife is complexity, and thus information, because complexity is the volume of information. My information theory has energy and information really being the same thing. Since the sharp knife starts out with more information than the dull knife, and that energy and information is really the same thing, that is why it takes less energy to cut something with a sharp knife than it does with a dull knife.
6) COMMUNICATION
One thing that is special about humans, and other species that have the ability to communicate, is that, with energy and information really being the same thing, we can communicate the information in something with far less energy than that which is equal to the mass-energy equivalence and other energy within the object.
In the universe of inanimate matter, there is no such thing as communicating information. Everything that exists is information, but the only place that information is located is in the object itself. The information in a planet, for example, is equal to the energy in the planet, both the mass-energy equivalence of the planet, as well as any other inherent energy such as gravitational kinetic energy.
But humans can describe the planet, or any other object, with far less energy than what is in the object itself. This is done by such means as words, illustrations or, photographs.
Part of the reason that we can do this is that we can generalize and see patterns in the object that is the subject of the communication. We do not need to describe every atom in the object, only what material it is made of. All of the information about the object does not have to be conveyed, only that which is relevant and necessary.
The universe of inanimate matter has no ability to do any of this. Energy is really the same thing as information but the only source of that is the energy in the object itself. There is no way to separate the energy from the information in the object.
But humans are far more complex than the inanimate matter in the universe that they inhabit. Humans are made of the same kind of matter, but with far more information per energy than inanimate matter. This extra information exists in the extremely complex organization of matter in the human body and brain.
The result is similar in nature to the example of the sharp knife requiring less energy to make a cut than with the dull knife. Since humans contain far more information per energy than inanimate matter to begin with, we can describe the universe around us with a far higher rate of information per energy, that is a reflection of our own higher complexity.
The factor that makes the difference is how much more complex human beings are, relative to an equivalent mass of inanimate matter. Remembering that information and energy is really the same thing, it is not actually that humans need much less energy to communicate an equivalent amount of information then inanimate matter, it is just that the information, which is really the same thing as energy, is within us already.
Since a human being is so much more complex, containing more information, than an equivalent amount of inanimate matter, the human being is like a sharp knife while the inanimate matter is like a dull knife. Since we already contain more information, we have to expend less information to convey information to another human being than inanimate matter does.
But this can only be done by way of codes that we use, such as language or mathematics, which inanimate matter cannot use. With inanimate matter, the only information about something is the thing itself. Humans have to be able to use codes to convey information to each other, with far less energy than with inanimate matter, because of the higher complexity of humans. The missing energy, of which information is the same thing, is already present in humans, just as the higher information of the sharp knife is already present in the higher denominator of it's ratio.
It doesn't really take less energy for humans to convey information by language than by inanimate matter. It is just that energy is really the same thing as information and the higher level of information is already present in humans.
But if we use physical strength to move inanimate matter then we are not making use of this higher complexity and must "play by the same rules" as inanimate matter.
7) FUEL
Hydrocarbon fuels consist of long chains of molecules primarily hydrogen and carbon, hence the name. Each molecule is a system of atoms. What I mean by that is each atom in the molecule has an electrical relationship with each other atom. These interrelationships between atoms in the same molecule are information.
When hydrocarbon fuel undergoes combustion, the long molecules are broken apart by heat into many smaller molecules. Since the atoms in each molecule have an electrical relationship with one another that is information, that must mean that there is less information in the many small molecules that are the products of the combustion than there were in the original large molecules.
There are the same number of atoms in the product molecules after the combustion as there were in the original larger molecules, but fewer total electrical interrelationships between atoms in the same molecule.
Suppose that there is a molecule with 8 atoms, with each atom having an electrical interrelationship with every other atom in the molecule. This means a total of 56 interrelationships.
Now suppose that we split the molecule in half, so that we get two molecules with four atoms each. Even though we still have the same number of atoms as before we now have only 24 interrelationships, 12 in each molecule.
These interrelationships between atoms in a molecule are information. When a large molecule is split, the information cannot just be lost. Remember that information is really the same thing as energy, because we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it and cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it.
So the information of the interrelationships between atoms in the molecule are released as energy, and that is why we burn fuels for energy.
8) STATES OF MATTER
Hydrocarbon fuels consist of polymers, which are large molecules composed of long chains of atoms. There is energy in these molecular bonds and that energy is released when the molecule is broken apart by heat.
But that brings us to a question. Water also consists of long chains of molecules. Each water molecule is individual, consisting of one hydrogen atom and two hydrogen atoms. But the way the hydrogen atoms bond to the much-larger oxygen atom leaves the water molecule with a polarity. This means that one side of the molecule is more negatively-charged and the other side more positively-charged.
The result is that many water molecules line up, negative to positive, in what is known as hydrogen bonding. The result of this is liquid water. Individual water molecules will form a gas, water vapor.
This is what causes weather. Water is actually lighter than air, by molecule. But when many water molecules join together by hydrogen bonding the result is liquid water which, at sea level, is 800 times as heavy as air. This makes it so that water evaporates as vapor but falls as rain after the molecules have bonded together on condensation nuclei in clouds.
These differences are known as states of matter. Ordinary matter has three possible states: solid, liquid and, gas. The difference is in heat. Molecules move around faster when there is more heat. That makes it more difficult for them to bond together by hydrogen bonding and the heat can break existing hydrogen bonds. if the temperature gets cold enough, cross-link bonding can form between atoms in adjacent lines of water molecules. That turns water into it's solid form, which is ice.
But why is there such a difference between the polymers of hydrocarbon fuels and the long lines of water molecules in liquid or solid form? Both require heat to break the bonds but the water molecules, unlike the fuels, do not release any energy when the bonds are broken. That is why we cannot use water for fuel.
The answer lies in how information works. Even though the water molecules held in a line by hydrogen bonding have an electrical interrelationship between them, there is no information because the molecules are identical. The water molecules are identical and repetitive so that the only information is that of their position.
Remember that my theory of how information works stipulates that repetition is not complexity, meaning that it is not information. The complexity of a number is the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a ratio or fraction. Since the water molecules are identical, no matter how many are in a line the denominator is always 1.
But that is not the case with the polymers of the hydrocarbons that are used for fuels. There is information because these are genuine molecules with an interrelationship between the electrons of adjacent atoms, which is not the case with the simple hydrogen bonding of water molecules.
Since energy and information is really the same thing, when the bonds between atoms in these hydrocarbon molecules is broken by the heat in an engine that information is released as energy.
9) DISTANCE
A simple way to see how distance is information is by surface area. We know that information and energy is really the same thing, because we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it, and cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it.
We also know that a sphere is the default gravitational form of matter in the universe because it has the lowest energy state, and the universe always seeks the lowest energy state. With the lowest energy state, the sphere is also characterized as having the lowest surface area per volume of all geometric forms.
That means that surface area is equivalent to energy, or information. We add information to something by applying energy to it, and the only way to add information to a smooth sphere is to increase it's surface area. Since increased surface area means that the average distance between all points on that surface is greater, that must mean that since distance is related to surface area then distance is also information.
This makes sense because the distance between two points is information. Anything involving information is defined by what it is not, but potentially could have been. The further apart two points actually are, the more distances in between there are at which they could have been, but aren't.
But repetition is not complexity. Remember that the complexity of a number, meaning the information in it, is equal to the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a ratio or fraction. That means that distance across space, where there is no gravitational field, is repetitive.
That is why we have Newton's Law that an object in motion will remain in motion until stopped by an outside force. We only need to fire the engine of a spacecraft to get it moving toward it's target and it will keep going in that direction after the engine is shut off. That is because the empty space across which it is moving is repetitive, equivalent to a fraction with a denominator of 1.
But if there is a gravitational field, or if the spacecraft runs into an asteroid, then that is information and the original energy applied to the spacecraft will no longer suffice to keep it moving in exactly the same direction.
This shows how dimensions are information. The initial thrust got the spacecraft moving, and it continued moving across empty space, but only in a straight line, which is one-dimensional. When we add a gravitational field, or another object, to the situation, we are adding information. That information will affect the spacecraft, to change or stop it's course, unless further information, from an additional engine thrust which is energy and thus information, is added to it.
10) FALLING
A falling object is seeking a lower-energy state, which the universe always does. But energy and information is really the same thing so if the falling object is seeking a lower-energy state, we should also be able to see how it is seeking a lower-information state.
Remember the element of the information theory that the complexity of a number, which is the information in it, is not equal to the value of the number itself but to the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a ratio or fraction. 24 is no more complex than 3 because 24 is really 24 / 1 and 3 is really 3 / 1.
Suppose that we have an object of a certain dimension. It doesn't matter if we use the entire object or a part of the object as it's dimension. Let's just describe the object's width or height as 1.
Now suppose that we place the object unsupported at a height twenty times it's width or height. The dimension of the object will be 1 / 20 it's altitude above the ground. Remembering that the complexity of a number is the value of the denominator when it is expressed as a ratio, and that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state which is the same as the lowest information state, the object and the earth seek to lower the 20 of the denominator to the lowest possible value.
The only way to do that is to lower the altitude of the object, in other words for the object to fall. When the height of the object as the numerator of the ratio and the altitude of the top of the object above the ground is 1 / 1 that is both the lowest achievable information state for a solid object, and it also means that the object is on the ground.
23) INFORMATION OF POSITION
The information on the structure of the matter in the universe can be divided into three parts.
