Here the informational concept in philosophy and physics is suggested for a discussion - see
http://arXiv.org/abs/0812.2819 – V4,
(also may be useful
- V1, sections: 1. "Introduction"; and may be 2. "To the definition of the concept of information";
- V5, sections: 1. "To the definition of the concept of information"; and "Discussion and conclusion")
(A) - the suggested informational approach is rigorously logically grounded. Indeed all that exists are the words. To understand that is necessary to take into account a few rather evident things:
(1) – to understand, that the information is the objective thing and doesn’t require any "sapiens" to exist;
(2) – to understand, that the information is unique thing which exists when there is no anything – that’s simply the cyclic statement "there is no anything besides the information that there is no anything besides..." - so the information is "storage device" for the information and so there isn’t any necessity for something else to exist.
On another word – the information is unique thing that isn’t capable to be non-existent.
(3) – to understand that all above is not a trick or next "information paradox" – though the information is very paradoxical thing indeed – but it is the ultimate reality and only requires to get used to such a conclusion.
( But, besides, it seems it is highly desirable also for somebody "to be ready" to apprehend the concept, for that – it is desirable to put and to attempt to answer on a number of the questions, such as:
(1) – what is our external World ? (though the question "what is the (my) consciousness?" is interesting also);
(2) - from where, including – "from what material" the World was originated?
(3) – human's experience says that the World is some logically consistent system – in the World some system of "Nature laws" works – Why it is so? Why the consciousness’ languages, including – mathematical – are totally adequate to the material World? (and what is "material"? – that’s good question also);
(4) - it is rather useful to remember, that in a number of thousands of years already there were many attempts in the science to answer on these questions, but all attempts turned out to be in vain – eventually always corresponding considerations reduced to some beliefs in framework of two main concepts –of Materialism and Idealism - and so this discussion turns out to be endless – why?
Additionally it is useful to remember, that there are a number of the "information theories" , as well as of the "set theories", when at that - the notions "the information" and "the set" aren’t defined (!) – so why did such a funny situations happen and why it remains unresolved till now?
But at that - these theories are well adequate when solving specific problems relating to specific properties of some sets (or "ensembles", "manifolds", etc.) as well as of an "information" as it is considered as, e.g., a "measure of uncertainty", "complexity", etc.
After somebody will become "ready" – this informational concept becomes rather understandable when it makes essentially more clear many problems in philosophy, mathematics, physics, etc. As an example – it turns out to be that in reality the notions "the set" and "the information" are utmost fundamental and so can not be defined through something more fundamental/common notions, when both notions are "the same" in some sense – the set is "the mode of existence" of the information, when for the set the better name is a "manifold" in sense "diversity".
In philosophy for Idealism it becomes clear that there is no necessity for a Creator to be omnipotent (and so – transcendent, one of the main problems in Idealism) to "create the Universe from nothing" – all possible scenarios of the creations "were/are ready far before creation" and only one thing remains – how can a scenario be activated? For Materialism – a possibility of some "accidental" activation appears, when – since it seems that, e.g., our Universe is rather simple logical system – the probability of such a creation can be not too large;
it seems possible to develop rather plausible physics model for gravity and electricity, etc.;
- details – see the arXiv links in the posts above.
And – sorry - relating to the link http://arXiv.org/abs/0812.2819 – V4,
(1) Eq. (24a) should be as: (Vector sum) omega_r=omega_y+omega_x*(1-beta)
(2) (Text between Eqs. 24c, 24d)
There is:"Taking into account the equation for the flux of the rims, Eq.(22) and that the flux of FLE in the bunches should also the equation for the electric field of a moving charge:";
There should be: "Taking into account the equation for the flux of the rims, Eq.(22) and that the flux of FLE in the bunches should also be transformed (corresponding equation for the flux in a bunch - by Doppler factor), obtain the equation for the electric field of a moving charge:";
(3)Eq. (24d) – the exponent in the denominator must be 2, not 3; besides - it contains unnecessary fator - reuced Planck's constant (it is already in the equation for scalar potential earlier in the text)