# Scientists: Anyone read Seth Lloyd's Programming the Universe? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 27, 2007, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-anyone-read-seth-lloyds-programming-the-universe/397681 "2007-03-27T14:31:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2007, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-anyone-read-seth-lloyds-programming-the-universe/397681/1 "2007-03-27T14:31:06Z")
…I am about 100 pages into it and am likely to have questions. Are any Dopers in a position to do some 'splainin? Right now, I am trying hard to get my head wrapped around _information as a physical entity_, as present and relevant as energy. I am reading the parts where he discusses Boltzmann and Maxwell’s “realization” that information is just as critical as energy, and that entropy is really a state of information unusability - but they didn’t have the computer/bits/digital analogies or models to shape their thinking, so how could they express this thinking? I understand (and love) the concept of tracking the Big Bang both in terms of energy and information - it adds a layer of richness to the “story” if you will. But then leaping to accepting “information” as a physician phenomenon - he hasn’t clarified that one for me yet. Let’s just say there is a TON of notes, comments, questions and expletives scribbled into the margins of my copy so far… ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2007, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-anyone-read-seth-lloyds-programming-the-universe/397681/2 "2007-03-27T22:02:12Z")
Really - no Dopers?! You think I should get this moved to another forum or something? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2007, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-anyone-read-seth-lloyds-programming-the-universe/397681/3 "2007-03-27T22:12:17Z")
W/r/t what seems to be the premise, I’d have to say that physical constants are just as critical to the universe as information is yet cannot be said to have a physical existence. This, despite the fact that I believe the best criteria we have for an object’s physical existence should be that it is able to communicate information with other stuff. (i.e. God exists and invokes miracles? Therefore God exchanges information with other stuff, and therefore is physical, and therefore it’s not a miracle 🙂 ) That said, if I see the book I might pick it up, or be more likely to do so than if I just saw it on a bookshelf without knowing its subject matter, as the title seems to be one of those far-future god-machine premises. ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2007, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-anyone-read-seth-lloyds-programming-the-universe/397681/4 "2007-03-27T22:20:45Z")
[QUOTE=Ludovic] (i.e. God exists and invokes miracles? Therefore God exchanges information with other stuff, and therefore is physical, and therefore it’s not a miracle 🙂 ) [/QUOTE] Nice work. Now there are some philosophers with a mind-body problem waiting for you on line 2. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [March 27, 2007, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-anyone-read-seth-lloyds-programming-the-universe/397681/5 "2007-03-27T22:39:15Z")
I haven’t read the book, but the notion of matter being merely information isn’t going to be a suprise to anyone who has had basic coursework in quantum mechanics, where everything is treated as waves and the limits to how much or how well you can know are very well defined. (“‘That’s right!’ shouted Vroomfondel, ‘we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!’”–_The Hitchhiker’s Guide_ has many subtle jokes for physicists.) In QM, all matter _is_ just a sum of its information, and by reproducing the same state in different particles you would make them identical–not just “like” the old system, but indistinguishably identical to it. The notion of energy being information will also be familar to relativists (that is, physicists studying the field of general relativity, not people who would dispense with moral or ethical standards) and cosmologists who note that singularities are an area of local maximum entropy; no useful information can be extracted from within the event horizon of a black hole. The concept of [Shannon entropy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy) as a limit to information density and the ability to retreive information is also well established and applied, and has also been connected to thermodynamic entropy, though the extent and appropriateness of application is a field of ongoing investigation. I’m not sure what the gist of the book is–as I say, I haven’t read it–but if he starts asserting any business about the manifest unlikeliness of universal constants being just so indicating a design intelligence or anysuch, well, you don’t need to put the book down, but you should definitely take the claims with a grain of salt. Even in more substantial areas this is an active field of research, and a pop-science translation of that may not completely reflect the complexities and controversies in the field. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2007, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-anyone-read-seth-lloyds-programming-the-universe/397681/6 "2007-04-04T16:57:27Z")
Hey - I just re-found this thread and hadn’t realized some of you had posted to it. Thanks! Unfortunately, none of you have read the book, but **Stranger** , I may need to hunt you down if my questions persist. I am at best a humble layperson who has read a few physics-for-unschooled-twits books, so don’t hang out at the quantum level, as you allude to when mentioning how quantum folks would have no problem with treat matter as information. I am well aware of the probability-field-nature at the quantum level, but have not mastered how to visualize that in my mind, or reach conclusions based on a facile comprehension of it by any means… ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2007, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-anyone-read-seth-lloyds-programming-the-universe/397681/7 "2007-04-04T20:44:49Z")
