Information, by definition relational, says nothing about what is related. If there were no things related, then the concept of relation itself loses its meaning. We must grasp the enormity of this obstacle before speaking of a reality made of information. This is definitively only the best way to grasp reality, nothing more. For it is impossible to extract ourselves from the reality to see its origin. Whatever our efforts, we will always be within it, studying its nature with concepts that are also inherent in its nature.
There is, however, a way to connect information and substance (of which related things are made) without leaving reality. This is the theory I presented in ‘Surimposium’. A substance is the global level of a system of related elements. The system is indeterminate, but its global level is determinate. How do we get from one to the other? The global level is the determinate configuration of the set of probabilities of the system. This configuration changes, of course, but not at the same time rate as the system's interactions. This lag, which can be dramatic, defines what we call substance: stability upon instability. Each layer of complexity can add greater stability. We thus arrive at the substantial fixity of the macroscopic realm over the myriad probabilities of its quantum constitution.
This theory requires no assumptions about the origin of reality. It simply follows its guiding thread through complexity, which turns out to be the true fundamental dimension of reality.
The distinctions are how we identify/classify the states. To think about information I use this notation: *256+234 to mean 'a 256 state system that is in state 234' where, for now, think of '234' as just a label - we needn't presuppose numbers. That lets me think about information without using a concept of matter. By composing / decomposing and asserting identity among such things is it possible to get matter? Think about how matter is formed in a 3D FPS. You can find a similar pattern in the way information is exchanged by 'real' particles to create a lattice that spatially deflects other such lattices.
I don't know how consciousness works. But I know that by mapping chains of information flow we can describe a system that gathers, interprets (via the aboutness determined by the causal chain and patterns) and uses other, external, information and that such a system could also observe itself. In the god's eye view where any interpretation of state is arbitrary, such systems could be picked out in a non-arbitrary way and thus give rise to an ontologically significant interpretation framework. That is probably not consciousness, but it seems like it is a necessary condition for it.
I think the apparent problem comes from treating “information” as if it must first mean “a message about something,” in the everyday semantic sense. But that is a late, interpreted form of information. At the more basic level, information is state: a distinction that can make a difference.
So I would start with the state view.
Suppose there is a system with 256 possible states (a byte of information), and it is currently in one of them. What is that state “about”? By itself, in isolation, maybe nothing in the rich semantic sense. But now trace the causal structure backward. How did the system come to be in that state?
Maybe the state was produced by someone typing an answer to a question about their age. That keystroke changed a voltage pattern, which changed a memory register, which changed a network packet, which eventually changed this 256-state system. In that causal context, the state carries information about the person’s age.
But that is not the only thing it is about. If you trace the causal chain differently, it may also carry information about the keyboard, the encoding scheme, the software, the transmission path, or the reliability of the system. “Aboutness” is not a magic extra ingredient added to bare matter. It is the way a present state is constrained by prior states through a causal structure.
That is close to Dretske’s point in *Knowledge and the Flow of Information*: information flows when one state lawfully or reliably depends on another. A photon’s frequency and direction, for example, carry information about the last thing that emitted or scattered it. The photon does not need a little label attached saying “I am about this object.” Its state is already causally structured by the object.
So when someone asks, “Isn’t information always information-about-something?” I would answer: yes, but “about” is not fundamental in the human-language sense. It emerges from causal dependence among states. Information is not first a sentence with a subject matter. It is first a structured difference, and only later, in organisms and minds, does that become explicit semantic aboutness.
Then the question becomes: how can information be fundamental?
Here again, I think the state view helps. Take the classic lantern example: “one if by land, two if by sea.” It feels as if the physical lanterns come first and the information is merely something we impose afterward. But what is the physical situation itself? It is a state of the world: lanterns existing in a particular configuration, at a particular place, in a particular causal context. The universe is in state "Lanterns exist at location and time x,y,z,t"
The “physical” description is already a state description. The lanterns, the tower, the photons, the observer’s eyes, the nervous system, and the later military response are all parts of one evolving state structure. We can describe that structure in terms of matter, but we can also describe it in terms of states and their causal chain of mappings to other states. At no point do we need to add a separate metaphysical substance called “matter” over and above the structured states and their lawful transitions.
On this view, information can be fundamental because it does not mean “a message written on top of physical stuff.” It means the differentiable structure of reality itself: what state the world is in, what other states are possible, and how states constrain and transform one another.
Semantic information — information about ages, ships, danger, food, other minds, or oneself — is a higher-level organization of that same thing. It is information in systems that model, act, remember, anticipate, and care. But the underlying ingredient is still state.
So I would put it this way:
Information is not fundamental because the universe is made of propositions. Information is fundamental because the universe is made of states: distinctions, and lawful transformations among them. (Because remember, the fact that a particular lawful transformation holds is also a state of the universe: "f=ma if by land, f=mv if by sea"). “Aboutness” is what those state-relations look like when embedded in a causal, interpretive, or cognitive system.
Information, by definition relational, says nothing about what is related. If there were no things related, then the concept of relation itself loses its meaning. We must grasp the enormity of this obstacle before speaking of a reality made of information. This is definitively only the best way to grasp reality, nothing more. For it is impossible to extract ourselves from the reality to see its origin. Whatever our efforts, we will always be within it, studying its nature with concepts that are also inherent in its nature.
