[Recording Start]
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What would make your theory of Informational Cosmology (IC) incorrect?
Rick Rosner: I’ve been pondering this lately, as I’ve had some second thoughts. Several factors could potentially invalidate Informational Cosmology. Firstly, we understand that the universe is fundamentally composed of information, or at least the information that defines it. The strongest evidence for this lies in the fact that the universe adheres to the laws of quantum mechanics, which is essentially a theory of incomplete information. To me, and I believe to anyone with a solid understanding of quantum mechanics, it should be evident that it is a theory based on information. However, I realize that this might not be a universally accepted view. Some practitioners of quantum mechanics may focus solely on the mechanics without delving into its informational implications.
Jacobsen: Interestingly, I’m involved in the quantum mechanics field. A colleague of mine, a quantum cosmologist and string theorist who is a professor at both the University of British Columbia, Okanagan, and Lethbridge University, and I co-founded the Canadian Quantum Research Center this year. In our first year of operation, our team has been ranked 41st out of 101 research centers in Canada for citations. This topic could certainly lead to an extended discussion with him, if you’re interested.
Rosner: That sounds intriguing. I’m open to the conversation, even if it means I might appear uninformed in some areas.
Jacobsen: He serves as the scientific director, while I’m the administrative director of the institute. Nature Publications recognized us as the 41st of 101, surpassing some major institutes from highly legitimate organizations, which is a significant accomplishment for our researchers. Discussing his work on theories around first, second, and third quantization would be an interesting conversation to have, possibly shedding more light on your theory.
Rosner: Is that akin to quantizing things that aren’t normally quantized?
Jacobsen: Essentially, it’s about the cosmology or physics related to the creation and annihilation of particles.
Rosner: Okay.
Jacobsen: So, first quantization would relate to the existence of particles, while second quantization involves the existence of the universe itself. The cutting-edge research my colleague is conducting pertains to multiverses – their existence or non-existence and the mechanisms behind these phenomena. It’s not just a matter of adding one variable; the mathematics behind it is far more complex.
Rosner: Alright, let me finish addressing your earlier question. The first aspect that could invalidate Informational Cosmology (IC) is if the universe, being made of information, only describes itself and nothing beyond. IC posits that just as our minds model the external world, the universe could be modeling something external to itself or not part of the same universe. If this isn’t the case, it poses a problem for IC.
The second aspect is the universe’s role as an information processor. We know it processes information through quantum mechanics, but if this processing aligns with a conventional Big Bang universe that continuously expands and gains information, that would contradict IC. This is because, unlike our minds, which maintain a consistent amount of information processing regardless of accumulated knowledge, a steadily expanding universe suggests an increasing volume of processed information over time. Our thoughts, whether while driving to work or watching TV, process roughly the same amount of information as they did a week or a year ago. Although our brains accumulate knowledge, they don’t actively process more knowledge per second. Most of our knowledge remains inactive until recalled, contrasting with the idea of a universe that continuously processes and accumulates more information.
If the universe functions as an information processor in a manner similar to our minds, then what we perceive as the Big Bang universe could be analogous to an unfolding thought. In this view, the active size of the universe remains constant, akin to how our brain operates, bringing forward specific information as needed, like recalling your second-grade teacher’s name. However, this information isn’t always actively present in our awareness. If the universe’s method of processing information doesn’t align with this concept—where information is stored in memory and only parts of it are actively processed as needed, but instead it continuously generates and accumulates information, growing steadily rather than just appearing to grow—then this would conflict with the Informational Cosmology (IC) model.
Each aspect of IC, especially the central idea that the universe operates analogously to our brain in significant ways—both in terms of hardware, software, and the modeling of something else—needs to hold true. If this analogy does not hold, then IC would be undermined. The universe must not only be an information processor but must operate in a way similar to how our brain/mind processes information. If this isn’t the case, then while IC might hold some truth, its central premise would be flawed.
The key concept of IC is that consciousness is an almost inevitable feature of central information processing. While we can process many functions unconsciously, like breathing or walking, these are typically handled by semi-autonomous systems and don’t usually enter our conscious awareness. They are still mediated by neurons, but these signals don’t form part of our central sensorium unless something, like a plantar wart in my case, makes us acutely aware of them. According to IC, a central processor or arena is necessary for processing novel information that isn’t automatic. Informationally, it makes sense to have a dedicated place where novel information can be examined by our accumulated knowledge and thought patterns. This allows for associations to be formed, helping us incorporate new situations into our model of the world.
In Informational Cosmology (IC), it’s difficult to escape the notion that a comprehensive, multi-dimensional, and multi-node system for modeling the world would exhibit what appears to be consciousness. This appearance of consciousness, based on our understanding that conscious experience equates to actual consciousness, is crucial. If it turns out that consciousness is a unique attribute exclusive to humans or evolved creatures, and not a necessary feature of sophisticated information processors, then IC encounters a problem. IC posits the likelihood of consciousness emerging in a vast, consistent information-processing system.
We can scrutinize every aspect of IC, from the most central to the most peripheral, and find reasons both for and against its applicability. Consider the presence of elements like gold, brown dwarfs, and black holes in the universe. Some of these entities appear to have formed longer ago than the universe’s estimated age. For instance, there could be gold in the universe that is a trillion years old or collapsed matter that predates the universe’s apparent age of 14 billion years. This suggests the universe has been active for much longer than it seems, with the 14 billion years merely reflecting the amount of information within it. However, if everything in the universe is younger than its apparent age, it doesn’t necessarily mean the universe itself is only as old as it appears.
The concept that the universe recycles and churns everything, breaking down entities like black holes and gold into basic components, poses another challenge. If there are no black holes older than 14 billion years because they are constantly consumed and reformed, it could imply a universe where nothing predates this age, despite the universe itself being older. However, I find it unlikely that processes exist that would consistently destroy and reform all gold or obliterate all black holes within a 14 billion year period, especially considering the resilience of black holes, which are somewhat insulated from the rest of the universe due to their gravitational properties. These are some of the considerations that could challenge or invalidate the principles of Informational Cosmology.
[Recording End]
Authors
Rick Rosner
American Television Writer
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Founder, In-Sight Publishing
In-Sight Publishing
License and Copyright
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at http://www.rickrosner.org.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Rick Rosner 