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 in my information theory, 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.
In my information theory, 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.
Thursday, May 14, 2020
Testing The Theory Of "The Lowest Information Point"
We know that the universe always seeks the lowest energy state. An object will fall to the ground because it requires less energy than to hold it in the air. The default gravitational form of matter in the universe is a sphere because surface area is equivalent to volume and a sphere is the geometric form with the lowest surface area per volume.
My reasoning is that energy and information is really the same thing, because we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it, and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it.
Another way we can see how energy and information is really the same thing is in technology. We can use technology to 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 physically easier and also less complex.
The next step in my reasoning was that, if energy and information is really the same thing, and if the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, then shouldn't it also seek the lowest information state?
I found this to be a deep and far-reaching principle. The compound posting describing the theory is "The Lowest Information Point", December 2017.
This concept of the Lowest Information Point that the universe always seeks can be illustrated either algebraically or geometrically.
If we have two sets of related ratios, A / B = C / D and A / B = B / C, the second set is the Lowest Information State because it contains only three points of information, A, B and, C, while the first set also contains D. This shows how reusing numbers creates a lower information state because the denominator of one is also the numerator of the other.
Another way to illustrate the principle is geometrically. The universe should prefer a square, with both sides equal, to a rectangle because the square thus contains less information. The is the basis of my concept that, since the Big Bang, the universe has been moving toward a square in that, through nuclear fusion and gravity, the total number of things has been decreasing while the number of different things has been increasing. The rectangle has been closing into a square.
What if we could test my concept of "The Lowest Information Point"? We saw how the universe as a whole is moving in this direction but could there be any way to test it on a limited scale?
It probably would not be a lab experiment because gravity is the primary vehicle for moving the universe toward the Lowest Information Point. But the test or experiment would have to be a closed system, with no outside influences, so that it could be a microcosm of the universe as a whole.
Although one way to easily illustrate this principle is to put a hot object in a cooler environment. The longer side of the rectangle is the temperature of the object, the shorter side the temperature of the environment. The rectangle will move toward being a square, with both at the same temperature.
What about our Solar System?
We know that our sun is a second-generation star because it already contains heavy elements that are beyond it's current stage in the fusion process. A large star exploded as a supernova and scattered it's component matter across space. Some of the matter fell back together by gravity to form the sun and planets.
This falling back together of the matter after the supernova is a microcosm of the Big Bang, which began the universe, and the general moving of the matter of the universe from an extremely elongated rectangle toward a square is reflected in the vast number of pieces of matter from the supernova falling back together by gravity into the relatively few planets and moons of the Solar System.
Gravity and nuclear fusion are the primary vehicles in moving the universe from the extreme rectangle that resulted from the Big Bang, a vast number of total things starting with hydrogen atoms, but very few different things, to fewer total things but more different things.
What I mean by the number of "different things" is the compound forms that atoms collect in. For example: stars, planets, galaxies, rocks, clouds, etc.
This is what I mean by the universe moving from being a rectangle to a square, which is a lower information point than a rectangle because both dimensions of a square are equal. One dimension represents the total number of things in the universe and the other dimension represents the number of different things. The universe will be at it's Lowest Information Point when the two are equal, meaning only one of each different thing that exists.
The Solar System is not an entirely closed system. It may be occasionally affected by the gravity of passing stars. But the nearest outside star, the Alpha Centauri system, is four light-years distant. The center of the galaxy, around which our sun revolves, is so distant that it's tidal effect, the difference in gravity from one side of the Solar System to the other, is minimal.
Other than within the sun, the newly-formed second-generation star, the Solar System did not have fusion as a vehicle, but did have gravity. All elements up to uranium were produced but some were much more common than others.
Have you ever noticed the amazing match between the abundances of the most common atoms and the scales of the planets? The Solar System is doing what it can to restore the square, which is the Lowest Information Point because the information in it's two dimensions are equal.
From the Wikipedia article "Abundance Of The Chemical Elements", here is a chart of a few of the most abundant elements in the universe and their mass fractions in parts per million.
Hydrogen 739,000
Helium 240, 000
Oxygen 10,400
Carbon 4,600
Neon 1,340
Iron 1,090
Nitrogen 960
Silicon 650
Now look at the relative scales of the planets in the Solar System.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System#/media/File:Planets2013.svg
Notice how there are two large planets, two somewhat smaller planets, and several small planets. This closely resembles the relative mass distribution of the most common elements.
