Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Data compression beyond law

Hi ,

There is an intersting theorem(Sharon's theorem) on data compression which actually sets the limit on the amount of data which can compressed without loosing its content ...
When I apply this telecommunication law to Universe I get a very weird result...
We know that infinite manifestation of universe (or information) evolved from the finite inital conditions...
This actually means that the infinite information can be compressed to finite value...
Hope you guys are getting my point..

Now this is an interesting (the terminology in the field is "valid") question.

But you want to think about th following:
a) What does it mean that the universe evolves from finite initial conditions? Finite initial conditions also means an infinite set of conditions specifying finite values for the relevant variables.
b) Assuming that the universe expanded from a finite "size", what is the "initial size" consistent with Sharon's theorem?
c) It is (wildly) believed that the amount of information present in the "initial" state of the universe must be the same with the amount of information that we see today, based on some sort of information conservation theorem, which would somehow resemble the conservation of energy theorem. How would a steady state approach to energy conservation would affect your reasoning, if one were to consider that inflationary cosmology is a valid theory of the Universe evolution.

Yhink about this, dkv, and also think about the fact that this is a problem that both "gravity" people and "quantum information/computing" people have in their sights (i.e. there is a multitude of sources adressing this problem that you might want to consult)

The famous theorem is called Shannon's theorem...
formula
C(Channel Capacity) = W(bandwidth) log2(1 + Signal-Power /Noise-Power )
Then there are derivations to show that depending upon Noise levels there are different limits to the maxm. compression which can be acheived.


================
a) What does it mean that the universe evolves from finite initial conditions? Finite initial conditions also means an infinite set of conditions specifying finite values for the relevant variables.
REP: Once a particular history is chosen then it become obvious why we are in the Universe we are?
Therefore atleast the current Universe can be reduced to its own intial condition(although it was picked up from set of infinite conditions)
b) Assuming that the universe expanded from a finite "size", what is the "initial size" consistent with Sharon's theorem?
REP: I do not know exactly.for me the information about Universe is complete if I know the base equations and initial conditions(it may be probalistic) of a Universe... I assume that Universe is not affected by any other Universe after its birth..(My assumption could be wrong)
c) It is (wildly) believed that the amount of information present in the "initial" state of the universe must be the same with the amount of information that we see today, based on some sort of information conservation theorem, which would somehow resemble the conservation of energy theorem. How would a steady state approach to energy conservation would affect your reasoning, if one were to consider that inflationary cosmology is a valid theory of the Universe evolution.
REP: I also agree that total amount of information remains the same.. but when I am talking a Universe(and not Universes) then my discussion is limited only its compression ... and I do not forsee any reasons of why the total
amount of information if remains constant affects my argument...
====================
Yhink about this, dkv, and also think about the fact that this is a problem that both "gravity" people and "quantum information/computing" people have in their sights (i.e. there is a multitude of sources adressing this problem that you might want to consult)
REP: What are they saying?

dkv: ?The famous theorem is called Shannon's theorem; formula
C(Channel Capacity) = W(bandwidth) log2(1 + Signal-Power /Noise-Power )
Then there are derivations to show that depending upon Noise levels there are different limits to the maximum compression which can be achieved.?

Yeah, I know it. But since you mentioned it, of course it begs the questions:
1. What is the bandwitdth of the Universe.
2. What is the Signal power of the Universe.
3. What is and most importantly what means the noise in this context?

Until you define these concepts, let?s stick with the fact that somehow, the info in the universe cannot be ?compressed? below a certain limit. Note however that compressed in information transmission theory has a different meaning than the meaning you used for the context of the Universe.
And BTW, what means ?information? when you talk about the universe?

================
dkv: ?Once a particular history is chosen then it become obvious why we are in the Universe we are? Therefore at least the current Universe can be reduced to its own intial conditions (although it was picked up from set of infinite conditions)?

Nah, this is not finiteness, this is determinism.

dkv: ?I do not know exactly. For me the information about Universe is complete if I know the base equations and initial conditions (it may be probabilistic) of a Universe... I assume that Universe is not affected by any other Universe after its birth..(My assumption could be wrong).?

What does this have to do with the question I asked?

dkv: ?I also agree that total amount of information remains the same?

