Information universe. Private conclusions from the assumption

Physicists tacitly assume that the world consists of matter. But what if from the information? In the end, matter is only the name of building material, from which, according to physicists, the world is organized, but the properties of materials and their packing into a single delightful and harmonious whole are already information. Therefore, when mentioning the structure of the universe, it is more correct to talk about information than about matter.
The following are conclusions from this bold assumption. Adherents of the traditional physical concept of the world, some of them may seem hopelessly banal, others - defiantly ridiculous. Well, not all physicists can surprise ordinary people with black holes and quantum strings, sometimes representatives of other humanity are able to surprise physicists with no less reckless statements.



If the universe is information, then the universe must be considered in the form of a database. Of course, there are different ways of presenting information, but databases are exactly what is currently identified with information: its structuring, storage and use. Why, then, not try to present the universe in the form of ... say, a relational database?
I will not start from the beginning - the relevant posts are published ( here , and the continuation here ). The bottom line is that the structure of the physical universe can be represented on a tablet of the simplest form.



The five sensations inherent in man are structured by three identifiers. Feelings determine the beyond (well, in fact, what is “hot”, or “green”, or “bitter”, if we look at them on their own ?! They are completely indescribable), and identifiers establish the internal structure of the information system (ID_1 indicates object, ID_2 - on its predecessor, from which the given object was formed, and ID_3 - on the subject). All together, sensations and identifiers give an idea of ​​the reality surrounding us.
So let's check how reality fits into this scheme. Take and register the first object in an empty information system.



This is an analogue of the big bang, thought by theoretical physicists as the beginning of the universe. As you can see, no explosion occurs: the first registered object simply ends up in the system, and that’s it. True, along with it, a zero object appears in the system: that from which the first object was formed (apparently, that exploded when the universe was born according to the hypothesis of physicists). A zero object appears in the system when registering the first object as a link, for which reason it does not have any properties: there is literally nothing to say about it, except that the first object was formed from the zero object. And the fact that any object, including the first in the information system, is formed from something, rest assured: the object is something definite, therefore the rest exists that this object is not.
We leave the subject designated as “A” alone - it does not play a noticeable role in our reasoning. Focus on the objects.
Imagine that we need to register a second object in the system. There are possibilities for this:

• either register a new object from zero, by analogy with the first object;

• or register it from the first object, imagining that the first object is split in two.

The first is known, therefore the second is informative. But difficulties arise with the identification of the remainder of the first object.
You can say what remains after the part is taken away from the object: a completely new object or a diminished old one? Do not rush to answer. Imagine that there is a furniture set consisting of a coffee table, sofa and armchair. If you remove the chair from the headset, what remains? The same furniture set, only in incomplete configuration - without an armchair. And if you take away the coffee table and sofa, for some reason it will remain not the furniture set in incomplete configuration, but just a chair.
No, the example is not stupid, although the problem is well known. For us, it is informative in that various ways of encoding objects are possible in the table of the universe .
Here is the first situation when the removal of the object keeps the original object intact, although in an altered form:



There was the first object, the second was isolated from it, leaving the first reduced one.
And here is the situation when the removal of the object leads to the destruction of the original object:



There was the first object, and it was divided into the second and third.
Nothing like that, right? But in fact, exactly matching operations, however performed in different encodings.
However, we do not consider the possibility of encoding information (they still do not concern the content of the information system, these are just ways to specify its internal structure), we stop on the second method.
We notice that in the second encoding method, ID_1 very clearly shows the appearance (i.e. arrival) of objects, and ID_2 - the disappearance of the object (its consumption).



Income and expense are basic philosophical concepts , but you probably didn’t know.
Of course, in reality it is possible not only to separate objects, but also to merge them. Suppose I wanted to restore the original position by combining the second object with the third.



In the accepted encoding, it is necessary to make entries:



Please note that when registering a composite object, it is not necessary to indicate object signs (vision, hearing, smell). The object is composite, consists of parts, each of which has its own characteristics, and they are registered earlier.



This explains the effect of peripheral vision, which I wrote about in a previous post. Vision in humans is all peripheral: in fact, a person is able to visually perceive no more than one point at a time (because the registration of data in the table of the universe is discrete). Nevertheless, a person sees everything at once? The fact of the matter is that no. In our example, subject “A” does not even see one viewpoint, but perceives an identifier that sends it to signs registered in the past. Moreover, this past can be arbitrarily distant, since a compound object is sometimes composed of compound objects, which themselves are composed of compound objects, etc. But when perceiving a composite object, a person perceives past registrations: this is a kind of time machine that sends human consciousness to the place and, accordingly, the time of registration and allows you to see the whole visual picture without actually seeing anything other than what is registered in a series of past object mergers and divisions.
Why mergers and divisions, where did the two opposing operations come from? Apparently, from the very act of transforming the object, suggesting two options:
a) the new is less than the former - hence the separation;



b) the new is larger than the former - hence the merger.



And as an intermediate point between merging and splitting - a change in the properties of an object, in which (if we use the encoding accepted by us), a new object with changed properties appears instead of one object. The case of equality of new and former objects:



The indicated actions fill the table of the universe with information, for example, as it was recorded earlier.



Please note that the fourth object seems to be identical to the first (at first the object was broken in two, and then connected), but on the other it is not completely identical, and not only by identifier (fourth, not the first), it does not play any role, that’s all just a designation. The difference is that the fourth object is composite , since it was composed of the second and third, and the first object, it would seem, has the same properties as the fourth, by definition elementary (since it was isolated from zero).
Physics does not seem to suggest this: that an elementary object can be divided into parts. Composite - yes, please: for example, we can divide into parts the fourth object, once obtained from the second and third. Designations according to the encoding accepted by us will be different, but parts of the object will be preserved.



