Dataism is the belief that everything can be converted into binary data, into 0’s or 1’s.
Yuval Harari covers this concept in Homo Deus, A Brief History of Tomorrow: “Dataism declares that the universe consists of data flows, and the value of any phenomenon or entity is determined by its contribution to data processing”. And: “From a Dataist perspective, the entire human species is a single data-processing system, with individual humans acting as its chips.” [1] Such a world view draws parallels with computer systems. We disagree with this philosophy. In our view reality does not merely consist only of 0’s and 1’s. Superposition cannot be ruled out.

Superposition versus 0’s and 1’s
Probability versus computability

In his lecture Are we living in the Matrix? [2] David Tong, theoretical physicist at the University of Cambridge, sums up a number of other arguments to indicate the difference between reality and a computer model. Yet superposition seems to be the most fundamental difference.

Chance (meaning ‘probability’)

“It is perfectly normal that the coronavirus continuously mutates”, Snijder argues [Eric Snijder, professor of virology at the Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC)]. “Every time the virus infects a person, it makes millions of little mutating errors. Nobody knows what all these mutations do, although most of them won’t make much difference.”

De Volkskrant, August 22, 2020, The changing virus and the vaccine, Ronald Veldhuizen.

From a dataistic perspective, chance is an ‘error’, but with such a view you are probably overlooking something. Chance seems to have an important function as a source of variation, creativity, development and successful adaptation. It is woven into the fabric of our world through the collapse of superposition. As we discussed in Chapter 10, this collapse occurs at the moment of interaction, when an entanglement is broken and shared information is redistributed. Behold probability distribution performing its magic. For example, when interacting, the spin of an electron that was in superposition, indefinite, with all directions at the same time, takes on one particular direction. When the entire universe is related to each other, the outcome of redistribution of information, i.e. redistribution of the probability distribution, cannot be calculated.

Does ‘chance’ cancel itself out when it happens very often? For instance, when you are in a certain place and you are moved on average as often, and as far, to the left as to the right, leaving the location (on average) unchanged? Not always, because by means of coherence with the environment something else happens and things change. Compare this to what Boltzmann says about the direction of time (Chapter 9): Large numbers of interactions make time irreversible and give it direction. This also applies to other aspects of cohesive interactions: any large number of coherent interactions ensures that developments become irreversible and are given a direction. Chance is, of course, irreversible in itself. But on average it doesn’t neutralize itself anymore either.

Stable or unstable
In stable conditions at the macro level, small disturbances generate only minor effects. The fluctuations balance themselves, along with the system. With self-organization (Chapter 14) most of these small disturbances are automatically corrected. But small disturbances can also cause major changes, as is the case in symmetry breaking or chain reactions. And these changes, in turn, can give rise to new developments. If it turns out that these new variants fit better with the environment, they will evolve further. Unsuccessful forms disappear.

A volcanic eruption serves as a great example of macro-level symmetry breaking: a small disturbance ruptures a weak spot within an existing equilibrium (the dormant volcano), which, in turn, has major consequences. An outbreak of a pandemic due to a successful mutation of a virus is a fitting example of a chain reaction.

Effects of small disturbances

If information is physical, how much is 1 bit of information?
Another aspect of the distribution of information is the fact that this information also matters in a physical sense. Information is not merely an imaginary mathematical quantity, but is just as physical as matter and energy. This is in line with Landauer’s principle (Chapter 10). Landauer stated that if you start with two possibilities, 0 and 1, and you make one possibility, for example 1, you ‘delete’ information. This reduction of possible states is accompanied by energy conversion that can be calculated using the laws of thermodynamics. Information is transformed into energy. This has already been demonstrated several times with experiments, including experiments that were conducted by Gaudenzi’s group in Delft [3]. 1 bit, the smallest amount of information, is 1 kBTln2 of energy. The T in this notation stands for temperature. This is therefore a factor in the amount of energy released. One kBTln2 is approximately 3×10^-21 joules. One joule is the amount it takes to lift a small apple (102 grams), under Earth conditions, one meter. So that is 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bits. One bit of information is extremely little in energy terms, but it is still greater than zero!