The first is what we refer to as the Mass-Energy Equivalence. This is the well-known fact that a given amount of mass is equal to an equivalent amount of energy. Some of the mass is converted into energy in a nuclear reaction but the only way to release all of the energy, so that matter disintegrates back into empty space, is to react it with an equal amount of antimatter, so that both disappear in a fantastic burst of energy.
Again, energy and information is really the same thing because we cannot apply energy to anything without also adding information to it and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it. Another way we see that matter and energy is really the same thing is in how we can make our lives physically easier through use of technology, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on the whole, make our lives physically easier and also less complex.
My cosmology theory explains how the Mass-Energy Equivalence is also information. Empty space consists of alternating negative and positive electric charges in a multi-dimensional checkerboard pattern. This is thus a zero-information state, with no information at all. If we rearrange this pattern in any way, which would have to be a concentration of like charges, we are adding information. This is what my theory has matter as, any concentration of like charges held together by energy, which is the energy of the Mass-Energy Equivalence.
This is the same thing as a computer drive holding information in bits, except that the bits are referred to as being in either a state of 1 or 0, instead of the negative and positive electric charges of which everything in the universe is composed. If we react matter and antimatter together, the arrangements of like electric charges goes back to the perfectly alternating charges of empty space and the information that was held by the arrangement is released as energy, because energy and information is really the same thing. This is why a matter-antimatter reaction would release so much energy.
The second part of the information on the structure of matter in the universe is the energy that is released as radiation. When mass, according to the Mass-Energy equivalence, is converted back to energy, that energy will be released into space by way of electromagnetic radiation. Radiation, like matter, is information but the information, which is held by disrupting the perfect pattern of alternating electric charges in empty space, is spread over a wider area than with matter.
But the third part of the information on the structure of matter in the universe is what we could call the Information Of Position.
Let's briefly review the complexity of numbers. A higher number is not necessarily more complex than a lower one. My definition is that the complexity of a number is the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a ratio or fraction. A number by itself, such as 5, is really 5 / 1. 16 / 1 is no more complex than 5 / 1 because the denominators of both are equal.
A number by itself means essentially nothing. There is meaning only when it is expressed as a ratio with another number or definition such as 5 / eggs.
The information for where everything in the universe is positioned, one star relative to another for example, must come from somewhere. There is a lot of information of position in the universe because the general pattern is very irregular sizing and spacing of objects, although they are made of the same atoms and every atom is theoretically identical to every equivalent atom, meaning that every iron atom is identical to every other iron atom of the same isotope.
The source of the information of position in the universe is the original atoms in the universe, immediately following the Big Bang. In fact, that is the only place that it could have come from. The information for where everything in the universe is positioned, relative to everything else, must somehow be encoded into these first atoms.
The first atoms were a vast number of hydrogen atoms, hydrogen being the lightest and simplest atom. The number of hydrogen atoms is believed to be about a 1 followed by 80 zeroes. This number is far too vast for the human mind to grasp. Let's refer to the number of original hydrogen atoms as H.
As high as this number was, there was not a lot of information in it because the number was really H / 1. Remember that the complexity of a number, the information in it, is the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a ratio or fraction.
If there had been only these original hydrogen atoms, and they were evenly spaced, there would not be much information in the universe at all. There was no information from anywhere else to make the atoms anything other than evenly spaced so, as these atoms were crunched together by gravity in the stars that formed as the atoms were pulled together, there could only be a universe of everything being identical and evenly spaced, whether stars, solar systems or, galaxies, because there would be no information to make it otherwise.
But now suppose that among all of these original hydrogen atoms, there had been just one single helium atom. Helium is the next heaviest element, after hydrogen. This helium atom would have been barely detectable but, in terms of information, it would have changed everything.
Since one atom is helium, we would now have the information of 1 / H, instead of H / 1, because one atom out of all the hydrogen atoms are of a different atom. It would involve so much information because it would have to be explained why only one atom, and why only this one atom in particular, is helium when all of the others are hydrogen. It would be a manifestation of the pattern that I refer to as "The One And The Many", where the helium atom is the one and all of the hydrogen atoms are the many.
Because all of the other hydrogen atoms are identical, and repetition is not adding complexity, it would go from the very low information state of H / 1, with a complexity level of 1, to it's reciprocal of 1 / H, where the complexity level is H which is the number of the vast amount of hydrogen atoms in the universe. It would be the information of why this one atom, out of all the others, was helium when the others weren't.
What actually happened in the universe was similar in principle. We know that actually about 25 % of the atoms in the universe were helium because atoms formed within minutes of the Big Bang and there was enough energy left over to fuse hydrogen atoms into some heavier ones in what is referred to as primordial nucleo-synthesis. But this is still not much information because it only gives us the ratio of 1 / 4, a complexity level of 4. Clearly the positioning in the universe is much more complex than that.
The universe also had traces of other atoms. There was a small amount, relatively speaking, of deuterium. This is an isotope of hydrogen that has one neutron, where ordinary hydrogen has no neutron. There was also a lighter isotope of helium, with only one neutron instead of the usual two, known as helium-3, but in very small amounts. There was also traces of the next heaviest element, lithium.
It is these trace elements from the Big Bang which formed the reciprocals of the vast numbers of hydrogen and helium atoms to provide all of the information of position in the universe. Without these trace elements being among the first atoms formed, before stars formed much later and crunched lighter elements into heavier ones, the structures of matter in the universe would have to be very simple.
There were four times as many hydrogen as helium atoms, so there could only be manifestations of a complexity of four. There could be four types of identical star, and four possible distances between them, which would be a very simple universe.
But what happened is that the trace elements that formed by Big Bang nucleo-synthesis, the deuterium (hydrogen with a neutron), Helium-3 (helium with only one neutron instead of the usual two) and beryllium, formed reciprocals with the vast numbers of atoms of ordinary hydrogen and helium, and this is where the information came from to create the very complex universe that we see today.
24) NEW MEASUREMENTS FOR COMPLEXITY
I have written previously about what a great breakthrough it would be if we could measure complexity. What I mean by measure is to actually put a number on it. As it is now, we express complexity with vague subjective comparison terms such as "more complex than" or "much less complex than".
The reason that we do not naturally measure complexity numerically, as we do time or weight or distance, is that we are more complex than our inanimate surroundings and when we look around us, we are superimposing our own complexity on our less complex surroundings. We have difficulty expressing this complexity as a number because we are literally measuring our own complexity. This is very difficult because, to measure something, we must be able to grasp it's complexity with our own complexity.
I can see how to express the complexity of a number. A number by itself means essentially nothing. Numbers only have real meaning in relation to another number or reference point. My view of the complexity of a number is that of the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a ratio or fraction. The complexity level of 2 / 5 is 5. A higher number is not necessarily more complex than a lower number because a number like 5 is really 5 / 1, while 26 is really 26 / 1.
But if, as physicists tell us, everything is really numbers, then complexity must somehow be measurable as a number. We just have difficulty seeing it because we are essentially measuring the complexity of ourselves.
Our creation of technology is just imposing our own complexity on our natural environment. I see all examples of technology as being of equal complexity if we add together the internal and external complexity. It may seem that a car is more complex than a cup, but that is only because more of a car's complexity is external. A cup may seem like a very simple device but to fully understand it, and why we would create it, we would have to understand the human body and how it works and why we would need to drink from a cup. All technology is a reflection of our own complexity if we would add it's internal and external complexity together.
My finding is that what it requires is some new and creative ways of measuring. There is a maximum and minimum of complexity between the lower end of inanimate matter and the higher end of our own complexity. If it did exist, we could not measure anything more complex than ourselves.
We can see that humans are more complex than our surrounding universe of inanimate matter. We also know that the more complex something is, relative to it's surroundings, the more likely it is that something will go wrong. So, considering the innate complexity of our surrounding inanimate universe doesn't it make sense that the number of entries in a medical textbook, the number of things that could possibly go wrong with the human body, is representative of the difference in complexity between the lower level of inanimate matter and the higher level of human beings?
The reason that people are different from one another is random mutations caused by radiation and other factors in the surrounding natural environment. But humans are clearly much more the same than they are different. So doesn't it make sense that the sameness of humans divided by the differences between humans would equal the higher complexity of humans divided by the lower complexity of inanimate matter?
The fact that humans can recognize each other is a reflection of the fact that our brains must be more complex than our bodies. If our bodies and brains were of equal complexity then we would be able to tell another human being, but not to differentiate one from another.
So this then gives us the measurement perspective that the ratio of the complexity of our bodies, divided by the lesser complexity of our inanimate surroundings, must be equal to the ratio of the complexity of our brains, divided by the lesser complexity of our bodies, which makes it possible for us to recognize each other.
We cannot always recognize everyone from everyone else. Some people look so alike as to be virtually indistinguishable. But this reveals another interesting equality. The number of possible entries in a medical textbook, the total number of things that can go wrong with the body because it is of a higher level of complexity than it's inanimate surroundings, is essentially equal to the total number of different people that we can recognize, with the recognition not being limited to sight.
PLANTS, COMPLEXITY AND, DIET
What about the number of plants required in the soil to keep humans in optimum health? This includes those used as feed for livestock or seafood. My theory is that while humans are more complex than our inanimate surroundings, plants are not. Plants are actually more intricate than the surrounding natural environment, meaning complexity per mass, but are not overall more complex.
But food is what we use to maintain our higher level of complexity against the downward pull of our less-complex inanimate surroundings, our lives and health, being surrounded by the lower complexity of the inanimate universe. This lower level of complexity continuously tries to pull us back down to it's level, and eventually succeeds when we die, and partially succeeds when we get sick or injured. We use, either directly or indirectly through meat, plants to sustain us. But since any one plant is no more complex than our inanimate surroundings, no single plant can really provide a balanced diet for us.