> [@](#): > > I am well aware of the probability-field-nature at the quantum level, but have not mastered how to visualize that in my mind, or reach conclusions based on a facile comprehension of it by any means… You know what that makes you? Human. As Feynman once said, anyone who understands quantum mechanics, doesn’t understand quantum mechanics. The usual approach taken by physicists is to just give up on “groking” it, and just do the math (which works perfectly well). ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2007, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-anyone-read-seth-lloyds-programming-the-universe/397681/8 "2007-04-04T21:23:01Z")
[QUOTE=Chronos] You know what that makes you? Human. [/QUOTE] Well said, sir - thank you. And I _do_ get that - which is why I soldier on with physics books even when my ability to visulize goes out the window. But with this book - and it seems to be a great book, by the way, given my limited knowledge in this area - the key theme is information related. - at the beginning of the book, he describes how the abacus was created as a primitive computing tool as early as 300 BC. What is fascinating is that the tool was invented, and over time it was recognized that there is a need to describe the empty state, when no beads are flipped up in any column. That, he argues, is the likely origin of Zero amongst abacus-using peoples. What’s more, he says, the discovery of zero worked in reality, too - so this is an example where a tool leads to a new way to look at our world, and new discoveries based on the tool are applicable in our world. - the author is basically trying to do this exact same thing on a more complex level. His tool - a computer which works on a quantum level - relies on information and energy to function. That, in turn, led him to look at the work of other scientists’ work on information/entropy and how it is part of our universe. This leads him to go into a ton of detail about how information permeates our reality and must be taken into account when analyzing cosmology - e.g., the Big Bang, etc. I get what he is trying to do - move from tool, to new mindset, to new way to look at our world - but contemplating “information” as a physical phenomenon is very tough for my brain. I want to be able to point to it, weigh, etc. I don’t think of information that way. I completely get that this is tough and my difficulties are entirely understandable. But if anyone has any analogies, essays, or other insights that can help someone like me wrap their brains around this stuff, bring it on! **Stranger on a Train** normally pops up with great stuff, as you did earlier in this thread - any other insights? ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2007, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-anyone-read-seth-lloyds-programming-the-universe/397681/9 "2007-04-05T13:57:05Z")
_bump_ this thread seems to benefit from a bit of encouragement every now and then… ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2007, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-anyone-read-seth-lloyds-programming-the-universe/397681/10 "2007-04-05T14:36:50Z")
[QUOTE=WordMan] I get what he is trying to do - move from tool, to new mindset, to new way to look at our world - but contemplating “information” as a physical phenomenon is very tough for my brain. I want to be able to point to it, weigh, etc. I don’t think of information that way. I completely get that this is tough and my difficulties are entirely understandable. But if anyone has any analogies, essays, or other insights that can help someone like me wrap their brains around this stuff, bring it on! [/QUOTE] The notion of information as a physical quantity really is a quantum phenomenon, and like so many others, it’s one of those things where the math works even though it doesn’t make any sense. I don’t think you really can wrap your brain around it. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2007, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-anyone-read-seth-lloyds-programming-the-universe/397681/11 "2007-04-05T15:22:03Z")
[QUOTE=ultrafilter] The notion of information as a physical quantity really is a quantum phenomenon, and like so many others, it’s one of those things where the math works even though it doesn’t make any sense. I don’t think you really can wrap your brain around it. [/QUOTE] Aargh! I was hoping that was NOT the answer!! ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2007, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-anyone-read-seth-lloyds-programming-the-universe/397681/12 "2007-04-05T18:28:26Z")
How about this: Is velocity a physical quantity? It’s not “stuff”, not energy nor matter… But you can measure it, assign units to it, and do calculations with it. Likewise, information can be measured, and assigned units, and calculated, so information is also a physical quantity. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2007, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scientists-anyone-read-seth-lloyds-programming-the-universe/397681/13 "2007-04-05T18:32:07Z")
[QUOTE=Chronos] How about this: Is velocity a physical quantity? It’s not “stuff”, not energy nor matter… But you can measure it, assign units to it, and do calculations with it. Likewise, information can be measured, and assigned units, and calculated, so information is also a physical quantity. [/QUOTE] Hey - I like that! Let me let my brain mess around with that…thanks!