Kids also believe in the tooth fairy. What is your argument for your statement, and some sketch of a proof.

dkv: ??but when I am talking a Universe (and not Universes) then my discussion is limited only by its compression ... And I do not foresee any reasons of why the total amount of information if (?) remains constant affects my argument... ?

We are already at the point where because of your tendency of being very brief and loose in your expression, the meaning of what you write becomes unclear. So please reformulate your above statement.

REP: What are they saying?

Well, why don?t you look it up? Google would be a good start.

Yeah, I know it. But since you mentioned it, of course it begs the questions:
1. What is the bandwitdth of the Universe.
Infinite.. becsause all the information is infinite and is transmitted to its next state without any loss every second.
2. What is the Signal power of the Universe.
Signal Power of the Universe 1.
3. What is and most importantly what means the noise in this context?
Noise can be assumed to be zero as external Universes are orthogonal to our existence and there is no background noise of information.
Therefore the channel capacity is infinte... and
this is the reason why it can be compressed.

Until you define these concepts, let?s stick with the fact that somehow, the info in the universe cannot be ?compressed? below a certain limit. Note however that compressed in information transmission theory has a different meaning than the meaning you used for the context of the Universe.
REP: Universe can be reduced to an Information Set if we choose proper tools and technology.
Therefore the analogy is more close to reality.

And BTW, what means ?information? when you talk about the universe?
REP: Replied above.
================
dkv: ?Once a particular history is chosen then it become obvious why we are in the Universe we are? Therefore at least the current Universe can be reduced to its own intial conditions (although it was picked up from set of infinite conditions)?
Nah, this is not finiteness, this is determinism.
REP: No can not be called determinism becuase the unless and until we start compressing the information we can not reach to its smallest form... Going by the classical history "Human Compressors" started this process some 2000 years ago and in those 2000 years we have compressed the universe to the size of an Plank's Radius with initial conditions...
====================
dkv: ?I also agree that total amount of information remains the same?
Kids also believe in the tooth fairy. What is your argument for your statement, and some sketch of a proof.
REP: I go by my common sense ... look at fractals.. complete information is encoded at every level.
===========================
dkv: ??but when I am talking a Universe (and not Universes) then my discussion is limited only by its compression ... And I do not foresee any reasons of why the total amount of information if (?) remains constant affects my argument... ?
We are already at the point where because of your tendency of being very brief and loose in your expression, the meaning of what you write becomes unclear. So please reformulate your above statement.
REP: I am writing all this at the runtime .. so please forgive.
REP: What are they saying?
Well, why don?t you look it up? Google would be a good start.
Google is a good place but there I dont find enough information...Btw Quantum computers will be the natural choice for decompressing the compressed equations of Univers.

dvk ... you wrote:
"We know that infinite manifestation of universe (or information) evolved from the finite inital conditions.."

I challenge you to provide any actual evidence to back up the following assertions:

1. Anything in or about the universe is infinite
2. Anything about the initial condition was finite

I am not disagreeing with the statements I just don't believe there is anything that justifies them.

Assumptions about what is and is not infinite are meaningless when made by a creature that can barely think in 4 dimensions when trying to describe what is likely a 10+ dimensional entity.

I knew about Shannon's Theorem before comming up with MFFM communications. As communications bandwidth is increasingly compressed by increaseing signal intricacy it intercepts less thermal noise.

Aloha, Charlie

The information content of an area is finite. Stephen Hawking lost a bet about it.

thermodynamics + Bekenstein bound = General Relativity

Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 1260 (1995)
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504004

The universe does not tolerate contradiction. What point shall we draw from your exposition?

The exposition was meant to initiate a debate worldwide ...among ourselves.
He lost the bet on information conservation .. he thought that the system can loose inoformation and a black hole can act like a dustbin...
I dont think he offered to say that information content has to be finite...

Let me extrapolate this thought and allow me to share an idea where the black hole does not loose its information to any other balck hole but it tranfers it wihout loosing its own memory...Which means that Information entroy increases with every interaction and thus it is sensible to believe that the aggregated information content is infinite...

