It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Information is a Dimension

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:33 PM
If time is a dimension then so is information.

Time tells you how long it takes to get from A to B. You can't get from A to B without something else, Information.

Information Theory tells us that information can be broken down to Qubits. This can be compared to space and time which can be broken down to Planck's length and Planck's constant respectively.

Everything involves information. Whether you hit your big toe on a table or take a trip to the Grand Canyon.

So it should be 3 dimensions of space, 1 dimension of time and 1 dimension of information that we know of. I think there's more spatial dimensions.

This means are universe is like a CPU or a vast quantum computer. It processes vast amounts of information.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 01:14 PM
I think information is [often?] processed data to some perspective of clarity/clarification.

To process data it almost of necessity must be standardized. Arguably to standardize it there may be some loss of potential information.

I would tend to say information is an abstraction, taking something numerous, chaotic &/or analog & rendering some more discrete [structured?] conceptualization of it.

I could see the present instant as some kind of processing/processor that creates the instantaneous, immediate past. But that is not inherently abstracted.

Processing can be random processing for no particular sake. That produces no particular clarity, abstraction nor comprehension [if any is possible].

I think the past can be seen as a point of abstraction, perhaps potential understanding, but that easily can be [is?] illusory.
The past may be seen or conceived as information or informational.
Arguably it is our understanding of the past that might be information.
But i suspect the past lacks some very important somethings. A certain kinetic-ness that is an essential bridge to the [potential?] future.

One thought is that the future is non-standardized [standardizable?] raw data, that remains the future because it can not be processed to the arguably reductive quantification of the present into the past.

It is also possible that the past is only seemingly fixed & uniary, because we only view it from a singular [present] perspective. Although it does seem to hold up.

Without a fixed past a lot of things become meaningless. Without lasting [semi-]persistent memory impressionism we wouldn't be able to mine much useful information or prospectively advantageous actions or decisions to inaction from that past.

The present instant processor may be stripping away all the non-standardizable portions of [formerly future] 'something(s)' so it is 'producible' as the 'past'.
And it may be that stuff it is throwing/planing off that might be of high interest to us if we are so perceptive.

There may be more meaning in the unprocessable dross rather than arises from over analyzing the past.

The mind may be a meaning junkie, and constructing sensibility conformations are only a means to sating that addiction.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 01:31 PM
The only way the past has 'meaning' is if it has 'coherence' to be 'understood'.
A simplified handle on a larger, invariably more complicated reality.

A vague fuzzy future flowing into a vague fuzzy past begs to have much meaning at all. The present seems to be a threshold of [distinguishable?] differentiation.

Maybe we have to be a little more lazy, slower to respond, interpret, & allow the past to 'expose' itself with its richer ramifications before we tensely start racing off in all directions.
Otherwise the 'meaning' really may be far more in ourselves than it ever was or is in the past.
Margins/measures/rations of time can be the legs of our intellect.

Time is only identifiable as a[n internal? parallel mirror reflected?] projection of/from the past. The rationed increments of time are based from the past. Those things too small or too large may not fit into that rationization. They may be 'unseeable'. They perhaps elude our [the Universe's?] vision/experience/processing.
The future may be those things that are off-scale to the present &/or past.
Physics may be recycling of things that already fit the given scale paradigm.
Quantum tells up things do arise & disappear from/into nothingness.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 02:23 PM
A dimension is a [standardized?] axis of potential traversal.

Information is a formulation of which there may be many other formulations both of information as well as nonsense.

From the/a database,
(1) 3 houses exceed the million dollar price. possible information.
(2) 7 houses are beneath the 70,000 dollar price. possible information.
(3) 20 houses have 3 bedrooms. an alternate vector of information/understanding/clarity.
(4) 4 houses are in the 'hilltop' neighborhood. etc.

implied in 'information' is some prospective/potential agenda. a leverage of presumed 'advantage'. the 'meaning'/purpose/agenda

If dimension is considered [meaningful] information, it is only on a single variant of conceptualization. It can only be information if that position or movement vector on that axis is of purpose to some prospective agenda.

Dimension can be a vector/formulation of information.
Dimension is a context of embedment.
Information is presumably an uplift from some data embedment.
Information can be dimensional, but i think it is incorrect to call information a dimension.
A dimension is [in some sense] flat, & information is inherently un-flat [poly/higher dimensional?].
Information is a caging of some form, dimension is a vector of uncaged transit/animation.
Information is/can-be a filtering, dimension is an unfiltered continuity.
To be discrete/comprehendable information must be finite at least from some perspective. Any continuous vector or even continuous interval, a dimension, is non-discrete. It is existential & non-revelatory.