We could thus say then that the number of plants required to provide an optimum diet is equal to how many times more complex we are than our surrounding inanimate environment.
Remember that we see how plants are more intricate than, but not more complex than, the surrounding inanimate universe in that they do not require free will. Free will, such as humans and animals have, only makes sense if the living thing can make decisions. We can only make decisions if we could possibly be wrong. We could only possibly make wrong decisions if we were more complex than our surroundings and there was not enough information in those surroundings to match our own complexity with which we see those surroundings. A living thing can never be wrong about anything if it is no more complex than it's inanimate surroundings.
So we can add this measurement perspective to the perspective above, about the medical textbook and the ability to recognize each other. The number of different plants that we need for an optimum diet, including those eaten indirectly as meat, is equal to the ratio of our complexity over the complexity of our inanimate surroundings. This has never been pointed out before.
THE COMPLEXITY OF SOCIETY
As we impose our own complexity on the surrounding inanimate matter, our society grows more complex. Since this complexity of society must be somewhere in between the base level of the complexity of inanimate matter and our own complexity, that means that it must be measurable.
One way to measure the complexity of society is by the total number of definable job descriptions. Since each job description is a numerator of 1 in a ratio over a denominator, that means that the value of the denominator is a quantification of the complexity of society.
Distance is information also and we can also measure the complexity of society by the total amount of traveling that is done. But we can see that the number of job descriptions and the total distance traveled are interchangeable, different functions of the same thing. When humans settled from being nomadic hunter-gatherers into farming at static settlements, the total distance traveled decreased but the number of definable job descriptions, facilitated by the division of labor, increased.
Suppose that there was an imaginary day in the future when we will know all that we can possibly know, we can call it K-Day. Consider that to express something in numbers we have to completely understand it, we describe with words what we do not completely understand. This means that, the more knowledge we gain and the closer we move toward the day that we know all that we can possibly know, the higher the proportion of our information we will express in numbers, rather than in words.
It indeed seems that we are expressing more information in numbers than in days past and the total proportion of knowledge expressed in numbers should show us how we are progressing toward K-Day.
I am fascinated by the idea of quantifying complexity, actually putting a number on it, and all of the benefits that would bring. We can put a number on complexity but we cannot measure it with a ruler or a scale. It requires some new and creative ways of measuring.
25) THE MEANINGFUL WORD RATIO
Our alphabet generally has a letter representing each fundamental sound of speech that humans use. The total number of these fundamental sounds of speech is, of course, related to our complexity. Aside from the letters of the alphabet we also use numbers, structured from fundamental digits that function in a way similar to that of letters.
But the difference between letters and numbers is that, while all combinations of digits forms a meaningful number, only a certain proportion of letter combinations forms meaningful words. The number of digits that we use to express numbers, ten, is simply a reflection of ancient people counting on their ten fingers and is not a reflection of our complexity. In any case, the number base that we use would not affect the basic operation of mathematics.
Consider the following potential single-syllable words that possibly could be words. but do not yet have a meaning assigned to them, possibly excluding names:
Kilp
Wun
Bant
Dop
I find that this proportion tells us a lot about where we stand in relation to knowledge. We could call is the "Meaningful Word Ratio".
We have a certain complexity level that is higher than that of our inanimate surrounding universe. My view of all technology is that it is imposing our complexity on that of our inanimate surroundings. Being limited, we cannot ever know everything but there is a potential of what we could know. Since we are always learning new things we can be sure that we have not yet reached that potential which does, of course, depend on our complexity, and this complexity of ours is the same complexity level which governs the number of fundamental speech sounds that we use.
The conclusion that I come to about this is that, if we could perfectly impose our complexity on our surroundings in creating technology, and could know all that we could possibly know, we would have to coin new words that would make a meaningful word out of all possible letter combinations, following the rules of wording such as vowels and consonants and dipthings, without lengthening the average length of a word because that brings about more possible letter combinations.
This does not apply to names became names are a function of words, being secondary to words. We use words to describe patterns because there is not enough information in the universe for everything to be completely different from everything else. We use words for the resulting patterns such as: house, tree, cloud, car, planet and, star because there are many of these patterns, not just one of each.
But yet different examples of such patterns are not identical to one another, and we can thus differentiate between examples of the same pattern and use names to describe this differentiation. There are a number of planets that we can differentiate, as well as different species of trees and of makes and models of cars so we use names to define these differentiations although they fall into the same pattern as described by a word.
Numbers are innate to the inanimate universe around us. Everything is really numbers being manifested. But words are our creation and their usefulness results from our scale and our perspective on the universe. if we were much larger in scale, or smaller, or our senses were different, we would use the same numbers but our words would have different meanings.
What I find so interesting about expressing our present knowledge and technology as a ratio of what our knowledge and technology could, given our complexity level, possibly be is that our use of words themselves are a reflection of the fact that our knowledge is incomplete, or has not reached it's full potential.
Numbers are more precise than words. But, for that very reason, we have to understand everything about something, the calendar for example, to be able to describe it with numbers. We have to know something to be able to express with words, but if we knew everything about it we could express it with the more-accurate numbers instead. In other words, numbers are for what we completely understand and words are for what we partially understand.
That means, once again, that we can estimate where we stand with knowledge, what we know now in comparison to what we could potentially know, by scanning a vast number of documents and counting the numbers relative to words, and than taking comparable measurements on older sets of documents.
26) MATHEMATICAL SYMBOLS AND WORDS
We are more complex than our inanimate surroundings, but how much more complex? This is a difficult question to answer because we cannot readily quantify, or put a number on, complexity. But if it is true that, as physicists tell us, everything is really numbers, then there must somehow be a way to quantify just how complex we are with regard to our inanimate surroundings.
There are a number of possible starting points to measure this complexity that I have written about already.
We know that the more complex a system is, the more likely it is that something will go wrong. A medical textbook is basically a catalog of all that can possibly go wrong with the human body. The ailments and injuries in a medical textbook thus represent the difference in complexity between our bodies and our inanimate surroundings.
We can see how our brains must be more complex than our bodies because we can recognize each other. If our brains were no more complex than our bodies, we would be able to tell another human being but would not be able to tell one person from another.
In my complexity theory, the free will of living things only makes sense if the living thing has the capacity to be either right or wrong in it's conclusions about it's surroundings. It can only be right or wrong about it's surroundings if it is more complex than those surroundings. There is not enough information in the surroundings that are of lower complexity for everything that the being with free will can conceive of to exist. Therefore the conclusions of the being about it's surroundings can be either correct or wrong.
But that would not be the case if a living thing were not more complex than it's surroundings. Such a living thing would not be able to conceive of anything that could not exist in it's surroundings, therefore free will would be meaningless. That is why plants do not have free will. It would make no sense because plants are no more complex than their inanimate surroundings. Plants are certainly more intricate, meaning more complexity per mass, but contain no more intrinsic information than their inanimate environment.
This greater intricacy, but not more complexity, is why plants can die but do not need to think. It also explains why plants are typically much more able to recover, and go on living, from damage than humans and other beings with free will are able to recover from injuries. The plants require more intricacy, but no more overall complexity, than the surrounding inanimate environment, while the humans and other beings require both more intricacy and more complexity. Plants thus have the advantage of lower requirements.
But this means that we, and other beings with free will, must be more complex than plants. Since we are more complex than our inanimate surroundings, that means that it is continuously trying to break us down to it's level. That means that we require food to sustain us. Free will is of no use unless we can act on it with motion, but motion further requires food for energy.
One way that we can see how we are more complex than our surrounding inanimate environment, and plants more intricate although not more complex, is in the basic patterns involved, particularly the peak. The meaningful peak pattern is generally missing in the universe of inanimate matter, but is predominant in living things. Inanimate matter tends to form a slope, the more the better. There is no peak factor in a star, for example, the more matter is available the larger and more radiant the star will be. But living things operate by having a peak, or optimum, temperature, percentage of oxygen, and so on. Humans have optimums of work, sleep and, food. It is not just the simple slope, the more the better, of inanimate matter. A peak is more complex in that it involves multiple slopes.
We use plants for food, either directly or indirectly through meat. But my complexity theory also establishes that energy and information is really the same thing. We cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it. Another way we can see that energy and information is really the same thing is how we can, through technology, make our lives physically easier but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make our lives both physically easier and also less complex. This shows, again, that energy and information is really the same thing.
However, that apparently presents a problem for us. We require plants for food, to maintain our higher level of complexity over our inanimate surroundings, but yet those plants are themselves no more complex than our inanimate environment.
Yet that provides us with a possibly way to see numerically just how much more complex we are than our surrounding environment. The fact that plants are no more complex than the surrounding inanimate environment is why no one species of plant will provide us with the necessary nutrition for optimum health. We require a balanced diet that encompasses a number of different plants.
We could thus state that we are X times as complex as our surrounding environment with X being the number of different plants that are required, either directly or indirectly through meat, to maintain us in optimum health.
MATHEMATICAL SYMBOLS AND WORDS
Everything is really numbers, ultimately expressible as mathematics. We also use words to describe the world and the universe around us. The difference between words and numbers is that numbers are how everything in the universe actually operates, while words describe how we see the universe.
To describe something with mathematics we must completely understand it's operation, such as a calendar or periodic table. But we can describe something with words without completely understanding it.
If we were of the same complexity as our surrounding inanimate environment, then there should be the same number of words as there are of mathematical symbols. In fact, there should be no difference between the two. But that is not the case, there are many more words than mathematical symbols.