I am truly excited by this idea that inofrmation is shared by black holes .....
The entire space(in its nothingness sense) filled with balck holes and non-blackholes....
Our Universe may itself be a giant Black hole which is having balck hole(which may iteself have black hole inside it in different dimension..typical universe creation stuff)
As the information is shared between them the total information content becomes infinite...

DA Morgan : The left one of your questions unanswered :
Whether the initial condition was finite or not...
As myself and Pasti dicsussed it ... we will have a infinte set of initial conditions but once a intial condition is chosen .. finite variables are chosen to express the imminent infinity....
BTW consider this from infinite no. of initial condition only one is selected .. then the probability of happening of such an event is
P= (event set)/(total event space)
= 1/(infinity) = 0!!!!
And the probability can not be zero because we exist.... and then some one will give me a quantum explanation...for the existince of quantum proability...

what did u say??? haha

i dont quite understand....

[we will have a infinte set of initial conditions but once a intial condition is chosen]

isnt sn initial condition just that?...

dvk, this all sounds very similar to what Tegmark has been proposing recently. I think that Tegmark is right, although it is very difficult to prove it (even in principle).

Do you guys agree with me ?
If Tegmark and myself are correct then isnt it true that individual histories of the Universes will interact between themselves and we will end up with a non-linear history of Universe...
Guys, I need your help .. please get me into Physics history books. :-))
I am glad that I discuss such things here because it solves many of my problems.

No answer till now...
and that is understandable...
Dont you think we spend most of our day porcessing information?
Who is he ?
What is happening?
Where are my shoes?
etc etc ...
Information is prime staple of our holy diet...
Food ,Air etc are the fuel requirements of this humanly computing machine....
If information processing and its interpretation is the only job we are doing then what the hell why do we do so? and what will be the end end result of this quest?
Is there a goal ... Is there is a finite limit to this information evolution ?
These are some of the questions we all have to answer... West who showed us the science must not take away the purpose of my existence...
Life without purpose is what i hate.
Tell me my purpose in this creation...
I know it but I want to hear from you.

There is no scientifically discernable purpose. There may never be.

Failing to be assigned a purpose is not the same thing as not having a purpose.

If one is not assigned a purpose, one might assign a purpose to one's own life. It's a bit harder to ascribe purpose to everyone else's though.

"To be what we are and to become what we are capable of becoming is the only end of life." -- attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson (but originating, I suspect, with Spinoza).

"To be what we are "
REP: What are we ? Computing Machines? Living endlessly in the world of information...
We are just a piece of information for the living being...and nothing else.
Why cant I assign a divine purpose is there is no purpose at all...
And how can I criticize those who choose genocide as their purpose if there is no absolute reference frame for the purpose...
Your answer was good but not satisfactory...

Hm, seems you need to clarify "purpose" a little better. Here's a couple for you.

Our genes seem to have a programmed purpose to evolve and propagate, regardless of whether we recognise it as such. Maybe you could call it an unconscious life purpose.

The other 'purpose' is our own conscious purpose, where we choose, leaving aside issues of free will and determinism, our own fate.

Then you could ask: How much does the genetic imperative influence our own chosen paths? That is, how much do the conscious and unconscious paths intersect?

You have divided the deterministic (or Mechanical) and non-deterministic(Will-Power based) goals...
Deterministic goals are simple and straight forward .. our heart has to beat everymoment.. it(or he) has no option...
Can we say that this is our goal ...?
Now non-deterministic part argues in favour of stopping the heart beat...
Can we say that this is the right goal to achieve?
In a perfect mechanical world there is no Purpose.. everything is predetermined.. and even if I want I cant change it...
But we know it doesnt happen that way.. We have been given the Will Power to choose our Purpose and therefore for all discussion pupose it is better to consider only the non-deterministic part...
Let me rephrase "What should be the Purpose given the Will Power (or the degrees of freedom)?"

Hm, but didn't you call the AIDS virus has an "intelligence" equal to that of humans in another thread? Is the AIDS virus's future determined, or does it choose?

The point to my previous post was what influences our own choice. I thought that genetic imperatives would most certainly have an effect of some description. What is worse is that you cannot be sure how much or in what capacity you are being manipulated by genetic encoding.

As far as only considering the "non-deterministic part" in this thread, let me finish by asking you this:

from where do our motivations for "choice" originate?

