Is information a physical or metaphysical entity?

Great Debates
1

Although I know that this question is difficult to answer because there are different viewpoints to consider, please try.
Let us begin with a scenario.

Suppose that you and I are two criminals who have been given adjacent cells. We are planning to escape. However, we must find some way of communicating whilst fooling the guards who are watching us. The only contact we have whilst in our cells is via a slate and piece of chalk that is slipped into a small hole in the adjoining wall.

Now we figure out that the guards are unfamiliar with numbers. We decide to use this to our advantage. We work out a code that we can use to communicate with each other (let’s skip the exact details of how we do this). Naturally the code is number based. It follows a simple set of rules that, when applied, allows the translation of an otherwise meaningless string of numbers into a message.

So we decide to break out tonight. Suppose I send you a message. It contains the usual seemingly random assortment of numbers. Now is the information that you receive a physical construct, or a metaphysical concept?

Let us consider this in more detail. The information you get can be considered a physical entity. After all, the chalk has rubbed off on the slate. The presence of the information is there for all to see.

On the other hand, the information is not useful to you until you have deciphered it. Therefore in and of itself it contains no meaning. Can it be defined as information thus?

If it can, then is all information only information when it can be understood?

And does this allude to the fact that all information is essentially metaphysical?

Or could it be that the essense of information is metaphysical, and the mere representation is physical?
From a more scientific viewpoint (I’m thinking of physics and the holographic interpretation/information theory) how can you describe the essense of all information? Can you accept that information has a metaphysical component?

If we consider an electronic walkman, information is being converted from the tape and transferred to our headphones. However, this data is carried via electrons moving around a circuit. Does the information actually contain an “essense” (or instruction), or is it simply the case of a physical process interacting with materials?

If this is the case, is that true of ALL information? Is all information simply the interaction of materials and physical processes? Why or why not?

Discuss.

–To think I was dumb enough to put this in GQ initially.–

2

Information is the process of communication between two systems that are capable of communicating; the chalk and slate is not the information and in fact the information doesn’t move from the sender to the recipient, it propagates - when you inform someone, you don’t yourself relinquish the information in your mind.

3

There are experiments in quantum physics that suggest that information has a physical nature.

4

So what do we therefore call the “knowledge”?

Let’s take this in context of the scenario. Information is the process of communicating between my friend and I in the adjacent jail cells. Since it is a process, it cannot therefore be defined as the end-point - or the “knowledge”.

If we take this as being true, then what is the “knowledge”? If both I and my friend have an understanding of the same co-ordinated strategy, then we share this in common. As you point out, the information has not moved from me to him, rather, it has propagated. Therefore we both contain in our brains the same set of instructions (or more precisely, agreement on the same set of instructions).

So what is this knowledge, exactly? Is it a physical or metaphysical product?

And if we apply it as such, by way of explanation, this knowledge must build up over time, right?

So if it is a physical entity, we would expect the build-up to have/cause effects on the surrounding environment? And does the storage capacity of this knowledge therefore just continue building up without end?
–I realise that technically the argument has passed from “information” to “knowledge”, but since you’ve redefined my ideas of what “information” actually is, I think it’s appropriate enough.–

5

Your logic is faulty. Information is being moved between the cells, certainly, but that does not mean it doesn’t exist at the end-point. Whether physical or metaphysical, you’ve got a piece of information (‘The guards change at 1pm’), you pass it to the other person, and they’ve got that information. Or you have knowledge, you pass it to someone else, and they have that knowledge as well. Information and knowledge are not mutually exclusive concepts.

I don’t think information is “the process of communicating” either. Gramatically and logically, you really need a verb there - so, you “disseminate information” or “communicate information”. (Once again, this works with “knowledge” just as well - one may “disseminate knowledge” or “communicate knowledge”).

I don’t know how much you know about this area, so forgive me if I’m telling you something you already know, but have you looked into Meme theory? I think this might help you to frame your question…