With words we are seeing our own complexity reflected back at us, but with numbers and mathematics we are not. Words describe how things affect us and there must thus be more words than mathematical symbols because we are more complex than our inanimate surroundings.
In fact, just as with the number of different plants that are required for us to have a balanced diet we can put a measurement on our complexity, relative to the surrounding inanimate matter, by the ratio of words to mathematical symbols that we use.
To begin with, only about ten thousand words are in common use. Furthermore, different words can mean essentially the same thing such as "red", "rouge" and, "scarlet". But if we eliminate such redundancies then the ratio of words to mathematical symbols should be approximately equal to the number of plants required to provide a balanced diet, which should be equal to our complexity relative to our inanimate environment.
But keep in mind here that I am referring to the number of mathematical symbols in use, not the percentage of data that is expressed as numbers as opposed to words. I also believe that we can take a measurement on how we are progressing from what we know now to all that we can practically know by what percentage of our data is in the form of numbers, rather than words. The percentage of numbers in our data has greatly increased since centuries past. But there are still many more words used than numbers. This is because, to describe something with numbers we must completely understand it, but that is not the case with words. We should thus theoretically arrive at a day where everything can be expressed as numbers because we will know all that we can practically know.
I am sure that we can measure complexity, which would be a great advantage. It just requires some creative ways of measurement because it is not something that can be measured with a ruler or a scale.
A fundamental principle of my information theory is that energy and information is really the same thing. We can see all around us how energy and information always end up being equivalent.
Let's look at two examples today, water and planetary impacts.
We can immediately see that energy and information is really the same thing because we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it, and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it.
Another way we can see that energy and information is really the same thing is in how we can make our lives physically easier, by using technology, but only at the expense of making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make our lives physically easier and also less complex.
ENERGY AND INFORMATION IN WATER
Distance in space is information. Since energy and information is really the same thing then distance must also be energy. This is why it requires energy to move an object from one place to another.
If distance is energy then the surface area of an object must also be energy. We know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state. That is why the sphere is the default gravitational form of matter in the universe, such as for planets and stars. A sphere has the lowest surface area per volume of any three-dimensional geometric form. Since distance, and thus surface area, is energy, this makes the sphere the lowest energy state.
If we heat water, the heat is energy. The water will expand in volume, increasing it's surface area because surface area is equivalent to energy and information.
If the heated water is within colder water, the heated water will rise. This is because altitude is also energy, which shouldn't be surprising because altitude is distance. We can easily see how altitude is energy in that an object falls with greater force when it falls from a higher altitude. Also, if we give more orbital energy to a satellite then it will orbit at a higher altitude.
If we heat water to the boiling point it will expand in volume by a few percent. But more of the water will evaporate as it is heated. These water molecules in the air have the effect of greatly increasing the surface area of the water, because surface area is equivalent to energy.
Water evaporates from it's surface. But when the water reaches a certain temperature, related to the atmospheric pressure on the water, evaporation begins to take place throughout the volume of the water. This condition is known as boiling.
The bubbling within the water as it is boiling effectively increases the surface area of the water, because the heat that brings about boiling is energy and surface area is equivalent to energy. The surface of the water loses it's smoothness as the boiling point is approached and that also increases the surface area of the water.
The water molecules leaving the water because of the heat energy increases the surface area of the water, because surface area is equivalent to energy. But the molecules rise into the air, and altitude is also energy. This represents too much energy. But when water molecules condense together to form steam, this has the effect of decreasing the overall surface area of the water, bringing it back into line with the actual heat energy, even though the total surface area, including the steam droplets, is more than the surface area of the water before it was heated.
The formation of steam thus serves to maintain the equivalence of surface area and energy, because the altitude of the water molecules that left by evaporation is energy too.
Wind contains energy. Wind across water produces waves. The waves increase the surface area of the water to reflect the energy of the wind, because surface area represents energy.
Water evaporates because water is actually lighter than air by molecule, although it takes energy to break the hydrogen bonds in water. But upon reaching a certain altitude, with thinner and cooler air, water molecules condense together, upon a suitable condensation nuclei such as dust. When these droplets, which form clouds, condense together it means a loss of surface area.
Since surface area is energy, this must mean a loss of energy. But energy cannot just be lost, it shows up in the altitude energy of the now- much heavier than air large water droplets, and then the energy of their impact on the ground when they fall as rain.
ENERGY AND INFORMATION IN PLANETARY IMPACTS
The reason that impacts are still going on in the Solar System is explained by my information theory.
The Solar System formed, maybe four and a half billion years ago, when a massive star that preceded the sun exploded as a supernova. Only the largest stars can explode as a supernova. Much of the matter fell back together by gravity to form the sun and planets. We know that the sun is such a second-generation star because it contains heavy elements that are beyond it's current stage in the fusion process.
Each planet has it's own orbit. The planets do not collide for the simple reason that, if they were going to collide they wouldn't have formed separately in the first place.
But while planets themselves do not collide, there is still plenty of consolidation going on in the Solar System by gravity.
For each object in orbit around the sun, such as a planet or asteroid, there is it's orbital energy and the information of it's position. To understand why impacts take place during the ongoing consolidation of the Solar System, we must understand that we cannot keep the same orbital energy when the information of position in the Solar System is reduced by consolidation.
The reason for that, of course, is that energy and information is really the same thing.
Orbital energy is based on distance from the sun. The higher the orbit the higher the energy. If a meteor or asteroid, from a higher orbit, collides with the earth, so that it becomes part of the earth, the difference in the energy of it's former higher orbit shows up as the energy of the impact.
Another way of looking at it is that if the meteor or asteroid joins the earth so that the two now share information of position, that means less total information. Since energy and information is really the same thing then it must also mean less energy. But neither energy nor information can just disappear, it must go somewhere. The energy of the impact of the meteor or asteroid with the earth is where the excess energy went. The change to the earth's surface by the asteroid impact is where the latent information went.
This is, of course, because energy and information is really the same thing. Distance is information and we know that a higher orbit is a higher energy orbit. This means that orbital energy and information of position is really the same thing. My information theory explains why distance is information. A higher number is no more complex, holds no more information, than a lower number. The complexity of a number, it's information level, is the value of the denominator when the number is expressed as a fraction or ratio.
9 is no more complex than 4 because 9 is really 9 / 1 and 4 is really 4 / 1.
But a ratio like 1 / 5 means that there are five possibilities and there must be information as to why one or more are included but the others are not.
Thus there is a complexity level of 5.
Distance is thus information because there are more possibilities of where something of a given size could be located within the distance, and the information of the entire distance would be necessary to specify where that location was.
A heavier impact by the meteor or asteroid on earth would involve more energy, but that means more information because energy and information is really the same thing. The greater information of the impact lies in the greater number of atoms and molecules that were displaced over a greater distance from their original positions.
This can only mean that energy and information is the same thing.
28) WHY THINGS GO WRONG
28) WHY THINGS GO WRONG
Why do things have to go wrong? Why can't everything just go right? There is actually a reason and it is based on my information theory.
Humans are at a higher level of complexity than the surrounding inanimate universe. Think of a cliff with a higher and a lower level.
When we make use of our inanimate surroundings, collectively known as technology, we are imposing our higher complexity on it. The way I see it, all technology is equal in complexity to our higher level. But all technology has an internal and an external component.
A cup, for example, seems simple. But to really understand a cup it would be necessary to understand why humans would need it. It would be necessary to understand our digestive system and why we need to drink fluids. It would also be necessary to understand that we have fingers and an opposable thumb that can hold the cup.
This means that, while the cup's internal complexity is low, it's very high external complexity brings it up to the complexity level of the humans that made it.
With technology that is more complex than a cup, such as a car, more of it's complexity is internal, but the total complexity also adds up to the same level as humans. When an example of technology has more internal complexity, it is less necessary to understand all about what humans are to understand the technology.
Our higher level of complexity is why we have to have free will. Having free will would not be necessary or make sense if we were no more complex than our inanimate surroundings. But free will also means that we can be wrong about things, because there is not enough information in our inanimate surroundings for everything that we can conceive of to exist.
In my complexity theory, plants are far more intricate than the inanimate surroundings, meaning higher complexity or more information per mass, but contain no more overall information than our inanimate surroundings. That is why we require plants for food, but no one plant can provide all of the nutrients that we need.
This explains why we cannot reuse energy. Even though a fundamental law of physics is that energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form, technology cannot reuse energy. Once it is used it is lost.
But this also shows why technology has a proclivity to break down. The lower level of complexity of the universe around us is always "trying" to pull our technology back down to the lower level. The technology, being as complex as we are, is always thus prone to breaking and malfunctioning.
When we impose our higher level of complexity on our surroundings to create technology, it introduces another issue. We can never be sure that we are grasping all of the aspects of the technology because to do so, we would have to be "smarter than ourselves", which is impossible.
Like our technology, our economy is as complex as we are. That makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for any of us to fully grasp the economy. It is much easier for each of us to just see the right or left. To see the entire economic picture we would have to be "smarter than ourselves".
So these are the two reasons that things have to go wrong, both explained by my information theory, we impose our higher level of complexity on our surrounding environment to create technology, and it's lower level of complexity is always "trying" to pull our technology back down. Also, to fully grasp all of the facets of our technology, and the economy that it brings into being, we would have to be "smarter than ourselves", which is impossible.
29) THE FRONT AND THE BACK
29) THE FRONT AND THE BACK
Here is something that I cannot see has ever been pointed out.
