Tuesday 10/08/2018 8:30 a.m.
What a gray morning! As it has been for the last week or more. Fall is here, it feels like it with the world wrapped in grayness. Tuning in, listening to the recording of the birds from the spring helps.
So I would really like to have a talk today. I have been reading some other theories of quantum mechanics that hold information as central. David Bohm, too, said that the quantum potential is only something like active information that guides a particle not by force, but by the information (like a remote control radio signal).
So the idea of information is becoming central, and the question arises, what exactly is information?
With that regard, I copied down a couple of quotes earlier, which I am inserting now here:
“Information is created by discerning a certain level of energy or pattern of energy out of the “sea of all possibilities,” by giving it significance and meaning. That means: it is only the understanding of information that makes it information. … Everyone knows, Energy can only take effect if a target-structure recognizes and reabsorbs it. Likewise, information can only take effect if a target-structure understands it and assigns it significance and meaning.”
[p.74, p160, my translation, “Quantum Philosphie” by Ulrich Warnke]
All this very much reminds me of Niels Bohr’s statement:
“No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered (observed) phenomenon”
So the question is: What is information?
So are you here? I am ready to communicate through my subconscious.
The Club: We are here. Much of this is similar to when we talked about how the process of communication can happen [between us]: we can only send you insights if you are capable of understanding them. So we could send you thought-particles with the greatest wisdom of the ages, but if you do not have the basis to understand the insights wrapped therein, it would be like throwing pearls before swine, not to insult you (laughing).
So it does take a consciousness capable of understanding the insight that is given.
Now, what is an insight? Nothing but information. So we have been “sending” you information all along.
But that is a point I struggle with: “sending.” As we said before, a signal takes a sender and a receiver.
Well, you could say, a sender sends out information, no matter if it is received. In that way, the sender has already signified the importance of the information.
OK. But for us in 3D, it is the act of observing or registering a pattern and giving it significance, that makes it information for us?
Correct. Now, with our communication, it is a mutual thing: we wrap information in the substratum of thought, which contains all information. Remember, the storehouse of consciousness contains all knowledge or information. So we now make out of these pieces that you are capable of understanding a thought particle and send it [not sure if I transcribed that quite right]. You receive it and wrap it in thought, and hopefully, if all goes well, receive the same information that was intended (which does not always happen, we smile).
That is communication, to share “what is in common,” to share information that is in common.
But the issue you are struggling with is, what is information in more general terms? Where does it come from? Now above, we had the storehouse of consciousness and in the quote at the beginning Warnke names it “the sea of all possibilities.” That expresses the same idea.
But the experience was more of atoms interspersing with each other.
That was the interpretation of it, as what your conscious mind wrapped or cast that experience AFTER the fact. By that we mean, you have to have a way to represent this in your brain structure after it happened, and that was how you wrapped it up. Really it was this sort of oneness or superposition of All-that-is.
OK, I yield to that (smiling).
So from one way of looking at it, it is atoms or entities that intersperse, from another holographic waveforms that interfere, from another information. Which is true? They all are. The rational mind can never get to the ground of it all. It is all an abstraction.
Yes, I recently read that in Bohm’s book [“Causality and chance in modern physics,” David Bohm]. Because of the “qualitative infinity of nature” we can never get to the bottom of, there is always infinitely more to learn.
And learning means to find and understand new knowledge, that is, information. There are always more subtle levels of information.
Fine. So let me go back to this: Information means to give significance to some pattern of energy, or level of energy, out of the sea of possibilities.
Well, you can disregard part 2 [level of energy], that the energy has to have a certain strength or level. Bohm wrote about this, in that it is not the strength of a signal that is important but the pattern. “Turn right” means “turn right” no matter if it is whispered or screamed.
Fine, but it needs enough of energy for me to register it.
And now you are [Niels] Bohr’s sentence from above: A phenomenon is not a phenomenon until it is registered. So yes, it has to be strong enough to be registered. But that is not so much the information itself, but this threshold is with the perceiver, how well he or she is tuned in.
Fine, so then the important point here in the sentence is: “to give significance to some pattern of energy.” It has to have some pattern that represents or encodes the information, and that patterns is observed and recognized and given significance.
But that, to me, implies two things: 1) an observer; and 2) time and/or space.
So for #1, that is indeed part of this: some sort of observation. Who or what observes, that is another question. For now, just notice that even atoms can have consciousness, as we stated before. Consciousness is in “seeming levels,” and atoms would observe the information relevant to them, like “here is a photon” or “there is another electron,” etc. So the fact that there is no human-level consciousness does not mean there is no observation. Remember churning: matter and consciousness come out together.
And that is another point I struggle with: out of what? What is “the emulsion”?
[Using the metaphor of an emulsion, for example milk is an emulsion of fat particles in liquid, and churning separates them into butter and skim milk].
OK, when it is churned, it is churned into this space and this moment (again, asynchronously as there is no common now). So out of “a soup” that holds all space, all time, all variants, all consciousness, but superimposed or on top of each other. They are “emulsed” together like fat is in mile, remember?
And that is the second part in my statement above: that the information is a pattern, and a pattern implies time and space. But time and space come out only as part of churning. Is this not round robin?
The answer is, again, the choice that is made. That choice brings out the next iteration of time and space, of unfolding/enfolding. It re-enfolds back into All-That-Is (“the emulsion,” if you prefer) that holds all, and as part of this a choice is made: go left or right [and both are taken]. But only, as you said, based on the possibilities that were recognized! That is, the information being recognized. This sets what can be chosen next, then chooses, and out comes the next moment, space, consciousness, and so on.
It is all there in what you had. As Wheeler called it: the self-participatory universe, perceiving options, choosing options, into observation, then re-enfolding them back in, with all variants, and starting over again.
Information perceiving itself into its myriad forms, and recognizing and processing itself, if you want to call it that. “Self-participatory information,” sounds a bit silly, but maybe you like that.
Information processing, by something built out of information.
Ah, now I remember: the word “information” has in it “in-form,” and that was in fact the original meaning of it: to inform was literally “to bring into form, “ to set a form, quite literally. The sense of consciousness or ideas of information came along later, but it originally was literally “to put into form.”
So here you have this: Information, recognized and processed, puts into form, a form which then seeks, finds, and processes more information, and thereby changes itself.
So out of information comes form, which itself becomes information for the next form.
Something like that. However, remember that all this is still only an abstraction, which means it leaves out so much. It is all a model. You cannot grasp ultimate reality.
Understood. Let’s leave it at this here. A lot of good “information” to ponder.
Or loose yourself in. We bring up the term “annealing” again from a while back. Reread that.
Thank you. Until next time.
Namaste — I bow to you and the Divine in you.
Copyright © Hanns-Oskar Porr