However, the first object does not fit this analogy, because it is initially elementary.
It turns out that an elementary (previously without parts) object can be divided into parts! Which of the above considerations follows irrefutably, since the laws of the functioning of information systems are accepted by us as an axiom. Or you have to assume that the object, isolated from zero, already has some kind of internal structure, allowing to divide or not to divide it into parts. But from the information system this in any case does not follow.
How many conclusions - albeit due to fragmentary expositions looking chaotic, but curious, curious! And this is the first approximation in a rough estimate.
However, I continue.
So far I have not touched the signs of objects - that which is initially set by the values ​​of the "Sight", "Hearing" and "Smell" fields. But listen, with the advent of the object they are able to change! The old object may have some properties, and the new object - completely different.
We have two basic (the rest can be reduced to them) options:
1) the properties of the objects are preserved;



2) properties of objects are not saved.



It is easy to understand that we are faced with nothing more than a physical and chemical transformation of matter-information:

• in the first case, we have a physical transformation: we simply divide the object in two, while the properties of the object are preserved in both its parts;
• in the second case, the properties of the parts change, which indicates a chemical reaction — it does not even indicate, but is a chemical reaction.

The method of thinking used is the opposite of the usual “material” approach: it is not the chemical reaction that is expressed using the table, but the capabilities of the table — in the general sense, the possibilities of presenting information — determine the capabilities of objects in the information system . With regard to our case, combinatorics defines methods for the physical or chemical transformation of objects.
It will be objected to me that as a result of a chemical reaction, not all objects can be obtained from any object, but from a certain one, they can only be determined in accordance with the known laws of chemistry. And no one argues. Here we are faced with the basic laws by which an information system exists, and with the fact that, in a sense, is introduced into the information system from the outside, although no less rational.
When, for example, one part is separated from the object and the other part obviously remains, this is the basic law, or the way information systems exist (probably not any, but known to us, at least). However, one or another object or an object possessing certain properties can be registered in the information system — and this is no longer the basic law of computer science, but the pure voluntarism of the universe. Do the laws of computer science prohibit the chemical decomposition of iron so that one part is gold and the other part is platinum? No, do not forbid. But is this possible in reality? No, it’s not possible - for the obvious reason that the universe is constructed differently: you cannot get gold and platinum from a piece of iron.
I am trying to explain that the universe in some way - rational, there is no dispute - is arranged, but the rationality of the universe

called is determined by two not identical parts: 1) the laws of information systems through which not to transgress; 2) the layout of the table of the universe through a certain sequence of records and the alternation of properties of objects.
The question of what is obtained from objects as a result of their chemical decomposition relates to point two; many causal relationships that are considered to be natural physical laws also apply there.
I hold a ball in my hands, but I open my fingers. As a result, the ball falls. What caused the fall? The power of gravity? And if the ball had not fallen to the floor, but soared into the air, the cause of its soaring would have been another force that would have been inevitable and immediately discovered by physicists? Or maybe everything is simpler arranged - simpler not in the sense of cause and effect dependencies, but in the sense that no forces act on the ball, and the further behavior of the ball after I opened my fingers is determined by the sequence of entries in the universe table?
If you look at the world from the side of computer science, there are no and cannot be any forces acting between objects. Objects are registered in the table of the universe (in other words, objects are what are registered in the table of the universe), and only things of the reality surrounding us can claim their role. Countless relationships stretch between objects, but this is far from a force in their physical sense. In a closed system, which is any registration table, forces are simply unthinkable. One object acts on another, but the previous one acts on that object, and the pre-previous one affects the previous one, and what is being asked on the very first object in this causal chain, what is being asked? The question is not new and eloquent, but no answer has been received to this day.
The forces acting in nature are the invention of physicists, although very useful from the point of view that allows us to establish truly existing interdependencies between objects (point 2 in the above list). This is the purpose of any science. But physical forces, manifesting themselves only in objects, cannot claim ontological status. To talk about the ontological status of some physical forces is the same as to seriously talk about the smile of a Cheshire cat floating in the air after the Cheshire cat itself disappeared. It seems to me that physicists do not realize this, although the problem is as old as the world: the universals were written about by medieval scholastics, and what hypostasis is is well known.
An informational look at the universe leads to results different from the usual physical approach: it is a special world with its indisputable truths and its cognitive gaps. The fact that the three-dimensional spatiality of the informational universe is determined by identifiers, I proved in one of the previous posts. What is the time of the informational universe, is also quite understandable: certain objects, or their combination, or the relationship between them (clock hands, celestial bodies, etc.), recorded in the table of the universe. In this sense, between the two objects that determine the instant of time, any number of other objects can be located (that is, be registered) - nothing prevents this. Time is able to contract or stretch, this is its immanent quality. And the movement, most likely, is determined by the effect of the cinema: a change in the table of the universe of frame-records. But as for the previously mentioned gaps in the concept of the informational universe, they also take place, not without it. For example, putting the universe into a relational table does not explain the movement of the present from the past to the future, which is also called the “arrow of time”. The difficulty is to explain this undoubted fact of our existence without involving time itself. For example, it is incorrect to explain the “arrow of time” by the fact that the entries are made in the table of the universe one after the other, since a sequence of making entries is involved in such an interpretation, which in turn is determined by the moment of their entry. And it is not possible to explain otherwise:
There are many unsolved problems, and they require attention. I don’t understand why in the age of the undoubted heyday of computer science, few people care about the information component of the universe. Is it because some areas of knowledge are monopolized by physics? Nevertheless, physics is not able to give the only possible and correct view of the world and, there are good suspicions, in some issues rested on the ceiling of its capabilities.