Suppose that there was a way to illustrate how living things fit into the universe around using simple everyday words. There actually is, the words are "front" and "back".
Humans have a front and a back. Animals have fronts and backs. But plants, such as trees, do not have a definable front and back. Plants have a top and bottom but not a front and back.
Nothing in the inanimate universe around us actually has a front and back. This includes stars, planets, galaxies, atoms, clouds, rocks, etc.
Like plants, things in the inanimate universe can have a top or a bottom. The rotational axis of a planet can be said to give it a one-dimensional definition of what could be a top or bottom. A spiral galaxy can likewise be said to have a one-dimensional rotational axis that can be defined as a top and bottom, although it is a matter of perspective which direction is the top and which is the bottom.
The reason that something like the rotational axes of planets and galaxies cannot have one end of the axis definitely defined as a top or bottom is that this would require another dimension of information.
Here is what I find to be so interesting. Only living things with free will, such as humans and animals, have a front and a back. Unlike plants and collections of inanimate matter, we have a two-dimensional definition. We have not only a top and a bottom but also a front and a back.
This reflects what we saw in the theory on this blog, "How Biology And Human Life Fits Into Cosmology", June 2016. There are two dimensions of information whereas inanimate matter has only one.
Remember that we are at a higher level of complexity than our inanimate surroundings. This is why we have free will. Free will doesn't make sense unless we are more complex than our surroundings. The reason that we can be wrong about things, which is a result of having free will, is that there is not enough complexity in our inanimate surroundings for everything that we can conceive of to exist.
Plants are no more complex than the inanimate surroundings. That is why plants have a top and bottom but not a front and back. But plants are far more intricate than the surrounding inanimate environment, which means more complexity per mass. This also explains why we rely on plants for food but no one plant can provide a balanced diet. We require several plants because they are not as complex as we are.
The fact that plants are of far greater intricacy than, although no more complex than, the inanimate surroundings is shown in how objects of a similar size to the plants, such as rocks, do not have meaningful tops and bottoms. But the entire planet, with it's axial rotation, does have a top-bottom axis, although it cannot be any more than a matter of perspective which is the top and which is the bottom.
When we make things out of inanimate matter we are imposing our complexity on it. That is why many of the things that we make, such as houses, cars, appliances, signs, documents and, photographs do have fronts and backs.
So if inanimate matter has only this one-dimensional, top-bottom definition, then where could the definition of the other dimension, the front-back, have come from? It must have come from outside the universe. We must have been created by God. Plants show evidence of God's creation too, because of their far higher intricacy than their inanimate surroundings.
30) MAGNETISM AS INFORMATION
What is so useful about this theory of information is how it enables us to "see ahead" to things that haven't yet been discovered. An ideal example involves magnetism.
Magnetism is brought about by the lining up of unpaired electrons in atoms by use of an electric field. Electrons in atoms usually exist in pairs, one with an up and the other with a down spin. If unpaired electrons can be lined up, the material will exert an electromotive force, with a north and a south pole. This force is known as magnetism.
Although it is not the only material from which a strong magnet can be made, the material that we most associate with magnetism is iron. Steel is iron with carbon added to make it stronger. Other elements that can be alloyed to make strong magnets are nickel and cobalt.
Iron is a really interesting element. We tend to take it for granted because it is so common, it is the most common element on earth by mass. But the reason that it is so common is the same reason that makes it so interesting.
As we know the nucleus of an atom is held together by binding energy. This is necessary because the nucleus is composed of protons, which have a positive electric charge, and, since like charges repel each other, the nucleus would not be able to hold together unless it was held by binding energy. What happens is that some of the mass of the nucleus is converted into binding energy by the nuclear force, which is one of the fundamental forces of the universe.
Not all elements have the same amount of binding energy per nucleon in their nucleus. A nucleon means either a proton or a neutron. Beginning with the lightest element, hydrogen with one proton in the nucleus, the binding energy per nucleon reaches a peak, and then begins to decline. This is known as the Binding Energy Curve.
At the very top of that peak is iron. This means that iron has the most stable nucleus of all elements because it has the most binding energy per nucleon.
The reason that iron is so common is because the ordinary fusion process in stars only goes as far as iron. This is because the iron nucleus is so stable that it requires more energy to break it apart, entering the plasma state so that it can fuse into heavier nuclei, than is released by breaking it. This means that fusing iron into heavier elements, by the tremendous heat and pressure in the centers of stars, requires an input of energy rather than giving off energy.
This is why the ordinary fusion process in stars only goes as far as iron. When a large star explodes in a supernova it scatters it's component matter across space. Some of that matter typically falls back together by gravity to form a second-generation star and, maybe, planets. That is how our Solar System formed and is why iron is so common.
Elements heavier than iron require an input of energy to form. These elements only form when energy is being released by the explosion of the large star in the supernova, only the largest stars explode in a supernova. This is why elements up to iron are exponentially more common than those that are heavier than iron.
If you have ever wondered why carbon, oxygen, copper and, iron are so much more common than silver, gold and, uranium, this is why.
What I find to be so interesting, yet unexplained, is that iron is both the element most associated with magnetism and also the element with the most stable nucleus. The other two elements associated with magnetism, nickel and cobalt, are near iron at the top of the Binding Energy Curve.
This seems to make it very clear that there must be a link between magnetism and the stability of the nucleus. But, as of now, we cannot see what it is.
Magnetism is a property of the electron orbitals in an atom, and have nothing to do with the nucleus. Nuclear stability, the Binding Energy Curve, has nothing to do with the electrons. The binding energy in a nucleus has no effect on the electric charges of the protons, which is what affects the electrons in their orbitals.
But yet there must be a connection between the two, even if we cannot see it now. This cannot be a coincidence that the elements at the top of the Binding Energy Curve are the same elements that are associated with magnetism.
My information theory explains the connection in terms of information, and it is simple.
Iron atoms, fused in stars from lighter elements, have the most stable nuclei. But stability represents a lower information state than instability. Indeed the very definition of stability is that it must be the lowest information state. We know that the universe both seeks the lowest information state and also prefers stability to instability.
Stability is some kind of equation, while instability is an inequation. An equation is a lower information state because it only contains one piece of information, while an inequation must contain more than one.
A equals A must be a lower information state than A does not equal B, because we would only have to define A, instead of both A and B.
But if iron atoms are fused together from lighter atoms, and has a nucleus with more stability than the nuclei from which they were fused, that must mean a loss of information somewhere. The trouble with that is that information cannot just be lost, it must go somewhere.
The electrons in the atoms have nothing to do with the stability of the nucleus, at least as far as we can see now. But the atom is an informational unit and information cannot just be lost.
Magnetism is actually information because a magnet has to have a north pole and a south pole. Magnetism is a higher information state than non-magnetism because it must be defined which is the north pole and which is the south pole, and where on the magnet the poles will be located.
This information theory thus enables us to "see ahead". Clearly magnetism must somehow be related to the stability of the nucleus of the atom, but we cannot see the physics of how this happens as of now.
31) HYDROGEN BONDING AS INFORMATION
There is a similar example to magnetism of how information is manifested in the electrons of an atom because of greater stability, which is a lower in state, in the nucleus.
This similar example is Hydrogen Bonding. Hydrogen Bonding is extremely important to us because it is why water can exist in a liquid, as well as ice, form. Without Hydrogen Bonding water would only exist in the form of vapor.
A water molecule consists of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, with the familiar chemical formula H2O. But the oxygen atom is much larger than the hydrogen atoms, which both attach to the same side of the oxygen atom.
What this does is makes one side of the water molecule more positively-charged and the other side more negatively-charged. Since opposite charges attract, water molecules tend to line up negative-to-positive. This is known as Hydrogen Bonding and water would only be able to exist as a vapor without it.
Water is lighter than air by molecule, which is why water evaporates, but with Hydrogen Bonding holding the molecules together, liquid water is about 800 times as heavy as air at sea level. Water is not the only compound in which Hydrogen Bonding takes place, but it is by far the most familiar and important to us.
Hydrogen Bonding is actually similar in principle to magnetism. But where magnetism works by atom, Hydrogen Bonding works by molecule. Whereas magnetism is the result of the special nature of iron, Hydrogen Bonding is the result of the special nature of oxygen.
But the special natures of both of these elements are rooted in the exceptional stability of their nuclei, but shows up in the electron orbitals in ways that, according to my information theory, transfers the lower information state of the nucleus, due to it's increased stability, to produce a higher information state in the electron orbitals due to creating defined dimensions, such as the north and south magnetic poles, which wouldn't exist otherwise.
We usually think of oxygen as a special element due to it's reactivity. This makes it suitable as an oxidizer for burning and digestion, and we are completely dependent on it to live.
But reactivity is not the reason that oxygen is important in my information theory. The reason is the same as for iron, the stability of it's nucleus. In both elements, this exceptional stability of the nucleus represents a lower information state. But information cannot just be lost and is transferred to the electron orbitals. This additional information in the orbitals shows up as defined dimensions, a north and south pole in magnetism and one side of the water molecule being more positive and the other more negative in Hydrogen Bonding.
The exceptional stability of the iron nucleus is that it has the highest binding energy per nucleon of all elements. The exceptional stability of the oxygen nucleus is that it requires the lowest neutron-to-proton ratio of all atoms except hydrogen, which has no neutrons.
As we might expect, this additional stability should make both iron and oxygen very abundant. Indeed iron is very common in the inner Solar System and is the most common element on earth by mass. Oxygen is the most common element in the universe, by mass, after hydrogen and helium. Oxygen also makes up so much of the earth, not only in air and water molecules but rock is basically a compound of silicon and oxygen.