Considering we know so little about the brain, and how it functions holistically, it is unclear which actions are "non-deterministic" and which parts are not.

Choices originates within us after processing and interpreting all the information for our next thought and action....
Every thought everytime successfully reaches a conslcusion and we move to the next moment of life(which may have 'feel' of thought and/or action).
My question was not to debate the mechanism of Choice or Will Power but a more practicle aspect of it and that is there Any Purpose Behind All the Choices We Are Making...
If we say that there is no purpose then we are left with only one purpose and that is to make choices again and again like a ...

Science doesn't guarantee you'll be satisfied with the answers. From the point of view of a society, it is merely a pedigree.

If there is no absolute standard, that doesn't mean that anything goes. All the religion in the world didn't stop Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. In the end it was allied bombs that stopped Hitler (not the proximate cause, but the primary cause nonetheless), natural death (so far as we know) Stalin and Mao.

Science is a search, but it is a search within limits. The Great Interruption (the dark ages) was caused in part because religionists conflated the search for truth with the search for the way things ought to be.

Science wasn't able to reach its modern fruition until we limited its scope. We realize that there are some things it can't address. We also realize that wishing doesn't make things true.

OK, so since I have been away, no real progress has been made on this topic, so I will take it up from where I left it. Incidentally, and with the risk of being looked at ugly, this is a perfect example of a situation where people make unwarranted parallels stemming only from syntactic similarities.


Q: ?1. What is the bandwitdth of the Universe.?
dkv: ?Infinite, because all the information is infinite and is transmitted to its next state without any loss every second.?

Oh, boy. I love this type of circular arguments. You DON?T KNOW that information is infinite. And you DON?T KNOW that it propagates without loss. This is what you are suppose to investigate. So you use two unsupported statements to justify another unsupported statement. Good one. Try again.

Q:?2. What is the Signal power of the Universe.?
dkv: ?Signal Power of the Universe 1.?

When? And why?

Q: ?3. What is and most importantly what means the noise in this context?
dkv: ?Noise can be assumed to be zero as external Universes are orthogonal to our existence and there is no background noise of information. Therefore the channel capacity is infinite, and this is the reason why it can be compressed.?

Noise does not necessarily come from interaction with other universes. As is, in our Universe you have a lot of interacting phenomena that could produce ?noise?, so before globalizing to ?orthogonal? universes, look in your own backyard. So the question still stands.

dkv: ?Universe can be reduced to an Information Set if we choose proper tools and technology. Therefore the analogy is more close to reality.?

Really? It can? Then please do it first, instead of postulating it. I am most interested in how you reduce a cell to a set of bits!

Q: ?And BTW, what means ?information? when you talk about the universe? ?
dkv: ?Replied above.?

You realize that what you replied here has no value, right? So the question stands.

dkv: ?No can not be called determinism because the unless and until we start compressing the information we can not reach to its smallest form. Going by the classical history "Human Compressors" started this process some 2000 years ago and in those 2000 years we have compressed the universe to the size of an Plank's Radius with initial conditions.?

Well, I am not going to argue this item anymore. What you claim is determinism by the book, so why don?t you look it up? Furthermore, you should also review differential equations, for the simplest case.

The rest of your reply is rather nonsense in the purest from. Sorry for that. Once again you are talking about things you don?t have a clue about. I would suggest reading something more than popular science. If you actually want to consider such issues seriously
dkv: ?I go by my common sense. Look at fractals, complete information is encoded at every level.?

This shows you have a short memory. We already discussed how common sense does not work but in very limited cases, with quantum mechanics as the common counterexample to your conjecture. So try again.

REP: I am writing all this at the runtime .. so please forgive.

And? We all suffer from this minor ailment of having to earn a living. And BTW, don?t try to match nature to your knowledge. One of them is limited. Try the other way around. Try to expand your knowledge to be able to comprehend nature. This is the way it goes.

dkv: ?Google is a good place but there I don?t find enough information?

Wha?? That would be the day. But then, there are also those things called libraries?

dkv: ?Btw Quantum computers will be the natural choice for decompressing the compressed equations of Universe.?