[a] Dimension is a data source.
Information is [can be; must be?] processed from data.

But unprocessed data is not information.

The only way 'a' dimension would be information is if it is contrasted/identified discretely from other dimensions.

Information is focal. A Dimension is essentially non-focal.

Information is a discrete handle to a given mind. Dimensionality is inherently a non-discrete continuity.

I think your thread title is incorrect & nonsense, imo.
Like saying transformation is untransformed.

I am not sure i am arguing this very well, but am pretty sure i am correct.

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 05:59 AM
reply to post by slank

You said:

I am not sure i am arguing this very well, but am pretty sure i am correct.

You're right in the first instance and wrong in the second one. This means it wasn't argued very well and it isn't correct.

Information has to be a dimenson and many within the circles of Information Theory see information as the fundamental property of reality.

This is because space and time evolve into infinity at Planck's length and Planck's Constant respectively. This doesn't occur with information at the level of Qubits.

At the end of the day, you can't do anything without information.

If you're going to a restaurant across town, you need 3 things.

The location of the restaurant (space)

How long it takes to get to the restaurant (time)

How to get to the restaraunt through maps or GPS (information)

Information actually encompasses all three things.

I know materialist want to think that matter somehow created information after bumping into itself over time, but that's a silly notion that should be laughed at.

Just like a seed contains information about the plant before it grows, so did the seed of our universe which was smaller than an atom 13.7 billion years ago, contain all of the information about our universe.

Information didn't evolve over time. Matter and energy evolved over time according to the laws of information. There's nothing new under the Sun. So the information to build a TV set or a DVD player was present in that seed 13.7 billion years ago. It just took time for this information to manifest.

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 08:53 AM
reply to post by Matrix Rising

I personally don't subscribe to the whole 'dimensional' aspect of physics.

There is just reality which exists in an eternal now as entropy can't be reversed for the entire universe as that would require more energy than the universe contains nor is there a forward movement into the future as the future hasn't happened so there is nothing to move forward into.

Three dimensional space is nothing more than another way of saying height, width and depth. We can move in these directions, but they are not indicative of what is currently misconceived as being a dimension.

Information as a dimension seems silly to me. You can't travel along information in the same light they propose for time, which they call the fourth dimension.

Using points in a coordinate base system and extrapolating where a point will be along that coordinate system is a great abstract tool, but it isn't telling us much of anything about reality.

At least in my opinion.

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 11:54 AM
reply to post by sirnex

Have you ever heard of Minkowski, Kaluza-Klein or Einstein?

Just because you don't "buy into" extra dimensions doesn't negate the fact that they are the best explanation of reality.

How else do you explain the weakness of gravity or quantum computing?

There has to be extra dimensions or there wouldn't be any movement in our dimension. This is illustrated well in Edward Abbot's novel Flatland. A 2 dimensionsal being has to extend into a third dimension of space or there would be no movement.

We have to curl into a 4th dimension or we would just be frozen energy. There would be no movement. We travel through the 4th dimension, if we didn't how would we move?

Let's take a pair of shoes. In the third dimension there would be no space between the shoes so there would be no movement. The shoes can be located in two different sides of the room because the 4th dimension is located at every point in space between the shoes. When you wave your hand in front of your face you're waving it through the fourth dimension.

As far as information is concerned, it has to be a dimension. What do you think you are traveling on to get from A to B? Whether your walking or driving it's information. Whether you hit your big toe or visit the Grand Canyon it's information.

You said:

You can't travel along information in the same light they propose for time, which they call the fourth dimension.

Try walking across the street without traveling along information. What do you think built the roads that you're walking on or the feet that you're walking on? Information.

Maybe you just throw information theory out the window like you do extra dimensions because you don't "buy it." .

[edit on 12-5-2010 by Matrix Rising]

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 03:23 PM
Information is a tool/device of the mind.
To facilitate awareness.

I believe the mind is the mechanism of awareness.

Information must bear some relationship to a mind.

At least prospective or theoretical.

Some might argue that it isn't actually information until it informs a mind.
If it is never applied it is of dubious worth & therefore of debate as being information.

Existence without awareness is not information.
A dimension exists & one presumes the only possible awareness of it is external to itself.
We certainly think machines are automatons without any intrinsic self awareness. They act, they [as of yet] do not consider.

A mind must have [a] reflection space.
Information must relate to that reflection space, that awareness.

A dimension has no requisite relation to a mind [at least according to general thinking],
it is not intrinsically information.

To say information is a dimension is to say it has no required relationship to a mind, to awareness,
which intrinsically
can not be information.

Information = Not information? fallacy.

The statement is mindless.

[edit on 12-5-2010 by slank]

new topics

top topics


log in