In the fusion taking place in the centers of stars, light atoms are being crunched together by the tremendous heat and pressure into heavier atoms. Heavier atoms generally require more neutrons per proton, to convey the binding energy which holds the positively-charged protons together against the mutual repulsion of like charges. Neutrons are created in fusion by crunching an electron and a proton together, the process known as K-capture.
If a nucleus, such as that of iron or oxygen, has more stability than the two or more lighter nuclei that were crunched together to create it, that represents a loss of information since stability is a lower information state than instability. This information cannot just be lost so, although neither magnetism or Hydrogen Bonding seems to have anything to do with the nucleus, the entire atom is still an informational unit and the missing information gets transferred to the electron orbitals and shows up as the defined dimensions of magnetism in iron and Hydrogen Bonding in water molecules.
Both iron and oxygen have two elements next to it on the Periodic Table that also undergo magnetism or Hydrogen Bonding. Cobalt and nickel, next to iron, also undergo magnetism. Fluorine and nitrogen, next to oxygen, can also undergo Hydrogen Bonding.
This exceptional stability of the oxygen atom is also part of my cosmology theory, but for a different reason than in this information theory. In the cosmology theory, "The Theory Of Stationary Space", the matter of our universe is scattered over four dimensions of space, one of which we perceive as time. There are two opposite directions in each dimension. This means that the oxygen nucleus, with eight protons, fits neatly into the space, one proton to each direction, and space itself contributes to holding the nucleus together and making it require fewer neutrons. This is described in 1g) of "The Theory Of Stationary Space", July 2017.
32) THE HUMAN COMPLEXITY RATIO
Out there somewhere is a very important number. Complexity, which is simply an amount of information, can be quantified, meaning that a number can be put on it.
We usually describe complexity in subjective terms, such as "less complex than" or "much more complex than", but, if complexity is a volume of information, it must somehow be possible to put a quantitative number on it.
My information defines the quantity of information as the numerical value of the denominator when something is expressed as a fraction or ratio. Complexity is always expressed as a dimensionless whole number.
Now we know that we, our bodies and brains, are more complex than our inanimate surroundings, even though we are made of the same kinds of atoms. But if we are more complex than our inanimate surroundings, and complexity can be expressed as a number, then there must be some number that expresses how many times more complex we are than our inanimate surroundings.
Since complexity, the amount of information, is so primary to us, and since we interact with our surroundings in all we do, we should expect that this number would be very important and would show up in so many things that we do.
We can see this difference in the two complexity levels, our higher complexity level relative to the lower complexity of our inanimate surroundings, in many ways.
Having free will would not make any sense unless we were more complex than our surroundings. Free will means that we can be wrong and can make mistakes. But we can only be wrong about anything if there is not enough complexity in our surroundings to manifest every arrangement that our minds can conceive of. This can only mean that we must be more complex than our surroundings.
We can see this difference in complexity in what I will call "Identifiable Dimensions". With planets, for example, there is no identifiable top, bottom or, sides. The same is true of an ordinary rock, it does not have an identifiable top or bottom or sides.
But when we come to living things, beginning with plants, this changes. Unlike inanimate matter, such as a rock, a plant has a definable top and bottom. When a living thing has free will, unlike a plant, it will also have a definable front and back.
This is the complexity of a thing, whether living or not, showing up as the number of definable dimensions.
0 = inanimate non-living
1 = living but no free will, such as plants
2 = living and with free will
We have one dimension remaining that is undefined, our sides. We are essentially the same from one side to the other. If there was a being a major step above us in complexity we could expect that, unlike us, it would be different from one side to the other.
But while our lateral, side to side, dimension is undefined, there are a couple of interesting things about it.
First, our hands are our side-to-side feature that is the most guided by our brains, according to our will. But, since our brains are more complex than our bodies, this does impart a degree of definition to our lateral dimension. This definition shows up as handedness, with people tending to be either right- or left-handed.
Second, our internal organs are not quite symmetrically arranged from side-to-side. It is the organs involved in the processing of food and distribution of nutrients, the stomach, intestines, liver and, heart that break the side-to-side symmetry. But remember that all of our food is ultimately based on plants, and we saw that plants have one definable dimension. This break in our lateral symmetry of the digestive organs is the information of the definable dimension in plants showing up.
If our brains were not more complex than our bodies, we would not be able to recognize each other. We would be able to recognize another human being, but not to tell one from another.
We can tell that our bodies are more complex than our surrounding inanimate environment because, when a person dies, the environment breaks down the complexity of the body to it's simpler level.
The more complex something is, the more possibilities there are to go wrong. A medical textbook shows all that can go wrong with the human body and can be taken as a representation of how much more complex we are than our inanimate surroundings.
When we use technology, we are imposing our higher level of complexity on our inanimate surroundings. A cup, for example, may seem like a simple piece of technology. But to really understand a cup, it would be necessary to understand why we would make it. How we can get materials from the earth to make the cup, how we would hold the cup with our hands, why we would need to drink the water or other liquid that the cup holds.
We know that energy can never be created or destroyed, but only changed in form. But, if this is true then why can't we reuse energy? It is because we are at a higher level of complexity than our inanimate surroundings, and when we use technology we are imposing our complexity on our inanimate surroundings. Once we use energy, it goes back to the surrounding environment, with it's lower level of complexity. We, with our higher level, cannot get it back in useful form.
So we know that we are more complex than our inanimate surroundings, and we know that complexity is quantifiable, meaning that we can put a number on it. The conclusion is this number, which I am calling the "Human Complexity Ratio", must be a very important number that we can expect to show up all around us.
Having a look at how this number might show up can help us to determine what it is. Following are some ways I have tried to do that.
The first thing that we might look at is the human body. If the body was homogeneous, the same throughout, it would be no more complex than it's surrounding inanimate environment. But that is not the case, the body has multiple organs that work together. We could expect that, the more separate organs the body has that work together, the more complex it will be. I think the number of major organs comprising the body must be equal to the number of times more complex the body is than the surrounding inanimate environment, which I define as the Human Complexity Ratio.
In my complexity theory plants are more intricate than the surrounding inanimate environment, meaning that they have more complexity per mass, but are actually no more complex, contain no more information, than the surrounding environment. That is why plants do not require free will. But we depend on plants for food and my thought is that the number of plants that we need for an optimum balanced diet, either directly or indirectly through meat, should equal the Human Complexity Number. Remember that much of the crops today have resulted from cross-breeding different plants, and the number would be the total number of those plants.
There is a temperature range on earth, from cold to hot. While we may be able to survive anywhere on earth, we are comfortable in only a narrow fraction of that temperature range. Since we have more complexity than the surrounding environment, this is what we should expect and the ratio of the total range to our comfort range is equal to the Human Complexity Ratio. This is about only the temperature range on earth, our environment, and not the range of temperatures in the universe, or down to absolute zero.
Humans can sense only a limited portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that comes from the sun. As with the temperature range, this is what we should expect if we are more complex than our inanimate environment, and the ratio of the total solar spectrum to the visible light that we can see and the infrared that we can feel as heat is equal to the Human Complexity Ratio.
Whenever we make or build anything, we are imposing our higher level of complexity on our surrounding environment, and we can expect that the Human Complexity Ratio will show up there also. If a house is built, without financial constraints, my feeling is that the optimum number of rooms, without being too many, will be equal to the Human Complexity Ratio. We build houses to shield our higher complexity level from the surrounding lower complexity level, and we can expect that the house will reflect this complexity. This is why things that we make or build have a tendency to decay, break down or, malfunction. The lower level of complexity in the surrounding environment is trying to equalize the higher level that we have imposed on whatever we make.
If our houses reflect our higher level of complexity, but we have to be able to operate in each room of the house, obviously our houses must be a scale larger than us. But this scale difference should reflect the complexity difference. I got the idea that the ratio of the width of all doors of a house should average out to be the reciprocal of the Human Complexity Ratio, relative to the total circumference of the house. This, of course, only involves the first floor of the house.
We see and interact with our surrounding environment at our higher level of complexity. What I am thinking is that the number of broad classifications of labor and the number of broad classifications of education subjects should generally be a reflection of the Human Complexity Ratio.
The number that I finally decided on as the value of the Human Complexity Ratio is 18. This means that we are 18 times as complex as our surrounding environment, and the answer to all of the above examples is either 18 or 1 / 18.
33) MEET THE UNIVERSE
I have an idea to explain how the universe operates. Suppose that the universe could be transformed into a human being. What would the universe be like?
Have you ever known anyone who has difficulty making decisions? Do you sometimes have difficulty making decisions? You would actually have a lot in common with the universe.
If there is one thing that the universe cannot stand, that it will do anything to avoid, it is making a decision.
People used to believe that the earth was flat. Indeed a flat earth would require less information than a sphere, so that would seem to make sense.
But the earth is in space. This means that, if the earth was flat, it would have to be aligned in one particular geometric plane in space, to the exclusion of all other possible planes. But then that would involve deciding which plane the earth would be aligned in, and if there is anything the universe cannot stand doing it is making a decision.
So the universe simply doesn't decide on one plane. It chooses all possible planes. A sphere actually is flat, but it is flat in all possible geometric planes rather than just one. Each point on the surface of a sphere can be considered as a flat surface aligned in one plane.
Just imagine the universe going shopping. Since it would be unable to decide what it wanted in the store, it would just buy everything in the store to avoid having to decide. Even if there was a particular product that the universe wanted from a display, such as a can of drink and there were multiple cans, the universe would have to take all of the cans to avoid choosing one.
