Where is the information stored?

[Davka]

I read something a while back about how the information is actually 2-dimensional, and the 3d representation (our universe) is a kind of holograph. This was based on the fact that objects on the "surface" of a black hole would be so compressed that there would be no "room" for all the information that can possibly be crammed into a 3d object. 2LOT demanded, according to the authors, that information could not simply be lost, therefore the 3D universe cannot contain as much information as it appears to.

Although now there are some people saying that energy actually escapes black holes, which I suppose would force yet another re-thinking.

---

You'll never be able to hold information in your hand, or weigh it, or anything.

...which explains FOX news.

[Alex K]

I read something a while back about how the information is actually 2-dimensional, and the 3d representation (our universe) is a kind of holograph. This was based on the fact that objects on the "surface" of a black hole would be so compressed that there would be no "room" for all the information that can possibly be crammed into a 3d object.

Yes. This comes from the observation that the amount of information (in the form of particles) you can put into a volume of space before it turns into a black hole, is proportional to the surface area of this volume, not the volume itself. This suggests that one could formulate a theory on what is formally the surface of a space which would describe and house all the physics which is perceived as going on inside this surface.

[The Grand Nudger]

Imagine completely empty space. Now in that space place two electrons. Smash those electrons together hard enough and you get a shower of other particles....including protons. This suggests the information necessary to construct a proton is contained in the electron. Continue to smash particles together and conceivably you can have an entire universe....just like ours. Does the information necessary to construct a universe just like our exists in just two electrons? If it doesn't where does this information exist?

Is there some reason to separate the electrons in your example from the information. Is the question asked even sensible? Perhaps the "information" isn't -contained within- electrons or anywhere else, but that electrons -are- the information, in the sense the question is proposing information as regards electrons? That's certainly how a computer works, for example. The energy that operates the gate doesn't contain the information, it -is- the information, from a mechanical point of view. The information itself is just a description of the current state of a large number of physical objects and their various interactions (which modify the behavior of applied energy), translated into a language suitable for human comprehension.

[Davka]

I read something a while back about how the information is actually 2-dimensional, and the 3d representation (our universe) is a kind of holograph. This was based on the fact that objects on the "surface" of a black hole would be so compressed that there would be no "room" for all the information that can possibly be crammed into a 3d object.

Yes. This comes from the observation that the amount of information (in the form of particles) you can put into a volume of space before it turns into a black hole, is proportional to the surface area of this volume, not the volume itself. This suggests that one could formulate a theory on what is formally the surface of a space which would describe and house all the physics which is perceived as going on inside this surface.

so the surface is akin to an algorithm describing the volume? This gives me the sense that string theory should be replaced with bubble theory.

[Whateverist]

I'm gonna hazard a response without reading the OP:

It isn't in the bible.

[Davka]

Perhaps the "information" isn't -contained within- electrons or anywhere else, but that electrons -are- the information . . .

Just as the information in this post is not 'contained in' the words, but rather the words are the information.

[Alex K]

so the surface is akin to an algorithm describing the volume? This gives me the sense that string theory should be replaced with bubble theory.

I wouldn't put it in those words - let's say you can formulate an "algorithm" (a theory) using only two coordinates of target space, and a third dimension arises kind of as an emergent thing.

In a conjectural realization of this principle, the AdS/CFT correspondence, the reduced-dimension picture is still a string theory (or in the more conservative version, a field theory), where the strings are more or less localized on a surface brane.

[Davka]

Ok, clearer now. TY!

[Esquilax]

@Esquilax: don't you think that e.g. the fundamental parameters are a kind of information which we can obtain from nature, but which is not concretely manifested in an object? That's why I say the whole enterprise has a Platonic vibe.

I guess? My point is, even those fundamental properties are physical expressions that we imbue with significance via observation. Whenever we get these "X thing contains information!" conversations, the conclusion generally heads toward an "information requires a designer!" deal, and that's where I find a problem because it makes the mistake of assuming information is created by intelligences, where in actuality it's observed and systematized by them. I don't want to have to explain that pattern recognition doesn't need all that much significance, in the end.

[Alex K]

@Esquilax: don't you think that e.g. the fundamental parameters are a kind of information which we can obtain from nature, but which is not concretely manifested in an object? That's why I say the whole enterprise has a Platonic vibe.

I guess? My point is, even those fundamental properties are physical expressions that we imbue with significance via observation. Whenever we get these "X thing contains information!" conversations, the conclusion generally heads toward an "information requires a designer!" deal, and that's where I find a problem because it makes the mistake of assuming information is created by intelligences, where in actuality it's observed and systematized by them. I don't want to have to explain that pattern recognition doesn't need all that much significance, in the end.

In that sense "Information" is simply on the same footing as Energy and any other physical observable, wouldn't you agree?