There is, however, a way to connect information and substance (of which related things are made) without leaving reality. This is the theory I presented in ‘Surimposium’. A substance is the global level of a system of related elements. The system is indeterminate, but its global level is determinate. How do we get from one to the other? The global level is the determinate configuration of the set of probabilities of the system. This configuration changes, of course, but not at the same time rate as the system's interactions. This lag, which can be dramatic, defines what we call substance: stability upon instability. Each layer of complexity can add greater stability. We thus arrive at the substantial fixity of the macroscopic realm over the myriad probabilities of its quantum constitution.
This theory requires no assumptions about the origin of reality. It simply follows its guiding thread through complexity, which turns out to be the true fundamental dimension of reality.
🤭 quantum is a size reference not phenomena
Thanks for posting, because that new paper makes so much sense… it will e lovely to see what your next paper is…
It’s hard for me to visualise ‘information’ without it hanging off something else. So just from a conceptual pov I find this difficult to process.
The Hard Problem of how consciousness arises from information.
Isn’t information information-about-something?
If so how can it be fundamental?
States and distinctions of what?
And how does that give rise to consciousness?
The distinctions are how we identify/classify the states. To think about information I use this notation: *256+234 to mean 'a 256 state system that is in state 234' where, for now, think of '234' as just a label - we needn't presuppose numbers. That lets me think about information without using a concept of matter. By composing / decomposing and asserting identity among such things is it possible to get matter? Think about how matter is formed in a 3D FPS. You can find a similar pattern in the way information is exchanged by 'real' particles to create a lattice that spatially deflects other such lattices.
I don't know how consciousness works. But I know that by mapping chains of information flow we can describe a system that gathers, interprets (via the aboutness determined by the causal chain and patterns) and uses other, external, information and that such a system could also observe itself. In the god's eye view where any interpretation of state is arbitrary, such systems could be picked out in a non-arbitrary way and thus give rise to an ontologically significant interpretation framework. That is probably not consciousness, but it seems like it is a necessary condition for it.
I think the apparent problem comes from treating “information” as if it must first mean “a message about something,” in the everyday semantic sense. But that is a late, interpreted form of information. At the more basic level, information is state: a distinction that can make a difference.
So I would start with the state view.
Suppose there is a system with 256 possible states (a byte of information), and it is currently in one of them. What is that state “about”? By itself, in isolation, maybe nothing in the rich semantic sense. But now trace the causal structure backward. How did the system come to be in that state?
Maybe the state was produced by someone typing an answer to a question about their age. That keystroke changed a voltage pattern, which changed a memory register, which changed a network packet, which eventually changed this 256-state system. In that causal context, the state carries information about the person’s age.
But that is not the only thing it is about. If you trace the causal chain differently, it may also carry information about the keyboard, the encoding scheme, the software, the transmission path, or the reliability of the system. “Aboutness” is not a magic extra ingredient added to bare matter. It is the way a present state is constrained by prior states through a causal structure.
That is close to Dretske’s point in *Knowledge and the Flow of Information*: information flows when one state lawfully or reliably depends on another. A photon’s frequency and direction, for example, carry information about the last thing that emitted or scattered it. The photon does not need a little label attached saying “I am about this object.” Its state is already causally structured by the object.
So when someone asks, “Isn’t information always information-about-something?” I would answer: yes, but “about” is not fundamental in the human-language sense. It emerges from causal dependence among states. Information is not first a sentence with a subject matter. It is first a structured difference, and only later, in organisms and minds, does that become explicit semantic aboutness.
Then the question becomes: how can information be fundamental?
Here again, I think the state view helps. Take the classic lantern example: “one if by land, two if by sea.” It feels as if the physical lanterns come first and the information is merely something we impose afterward. But what is the physical situation itself? It is a state of the world: lanterns existing in a particular configuration, at a particular place, in a particular causal context. The universe is in state "Lanterns exist at location and time x,y,z,t"
The “physical” description is already a state description. The lanterns, the tower, the photons, the observer’s eyes, the nervous system, and the later military response are all parts of one evolving state structure. We can describe that structure in terms of matter, but we can also describe it in terms of states and their causal chain of mappings to other states. At no point do we need to add a separate metaphysical substance called “matter” over and above the structured states and their lawful transitions.
On this view, information can be fundamental because it does not mean “a message written on top of physical stuff.” It means the differentiable structure of reality itself: what state the world is in, what other states are possible, and how states constrain and transform one another.
Semantic information — information about ages, ships, danger, food, other minds, or oneself — is a higher-level organization of that same thing. It is information in systems that model, act, remember, anticipate, and care. But the underlying ingredient is still state.
So I would put it this way:
Information is not fundamental because the universe is made of propositions. Information is fundamental because the universe is made of states: distinctions, and lawful transformations among them. (Because remember, the fact that a particular lawful transformation holds is also a state of the universe: "f=ma if by land, f=mv if by sea"). “Aboutness” is what those state-relations look like when embedded in a causal, interpretive, or cognitive system.