Now that the earth is a sphere, the universe is faced with another decision. How will the sphere be aligned in space? So that, for example, the sun will be at the 7 AM position in Toronto.
But the universe simply cannot decide. So what it does is makes all possible choices about how the earth will be aligned. The earth cannot be at all possible choices at once, so it goes through all of the choices. This is why the earth rotates.
If you ever meet the universe, after it has been transformed into a human being, be sure to never take it out for dinner. The universe would be unable to choose what it wanted from the menu, so it would just order everything on the menu. It certainly wouldn't be able to choose one restaurant over another, so it would have to be taken to all restaurants.
But when the earth, and other planets and stars, rotate, there actually is decisions that have to be made. For a sphere to rotate, it must rotate around an axis. For that to happen a decision must be made as to which direction in space the axis will be aligned. Also, it must be decided in which direction the rotation will be.
So we have gotten the universe to make decisions. It is actually energy that forces the universe into making decisions. But so resistant is the universe to making decisions that, even when it does make a decision, it counteracts it's choice by also making the opposite decision.
The way that our Solar System came together, by some of the matter of the star that preceded the sun coming back together by gravity to form the sun and planets, meant that one orbital plane, out of all possible geometric planes in space, would have to become predominant. This would be the primary factor in determining the rotational axes of each planet but would be, once again, a choice. Another choice would have to be in which direction the planets would revolve around the sun.
If our Solar System was all that there was to the universe then it would have been forced to make these choices. But the universe just cannot stand to make choices and it has found a way around this by making all possible choices.
The universe is so large, and has so many solar systems, that it is able to negate the choices that it has to make for each solar system by spreading all possible choices, of orbital plane, rotational axes and rotational direction, over all of it's solar systems.
This also applies to something like the rotational planes of spiral galaxies.
It is kind of like, when the universe went shopping, it simply bought everything in the store to avoid having to make any decisions. This means that all of the orbital planes of planets in solar systems in the universe must ultimately balance out equally in all directions.
To have it any other way would involve the universe having to make a decision, and we can see that the universe does whatever it can to avoid making decisions. So, even if we cannot see the far reaches of the universe we can be sure that all orbital planes and directions of rotation must ultimately balance out.
Every gravitational sphere, stars and planets and moons, that we can see are all different from one another. No two are alike. We can be sure that this must be true across the universe, no two spheres of matter that form by gravity can be exactly alike.
Suppose that a million gravitational spheres have formed, and are still forming and, thus far, no two are exactly alike. For any two gravitational spheres in the universe to be exactly alike, the universe would have to make a choice as to which one to replicate first.
Now we know how the universe just cannot stand to make decisions so the only way to avoid making such a decision is to have every gravitational sphere in the universe be different from every other gravitational sphere, no two being exactly alike. This is a lower information state than having some exactly like others, because choices would have to be made as to which ones, and choices are information.
So this gives us some insight into what the scale of the universe must be. Spheres are the default form for when gravity pulls matter together into stars, planets and, moon's. This is because the sphere is the 3D geometric form with the least energy and information.
But every gravitational sphere must be different from every other gravitational sphere, because that requires the least information and involves no choice as to which one to replicate first.
If gravity were stronger it would take fewer atoms to form a gravitational sphere and so the number of gravitational spheres that the universe could contain before they started to replicate would be reduced.
Heavier elements are produced by fusion of lighter atoms in stars. If there were fewer different atoms then the number of possible gravitational spheres in the universe, which have to be different from each other, would be reduced. This fits well with the formation of planets, which orbit second-generation stars and require a first-generation to first produce heavy elements by fusion and then explode in a supernova, because the supernova increases the number of different atoms in the universe and the planets increase the number of gravitational spheres.
This means that there must be a balance in the universe between the strength of gravity, which governs how many atoms are required to form a gravitational sphere, the number of different atoms and, the number of gravitational spheres in the universe.
34) THE ROLE OF ART, MUSIC AND, SPORTS
The role of those human endeavors that are not the "real world", particularly art, music and, sports, is they transmit patterns while allowing us the chance to work out the complexity that is then applied to the "real world". It is much like how children's games work out how the "real world" actually works.
Meanwhile, art and music is pleasing to us because we are more complex than our inanimate surroundings and is a reflection to us of our own higher level of complexity. Art and music can be defined as a form of mathematical expression using graphics or sound, in that the position of every element is defined relative to every other element. Again, we are imposing our higher level of complexity on our inanimate surroundings.
Before we had the complex modern technology, science and, society that came with the Renaissance, we had to work out and learn to use that complexity through art. Realist painting and sculpture had to come before modern design. As for the operation of modern society, we had to produce complex paintings, with all of the many parts "working together" to convey the meaning of the painting, before we could produce the "real world" constitutions that govern how society operates.
We certainly could not have the complex circuit boards in modern electronic devices without first working out the complexity in painting. Every part of the circuit must support all of the other parts, just as in the painting.
Surrealistic, or non-realistic, artwork gets us thinking outside of our vision, or "outside the box", and this gets us in the frame of mind to invent, to come up with new ideas, and to discover things that we cannot see with our vision.
Many early paintings and sculptures involved great anatomical detail. We had to become intimately familiar with anatomy through art before we could effectively apply it to medicine. In the same way we had to master rendering buildings, and their spatial relationship to each other, before we could have modern architecture.
Likewise the rhythm of poetry, and of music, is reflected in the rhythm of machines. Have you ever noticed the similarity between a song and the operation of an internal combustion engine?
The musical instruments, percussion, string, wind and, singing, work together in exactly the same way as the several systems of the engine. A song is usually led by a singer just as the thrust-generating system is the primary system of the engine. This is supported by the cooling, lubrication and, charging systems in exactly the same way that the musical instruments support the singer.
The engine's valves have to open, and spark plugs have to fire, according to a rhythm that is identical to that of a song. We definitely could not have had cars without music. We had to work out the complexity of the engine in songs first.
Any machine with moving parts, the gears in a clock for example, must work together like "clockwork", but this precise rhythm is just like that of a song and it was through music that we worked out the complexity that made machines with many moving parts possible.
Sports is where we work out the complexity and strategy involved when there is opposition to what we are trying to do. Ball games against a similar team in a different uniform have always been used as preparation for, and to work out the patterns of, warfare. On another level, games like chess have been used to work out the strategies that might be involved in war, just as card games allow the working out of strategies that might be applicable to either war or business in peacetime.
As always, as the old saying goes, "Art imitates life imitates art". We are at a higher level of complexity than our inanimate surroundings and it is where we can master and work out that complexity before applying it to the "real world". That is the purpose of art, music and, sports.
Would you like to read my story about imaginary space aliens who came to earth several times but never saw a human being However they found examples of human technology and, knowing that humans must replicate their own patterns in their technology, pieced together what humans must look like.
http://markmeekpatterns.blogspot.com/2009/07/reverse-archeology.html?m=0
35) THE SIMILARITY OF TASKS
Humans are at a higher level of complexity, containing more information, than our inanimate surrounding environment. When we alter our environment, such as creating technology or building settlements, we are imposing our higher level of complexity on the environment.
Our higher level of complexity does have it's disadvantages. It is why things that we make and build, and also our bodies, tend to break and deteriorate. The surrounding environment is trying to pull us down to it's lower level of complexity. Even though we know that energy can never be lost or destroyed, but only changed in form, we cannot get energy back, at least not in any useful form, once we have used it.
Energy and information is really the same thing. We can see this in how we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it, and we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it. Another way we can see that energy and information is really the same thing is the way we can make our lives physically easier by technology, but only by making them more complex. We can never, on a large scale, make our lives both physically easier and also less complex.
We are at a higher level of complexity than our surrounding inanimate environment. We have to sustain that higher level with an intake of information. It seems to us that food gives us energy but remember that energy and information is really the same thing. Food is actually the input of information that we need to sustain our higher level of information over our surrounding environment.
We perceive our need for food so that we have the energy to move but movement contains more information than remaining still and the food actually contains information. Our digestive system destroys the information in the food, which is the information in plants but since energy, and thus information, can never be created or destroyed the information is transferred to us. The surrounding environment is trying to pull us down to it's lower level and our food sustains our higher level of information, at least for a while.
Just as we can never create energy out of nothing so we cannot create information out of nothing.
As human knowledge and technology increases society gets ever-more complex. There are more and more different job descriptions and tasks that we do. Even though we are imposing our own complexity on our environment it seems that eventually we would reach a point where the society that we have created is more complex than we are.
But yet that would have to be impossible because it would be creating information out of nothing, and we know that can never happen.
So here is what does happen. There is a principle that I will call the "Similarity Of Tasks". This principle ensures that the society that we create can never exceed our own complexity, so that information is never created out of nothing.
Many of the things that we do are very similar to other things. Humans have been hunting and fishing for thousands of years. Shopping today is very similar to hunting and fishing in that shoppers "hunt" for bargains while stores "fish" for customers. Investing money, in anticipation of getting a return, is likewise very similar to planting seeds in anticipation of reaping the harvest.
This similarity lowers the total complexity. When we have two objects or systems the more similarity there is between them the less total information there is. An equality contains less information than an inequality because we are only dealing with one piece of information, rather than two. So we should expect that the closer to an equality we are, the more similarity, the lower the total amount of information.
So we can be sure that no matter how much knowledge we gain, and how far we progress in technology and society, there will be more and more similarity between the tasks and things that we do so that the total information in all that we have created will never exceed the amount of information in ourselves.