Lovely, isn?t it? Yet another idea you pooped, before finishing the one you started previously. And again, your claim is unsupported, especially since quantum computers will still have finite memories to deal with information that in your view is infinite?Don?t you ever keep track of your reasoning?

Yes, that's right. Your purpose, perhaps some life ambition you consider to be worthy, is based on a combination of life experience and genetics. Like I said, what came before your last choice? The constant interaction between your biological makeup and environmental factors determine your choices. Your choices are filtered through a brain that thinks a particular way, peculiar only to you.

The fact that we don't all think the same way, and that people are capable of original ideas is testament to this. That is, it is not as though all humanity thinks the same way, and we just decide that we will follow this or that profession, for example, just for the hell of it. Our likely professions will reflect our abilities and the way are minds have been constructed both genetically and environmentally.

We are also reflexive creatures, however, so when we are told to do something we may go against our nature and choose another path deliberately, to show autonomy over our own lives. But if you did behave in this way your behaviour would also be a product of what I have already said above.

If you choose a path, you have done so because at some stage in your life you have learned that taking that path has some benefit. The alternate option is to choose at random, but choosing randomly is just as deterministic - if you get my drift.

Yes, that's right. Your purpose, perhaps some life ambition you consider to be worthy, is based on a combination of life experience and genetics. Like I said, what came before your last choice? The constant interaction between your biological makeup and environmental factors determine your choices. Your choices are filtered through a brain that thinks a particular way, peculiar only to you.
REP: we agree.
==========================
The fact that we don't all think the same way, and that people are capable of original ideas is testament to this. That is, it is not as though all humanity thinks the same way, and we just decide that we will follow this or that profession, for example, just for the hell of it. Our likely professions will reflect our abilities and the way are minds have been constructed both genetically and environmentally.
REP: Professions and professionals are diverse but they are limited by their energy levels and types...
==========================
We are also reflexive creatures, however, so when we are told to do something we may go against our nature and choose another path deliberately, to show autonomy over our own lives. But if you did behave in this way your behaviour would also be a product of what I have already said above.
REP: We are not discussing behaviour.
==============================
If you choose a path, you have done so because at some stage in your life you have learned that taking that path has some benefit. The alternate option is to choose at random, but choosing randomly is just as deterministic - if you get my drift.
REP: That was not deterministic..Let me reframe my question
" As I Choose and Reject what is the purpose of me doing such a stupid thing eternally ... I I am in pain why shouldnt I die peacefully... Why wait for medicines.... Can you fight this argument with your "Without-the-Purpose-World"
================================
Why Should I fear to Die..When ,whatever I have as the real to my existence is existing without any purpose relevant to me...
================
Give me my purpose.

I agree with various theories that link a person's genetic composition with their behaviour. In other words, I consider them to be related and, therefore, relevant to this discussion.


I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean in these last responses.

What I mean is simple ....
We have found that we are constantly selecting and rejecting choices and also we have a explaination for doing this ...Every choice has a benfit attached to it...
Now if someone wants to get a benfit out of my death then what should be the criteria for the Law to allow or disallow a particular choice...
Someone may get benefit by stealing my ideas...
Someone may get benefit by murdering me...
Someone may get benefit by making a fool out of me...
There are so many morally and legally wrong options or choices that I want to make a set of choices that I do not violate any moral or legal law...
Both the constitutional Laws and Moral laws are based on certain assumptions...
Example - It is OK to kill for your country ...
It is OK to kill for your relefion...

That was one part of my rephrased question ...
The next question relates to the Purpose of making such "Morally-and-legally-correct" decisions... when in the land of the stars and jungle no such assumptions are found....
Why we are so different from the other animals ...
We left our original branch for some reasons ... what where those reasons and have we solved that reason .. i.e are we going to change again ...
Given our definition of Progress are we going to choose the right Purpose of our Humanity and Life ....
Purpose can defined at cellular level and also at the tissue level....In both cases the purpose appears to be different... but at higher levels it is well known that group of cells had a specific goal to achieve ... Those cells which belong to heart can not choose to act like a brain cell.
The end purpose of group is always well defined and you may disagree with me but we need to find a purpose to be together ... Movies say we will be united against some alien...
But I sy we will be United for common Harmony...