Quantum Landauer erasure with a molecular nanomagnet

R Gaudenzi, E Burzurí, S Maegawa, HSJ van der Zant… – Nature Physics, 2018

Abstract
The erasure of a bit of information is an irreversible operation whose minimal entropy production of k_B ln 2 is set by the Landauer limit. This limit has been verified in a variety of classical systems, including particles in traps and nanomagnets. Here, we extend it to the quantum realm by using a crystal of molecular nanomagnets as a quantum spin memory and showing that its erasure is still governed by the Landauer principle. In contrast to classical systems, maximal energy efficiency is achieved while preserving fast operation owing to its high-speed spin dynamics. The performance of our spin register in terms of energy–time cost is orders of magnitude better than existing memory devices to date. The result shows that thermodynamics sets a limit on the energy cost of certain quantum operations and illustrates a way to enhance classical computations by using a quantum system.

Gaudenzi’s study shows that information can transform into energy. And the authors also suggest improving classical calculations by taking quantum processes into account. [3]

There is more than bits and qubits
Bits and qubits get a lot of attention. This could be the result of our tendency to think in images of computers calculating with bits, and quantum computers calculating in qubits. But besides bits and qubits there are also trits. A trit is a unit of information that can have any of three states. The superposition of this is the qutrit. More generally, one speaks of qudits with a d-number of alternatives

bron: YouTube.com, Jim Al-Khalili, Quantum Life: How Physics Can Revolutionise Biology

The most fundamental information we know
We like to reduce everything to the most fundamental units. What are those independent variables? Which ‘degrees of freedom’ are the origin of all other manifestations? Commonly, time, space and mass are regarded as these fundamental units. But does this hold true?

Time
One isolated particle is oblivious of time. The same goes for a small number of particles that interact with each other, their movements being reversible. But with many particles, and in connection with the universe, time is created and given direction. Because the chance that movements, or a sequence, are still reversible has become negligible. This is what we learned from Boltzmann.

Space
One isolated particle or point doesn’t know space either. Because like time, space is also relative and has meaning only in connection with other particles or points. To an observer, a space is created through relationships with other elements.

Mass
One isolated particle has no mass. Mass has meaning only in relation to other mass. And it causes inertia as a resistance to acceleration when a force acts on it. Acceleration is about space and time. Mass has meaning only in connection with space and time.

Complex entanglements
Time, space and mass are not independent variables. According to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, they are interdependent. They are products of something else: information. We’d like to challenge you to think outside the box again and start viewing spacetime as information. Now ask yourself: What could be the factor that prevents everything from being homogeneous information? What factor causes differences? Suppose it can be found in the entanglements, namely in single or multiple entanglements? We distinguish qubits and qudits, after all. And when change occurs – everything is constantly changing – this difference in complexity causes the difference in behavior. Redistribution of more complex entanglements is less likely to occur than the redistribution of simple entanglements, simply because there are fewer options for it to occur. Suppose that all manifestations of information are effects of less or more complex relations with a different probability of change. What does that bring us?

The easiest way.
Let’s do another thought experiment by portraying our planet, Earth, as a hologram of information. And let’s assume a situation with coherence of information in the form of superposition and entanglement, a situation where the overlap of information can be both simple (qubits) and multiple/complex (qudits). Everything is constantly changing. In other words: information is continuously redistributed. In accordance with the no-hiding theorem, this redistribution must take place everywhere simultaneously, and must add up to exactly the same amount. After all, after a redistribution there should be no more, nor less information. This means that single entanglements will redistribute more easily than complex ones, simply because there are more options for them to do so.

Suppose information takes on different forms through combinations of more or less complex relations. The simplest form is spacetime. Add a little more complexity and mass (more mass, as we’ll see later) comes into being. Further increase in variation and complexity leads to more properties such as spin, electric charge and so on. For our thought experiment we limit ourselves to space (m³), time (s), mass (kg), and heat or energy (m²kg/s²).