This match between the two shows the validity of the Lowest Information Point, since it involves less information because it shares the same information. This is also part of another theory on this blog, "The Flow Of Information Through The Universe", January 2016, and that theory is actually an extension of "The Lowest Information Point".
My reasoning is that energy and information is really the same thing, because we cannot apply energy to anything without adding information to it, and we cannot add information to anything without applying energy to it.
Another way we can see how energy and information is really the same thing is in technology. We can use technology to 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 physically easier and also less complex.
The next step in my reasoning was that, if energy and information is really the same thing, and if the universe always seeks the lowest energy state, then shouldn't it also seek the lowest information state?
I found this to be a deep and far-reaching principle. The compound posting describing the theory is "The Lowest Information Point", December 2017.
This concept of the Lowest Information Point that the universe always seeks can be illustrated either algebraically or geometrically.
If we have two sets of related ratios, A / B = C / D and A / B = B / C, the second set is the Lowest Information State because it contains only three points of information, A, B and, C, while the first set also contains D. This shows how reusing numbers creates a lower information state because the denominator of one is also the numerator of the other.
Another way to illustrate the principle is geometrically. The universe should prefer a square, with both sides equal, to a rectangle because the square thus contains less information. The is the basis of my concept that, since the Big Bang, the universe has been moving toward a square in that, through nuclear fusion and gravity, the total number of things has been decreasing while the number of different things has been increasing. The rectangle has been closing into a square.
What if we could test my concept of "The Lowest Information Point"? We saw how the universe as a whole is moving in this direction but could there be any way to test it on a limited scale?
It probably would not be a lab experiment because gravity is the primary vehicle for moving the universe toward the Lowest Information Point. But the test or experiment would have to be a closed system, with no outside influences, so that it could be a microcosm of the universe as a whole.
Although one way to easily illustrate this principle is to put a hot object in a cooler environment. The longer side of the rectangle is the temperature of the object, the shorter side the temperature of the environment. The rectangle will move toward being a square, with both at the same temperature.
What about our Solar System?
We know that our sun is a second-generation star because it already contains heavy elements that are beyond it's current stage in the fusion process. A large star exploded as a supernova and scattered it's component matter across space. Some of the matter fell back together by gravity to form the sun and planets.
This falling back together of the matter after the supernova is a microcosm of the Big Bang, which began the universe, and the general moving of the matter of the universe from an extremely elongated rectangle toward a square is reflected in the vast number of pieces of matter from the supernova falling back together by gravity into the relatively few planets and moons of the Solar System.
Gravity and nuclear fusion are the primary vehicles in moving the universe from the extreme rectangle that resulted from the Big Bang, a vast number of total things starting with hydrogen atoms, but very few different things, to fewer total things but more different things.
What I mean by the number of "different things" is the compound forms that atoms collect in. For example: stars, planets, galaxies, rocks, clouds, etc.
This is what I mean by the universe moving from being a rectangle to a square, which is a lower information point than a rectangle because both dimensions of a square are equal. One dimension represents the total number of things in the universe and the other dimension represents the number of different things. The universe will be at it's Lowest Information Point when the two are equal, meaning only one of each different thing that exists.
The Solar System is not an entirely closed system. It may be occasionally affected by the gravity of passing stars. But the nearest outside star, the Alpha Centauri system, is four light-years distant. The center of the galaxy, around which our sun revolves, is so distant that it's tidal effect, the difference in gravity from one side of the Solar System to the other, is minimal.
Other than within the sun, the newly-formed second-generation star, the Solar System did not have fusion as a vehicle, but did have gravity. All elements up to uranium were produced but some were much more common than others.
Have you ever noticed the amazing match between the abundances of the most common atoms and the scales of the planets? The Solar System is doing what it can to restore the square, which is the Lowest Information Point because the information in it's two dimensions are equal.
From the Wikipedia article "Abundance Of The Chemical Elements", here is a chart of a few of the most abundant elements in the universe and their mass fractions in parts per million.
Hydrogen 739,000
Helium 240, 000
Oxygen 10,400
Carbon 4,600
Neon 1,340
Iron 1,090
Nitrogen 960
Silicon 650
Now look at the relative scales of the planets in the Solar System.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System#/media/File:Planets2013.svg
Notice how there are two large planets, two somewhat smaller planets, and several small planets. This closely resembles the relative mass distribution of the most common elements.
This match between the two shows the validity of the Lowest Information Point, since it involves less information because it shares the same information. This is also part of another theory on this blog, "The Flow Of Information Through The Universe", January 2016, and that theory is actually an extension of "The Lowest Information Point".