36) THE NATURE OF THE INANIMATE UNIVERSE
One way to define life is by what it is not, by pointing out the differences between living things and inanimate matter. Also I believe that the way to understand the inanimate universe is to be sure that we are seeing it the way it really is by separating out our own nature from what the inanimate universe is without us.
Color is the first thing which comes to mind that does not really exist in the inanimate universe. There is really no such thing as red or blue or green outside of ourselves. Color is just the way our eyes and brains interpret different wavelengths of the visible light that we can see. Have you ever seen anything that is color-coded, such as signs or wires? Well, the way we see it, everything is actually color-coded.
Optical illusions, of course, do not really exist. There is really no blue sky or rainbows or sun dogs. Optical illusions are even less real than colors.
Words do not exist at all outside of our vocabulary. Everything is really numbers being manifested. Numbers do exist but words don't. Words are just a high-level perspective view of ours.
What I refer to as "Truth Pairs" do not exist outside of ourselves and other living things. There is no such thing as true or false, negative and positive, good and bad, or right and wrong. There are the electric charges that we refer to as positive and negative, but that is just a matter of our definition. True and false is just a matter of our perspective. We are more complex than our inanimate surroundings and so there is not enough information there for everything that we can conceive of to be true, so we perceive true and false. But, outside of living consciousness there is no such thing as false.
The peak, or optimum, factor is seen only in living things. It does not exist in the universe of inanimate matter. Living things have optimum conditions and amounts of such things as temperatures, food, physical activity and, sleep. This optimum tends to reach a peak, after which it declines. Processes in inanimate matter, such as flames and stars, just have a condition of the more matter, fuel or oxygen the better, which is an upward slope and not the peak pattern.
Quality and quantity is often referred to in human dealings. But in the universe of inanimate matter there is no such thing as quality, there is only quantity. Quality is just a perspective of living things.
Beauty is a form of quality that absolutely does not exist in the universe of inanimate matter. There is only numbers being manifested. There is no such thing as verbal description or quality or beauty.
In the universe of inanimate reality there is no such thing as a coincidence. This is just a random reduction in apparent complexity, as seen from our perspective. You see a person at the bus station on one side of town, and then just happen to run into them in the store on the other side of town. In the inanimate universe there is no such thing as a coincidence because it is only something that is perceived by beings of higher complexity than our surroundings, such as ourselves.
Sometimes we hear a saying like "It's an art not an exact science". This represents what I refer to as "realm sets". I define realm sets as either simple or complex. Simple and complex realm sets tend to exist in pairs. A simple realm is where a statement has to be either true or false. A complex realm is where two opposite statements can both be true. An obvious example of a simple realm is mathematics. An example of a complex realm is politics or economics, two opposite opinions can both have some validity, and the best position may be a compromise between the two. Mathematics is a simple realm not only because a mathematical statement must be either true or false but because we must completely understand something to describe it with numbers. Science is related to mathematics but we can use words, instead of numbers, to describe something that we do not completely understand. Art is a more complex realm than science because, unlike science or mathematics, art cannot really be "wrong" or incorrect. It is an expression of the effect that something has on the artist, rather than precise facts or measurements about it.
Entropy is often cited as a primary principle of how the universe operates. Entropy favors one direction over the opposite direction, the breaking down of the complex into the simple. An often-cited example of entropy is the placing of an open bottle of ink in an aquarium full of water. The ink will gradually disperse throughout the water. The principle of entropy is that it is a lot easier for the ink to disperse from the bottle throughout the water than it is for the ink to go back into the bottle. But every meaningful example of entropy that I have ever seen involves either living things, such as the complexity of a body being broken down after death, or things that have been made by living things, such as the bottle of ink and the aquarium. There is no meaningful examples of entropy in the universe of inanimate matter.
Negative numbers do not really exist. Our number system has a number line of positive numbers in one direction and negative numbers in the opposite direction. By convention two negative numbers multiplied produces a positive number, a positive and a negative number multiplied produces a negative number and two positive numbers multiplied produces a positive number. Adding a negative number to a positive number is the same as subtracting the number from the positive number. But my conclusion is that negative numbers do not exist in the universe of inanimate reality. Negative numbers have a starting point of zero and there cannot be less than nothing. Negative numbers exist only in things of human creation, such as debt. Temperature scales have below zero temperatures but these scales are of artificial human creation. A correct scale of temperature, in line with how the inanimate universe operates, begins at Absolute Zero so that there is no negative temperatures.
In the inanimate universe there is no such thing as top and bottom, front and back, or left and right. Planets and stars rotate, with a north and a south pole. But neither pole can really meaningfully be said to be the "top" or the "bottom" of the planet or star. It is only living things, or things made by living things such as houses, that have a definable top and bottom. The same can be said for front and back. No star or planet or galaxy has a meaningful front and back. But it is only living things with free will, including humans, that have a meaningful front and back. Plants have a definable top and bottom, but not a front and back. There is no such thing as the front and back of a tree. Left and right, of course, is meaningless in the universe of inanimate matter because defining it requires a front and back. I see the fact that people tend to be left- or right-handed as a matter of complexity. Left- or right-handedness is information and is a result of the brain being more complex than the body.
Alphabetization, as I refer to it, does not exist in the universe of inanimate matter. Alphabetization means something that doesn't make sense except as a subdomain of a larger whole. Consider a human foot, for example, a foot by itself doesn't make any sense, except as part of the human body. But that is not true at all of an inanimate object, such as a rock. A rock makes just as much sense whether it is within a planet, on the surface of the planet, or floating around in space.
37) THOSE WHO HAVE IT MADE
What would have to happen for us to "have it made"? We usually think of having enough money so that we could buy whatever we wanted and would never have to work again.
But we wouldn't completely "have it made" because there would still be work that we had to do, such as taking care of our bodies. We would still have to move from one place to another.
What "having it made" really comes down to is complexity. We are more complex than our surrounding inanimate environment so we must exert energy, doing work, in order to survive. Whenever we alter our environment, such as building settlements or creating technology, we are actually imposing our higher level of complexity on our environment.
Living in an environment that is less complex than our own complexity also means that we must have free will. The fact that our surrounding environment cannot hold all of the complexity that our more-complex brains can conceive of means that our necessary free will has the possibility of being wrong.
So to really "have it made" we would have to live in an environment that is just as complex as we are.
If we lived in a "paradise" environment, that was just as complex as we are, we would have no need to move or think to get what we needed to live. We would truly "have it made".
What about plants? Living things that are more complex than their surrounding environment require free will. Living things that are not more complex than their surrounding environment do not require free will. This means plants. In my information theory plants are of far higher intricacy, meaning complexity per mass, but of overall complexity that is not higher than the surrounding inanimate environment.
This means that plants are really the ones who "have it made". Plants require sustenance to live, since they do have higher intricacy than the surrounding environment, but they do not have to exert any effort to get it, since they are of no higher complexity than that environment.
Everything that plants need is delivered right to them by the surrounding environment. They get water and nutrients from the soil. All of the energy that they need comes to them from sunlight. They take molecules of carbon dioxide that the air brings to them and use the energy that sunlight brings to them to split the molecules. The leaves or needles of the trees return the oxygen to the air and use the atom of carbon to build up the structure of the plant.
From the plant's own perspective it "has it made". Everything that it needs to survive is brought right to it. Plants must be doing something right because there is only a certain limited number of bioatoms on earth, atoms that are necessary for living things, which living things compete for. It is believed that there are about a thousand times as many bioatoms in plants as there is in all living things that can move and have free will, including all microscopic creatures.
In the competition for bioatoms plants win easily and beings with free will are essentially parasites that are dependent on plants. This is yet another way that plants really "have it made". Plants are by far the dominant form of life on earth.
Plants cannot move. But why would they need to move? Everything that they need is brought to them by their surrounding environment. We can move but it is because we have to be able to move to get the things we need to survive.
Plants do not have senses. But why would they need to have senses? They do not have to seek anything that they need to survive because it is brought to them by their surrounding environment. We can see because we have to be able to in order to get what we need to survive.
Plants cannot think. But why would they need to think? They don't have free will because, although of higher intricacy, they are of no higher complexity than the surrounding environment. But why would they need to think? Since they are not of higher complexity than the surrounding environment, that environment is able to deliver to them all that they need to live.
Plants do not have civilization or great cities. But they have no need of civilization. Our civilization began when humans began to live in settlements, instead of a nomadic way of life. The reason for fixed settlements is that humans had learned to plant seeds to grow crops. The reason that humans needed a reliable supply of crops is that we are unable to digest grass. If humans could digest grass then civilization would have been unnecessary and of no benefit to us.
Aside from us not being able to digest grass another way we see that civilization is actually a sign of our weakness is in the places where civilization began. Humans are utterly dependent on water. So why then did the early civilizations begin in places that are dry? It doesn't seem to make sense.
The reason is that, in wet places, humans could survive by hunting and gathering and did not need civilization because wild foods were plentiful enough. But in dry areas people had to congregate around rivers to ensure a reliable supply of water. This weakness is why civilization began around major rivers like the Nile, Tigris-Euphrates and, Indus Rivers, which flow through areas that are usually dry. Further east the same principle applies to the civilizations that formed around the Hwang-Ho, Yangtze and, Pearl Rivers, that united to become China.
So the much sought after "having it made" comes down to complexity. The only way to truly "have it made", meaning that no work or effort is necessary to survival, is to not be of higher complexity than our surrounding environment. But then there would be no reason to have free will or the ability to move.
The earth is thus a paradise, but only for plants.
No comments:
Post a Comment