The planet in our thought experiment is made up of a staggering number of entanglements. It is a system that, in classical terms, has mass and volume. In terms of information it has spatial information, consisting of the simplest entanglements, in combination with more complex entanglements, which give it mass. The continuous redistribution of information within this mixture is guided by probability, each subsequent state always being the most likely option. Compare this dynamic behavior of spacetime (m³s) within the system with the classical metaphor of vibrating particles, the metaphor for heat or energy (m²kg/s²). More redistributing spacetime corresponds to more heat. And of course, our planet is also surrounded by spacetime; again, the simplest entanglements.

Suppose you’ll find an apple. Like the planet, the apple is a sphere of complex entanglements. Apple, planet and spacetime are interconnected dynamically and form a whole.

Darth Vader
Now a creature appears on the scene that has the power to influence the system. To avoid confusion with Maxwell’s demon, we choose a more contemporary character, Darth Vader. The Star Wars villain adds information to the entanglements that interconnect the apple and planet. In this case it is selective information, namely only spacetime. He lifts the apple. Darth Vader is now part of the system: planet – apple – spacetime – Vader. Information has been brought in from outside. In classical terms: potential energy has been added. After this brief appearance, Darth Vader decides to leave the system. How does this affect the spacetime that has just been created? Information will, of course, continue to be redistributed.

Mutual exchange of information between spacetime and spacetime (the simple entanglements) is more likely – and thus occurs more often – than between the complex entanglements within the planet (or apple) on the one hand, and the surrounding spacetime on the other. This difference in probability is even greater when compared to exchanges between complex entanglement within the planet (or the apple) itself; simply because there are more options for the simple entanglements. Complex entanglements have a negative effect on the probability and thus on the rate of change. Therefore, spacetime disappears from the vicinity of complexity when given the chance. In the case of the apple and the planet, this means that the probability that the amount of spacetime between them will remain the same, or will increase, is so small that it is negligible. The most likely direction of change is the shrinking of spacetime between the two complex systems. This all happens at a tremendous speed.

Incidentally, the factor of probability is not new. We know it as the physical concept of entropy (Chapter 14, self-organization).

In classical physics we call the phenomenon that decreases the space between two particles that possess mass gravity. Could gravity be nothing more than the most likely option instead of a force? Does entropy determine the direction of change? We will elaborate further on this in part 2.

Elementary particles
Can this vision on coherent information be applied to elementary particles (electrons, photons, quarks, etc)? Elementary particles have properties like mass, charge and spin in varying combinations. And they move in space and time. Perhaps they can be described as relatively stable forms of superposition of information.

April 7 2022, New Scientist published an article titled: “Particle physics could be rewritten after shock W boson measurement”. The article highlights a very accurate measurement of the mass of an elementary particle, the W boson [4] [5]. As it happened, the particle turned out to be heavier than was established after an earlier accurate measurement. How is that possible? Perhaps it wouldn’t have come as a surprise if we had thought in terms of coherence.
In part 2, we’ll discuss in more detail how ‘mass’ is not an exact characteristic of an elementary particle, but an expression of the (im)probability to change. This factor depends on the entanglements with its neighbors. The inexact mass is one of the paradoxes that we will discuss in part 2. 

Spacetime is physical information
When processing the aforementioned vision on gravity, it is important to remember that space is not empty. The space between planets, as well as the space between the apple and the planet, is filled with information. You can regard this information as space, but also time. After all, when you travel to the moon you have to bridge space, but also time. It is because of space and time that not everything coincides. Distance, like space and time, is an emergent phenomenon of information. And it is physical information. Presumably, distance even has mass. You have to think of extremely little mass, just like with neutrinos and gluons. But there is an extremely large amount of it, so it certainly counts. It has been calculated that we cannot recognize about 85% of the mass in the universe. This unknown mass is referred to as ‘dark matter’ [6]. Thinking in relations instead of particles makes physical information that represents distances recognizable. In terms of particles, you should also describe spacetime or distance as particles. However, the standard model of particle physics does not offer us a spacetime particle, or a distance particle. Part 2 starts with the description of an alternative to the standard model. This alternative is based on relations and provides a physical description for spacetime and distance.

Albert Einstein’s relativity
Thanks to Albert Einstein we know that space, time and mass are relative and interrelated. They are not independent physical quantities. In a common explanation, for example, it is said that space and time change under the influence of gravity. In the view of coherence, however, the concept of gravity is not necessary. By looking at relations rather than particles, you can see systems at the macro level as countless entanglements, where there is constant redistribution of information. Under certain conditions, a direction in the exchange can then arise. In the example with Darth Vader, these conditions are two systems with ‘mass’ and in between ‘space’. In this scenario, the exchange of information automatically leads to the disappearance of space between the masses. Time, space and mass are different expressions of information. It won’t get any more relative than this. Similarly, change in the presence of ‘electric charge’ can look like an electromagnetic force. Another force? What is a force anyway? Is it just the effect of the most likely options under specific conditions? We will elaborate on electric charge and spin in part 2.

The heat of an object, and energy in general
Through the lens of coherence, heat (m²kg/s²) of an object or system can be represented as spacetime (simple entangled information) between mass (complex entangled information) that always jumps to the most likely next generation of states. Spacetime matches better with spacetime than with mass. It has a natural urgency to find a way out. Energy is the total amount of potential change contained in a quantum system.

Extremes
In the simplest situation that only deals with space and time, but no mass, we’re looking at a photon. A photon lacks mass. We know that anything that has no mass moves at the speed of light, the highest speed known. Another basic situation is absolute zero. At this point, there is no longer any redistribution of information. Nothing more happens. Time becomes infinitely slow. What do you think: What happens under other extreme conditions? What happens when a mass becomes extremely dense?

Entropy as the bridge between quantum and macro level
Causality, whereby it is determined in advance what the effect of an interaction will be, only occurs at the macro level. At the quantum level, events are unpredictable. A predictable macro-level event (such as an apple falling towards Earth due to gravity) may be nothing but the most likely event under certain conditions, because with a coherent combination of very large numbers of interactions, the unlikely options have become negligible. Seen through this perspective, entropy forms the bridge between quantum concepts and macroscopic concepts.

Reflecting on a whole
The example of the energy value of one bit is meant to show how little it is, but not zero. A bit of information counts as a physical value. Keep in mind that a bit results from the collapse of a qubit; the superposition of two states. However, we also need to start thinking in terms of qudits; superpositions with two or more states. Rocco Gaudenzi proposes to improve classical calculations by also looking at quantum processes. Calculating with collapse of superposition may be difficult to imagine, but thinking in terms of coherence and emergence is possible.

Exchange and transformation of information
When ‘erasing’ information, information has not disappeared, but has been transferred to the observer (via entanglement), or transformed into energy. We are already familiar with exchange of information in the sense of communication, of course. Likewise, after transferring quantum information, both the sender and the receiver, have changed. In another context, this phenomenon can also be called measurement, observation, event or interaction. In all these cases, object and subject (these are completely interchangeable) have changed after the occasion. In general, you could say that with every interaction, with every change, information is transferred

In terms of energy, the smallest amount of information (1 kBTln2) is extremely minuscule. But remember: ‘more is different’. The number $1,000,000 in a bank account is a small amount of information. It is a small number of bits, recorded on the computer of the accountholder’s bank. Yet everybody knows that this tiny amount of information will bring you a long way. If you are the accountholder, that is. It’s all about the meaning that the information has acquired through entanglements.

The world is more than the sum of its parts
Those with a dataistic world view may interpret the notion “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts” as a poetic expression. They may think the whole just needs more computing power. But even the greatest computing power imaginable cannot calculate the coherence of the universe. The collapse of superposition is incalculable. Irregularities are not ‘mistakes’, it’s actually the other way around. The straightforward application of models, without taking entanglements and their collapses into account, is a mistake. The unpredictability of coherence cannot be merely brushed away. ‘Everything is information’ by John Wheeler is not the same as ‘everything is (computer) data’.

There are only 10 types of people: those who understand binary and those who don’t.