Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics 1st Edition

Over the past century or so most scientists have regarded mass and energy as nature's primary actors on the universal stage with information allowed only a secondary role. Essays in this book by authors from varied fields advocate a radically different view, one that elevates information as the fundamental entity underlying all of physical reality, implying the conceptual hierarchy: information -> laws of physics -> matter. I will not attempt a comprehensive review here, just hit a few highlights. Check the web for more detailed reviews.

Why should one take this idea of [information-as-fundamental] seriously? A short answer addressed by several authors is that known physical laws, relativity, quantum mechanics, and thermodynamics, are all laws about information, especially limits on the speed, quantity, and quality of information transfer. Relativity limits speed; quantum mechanics limits quantity. The wave function of a system of quantum particles encapsulates all that is known about the system; it is essentially an information field. It is not clear (to me at least) if the fundamental information envisioned here might be embedded in space-time (as the usual quantum wavefunction) or if the information may create space-time itself. Probably there are proponents on both sides of this question.

What are the implications of this revolutionary new paradigm? For one thing it is bound to be quite controversial. For some scientists this may be likened to opening Pandora's box (or at least a large can of worms) releasing all kinds of wild ideas about the origins of consciousness, implications for religious beliefs, mysticism, and so forth. Others, especially those interested in the "hard problem" of consciousness, may welcome the new ideas. Consider the implications of the [information-as-fundamental] paradigm for living systems. A gene is a set of coded instructions for a molecular system to carry out a task. Take a step up to the cellular level in the nested hierarchy of living systems. Each cell seems to act much like a natural supercomputer, an information-processing and replicating system of enormous complexity. Furthermore, human brains are even much more powerful information-processing systems. In fact, limits on inter-person information transfer are apparently all that allows us to remain individuals. Minds and information process appear, in the information-based picture, to be integral parts of our universe rather than accidental products of evolution as assumed by many. If information is fundamental, then maybe consciousness is fundamental.

I found many of the ideas in this book to be quite compelling; however, one cannot discount the enormous success of relativity and especially quantum mechanics in describing our physical world. The proposed new information paradigm currently provides no equivalent mathematics to predict the outcomes of specific experiments or develop new technology. Large parts of this paradigm are currently non falsifiable, leaving them beyond scientific purview, at least for now. Also somewhat problematic for me was the last section (five chapters) on philosophy and theology. For example, one chapter raises the concept of God as an informational principle at work in the entire cosmic process (rather than a designer God outside the universe). I suppose the identification of information with God depends critically on one's definition of the "G-word," but this seems like quite a large jump to me. Nevertheless, I was willing to seriously consider the arguments. In any case, this particular God (hopefully) bears little resemblance to the mean old ogre of the Old Testament.

While confronting the mind-brain issue (the hard problem) from several directions, this book has very little to say about neuroscience or its many conscious correlates, which are emphasized in the consciousness literature. I expect much future work to aim for more integration of such brain science with new thoughts about the putative fundamental information. A very modest attempt in this direction is provided in my new book (2010). The critical multiscale nature of life and (apparantly) consciousness is treated from a physical science perspective in Al Scott's Stairway to the Mind: The Controversial New Science of Consciousness (1995). The apparent critical importance to consciousness of nested hierarchy in brain tissue is emphasized from a medical perspective in Todd Feinberg's From Axons to Identity: Neurological Explorations of the Nature of the Self (Norton Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology) (2009). A neuroscience-based book that stresses complexity (and by implication information) is Gerald Edelman and Giulio Tononi's A Universe Of Consciousness How Matter Becomes Imagination (2000). A new book that successfully marries graph and complex systems theories to genuine brain (multi-scale) network anatomy is Olaf Spornes' Networks of the Brain (2010).

This is a rich topic with James Gleick's recent and eclectic volume stimulating more popular interest in the perspectives, small and large, that information theory may offer us. This book's treatment of `information' from different perspectives starts well but subsides into unnecessarily complex and discursive verbage. The volume assays a range of topics, and bibliographies accompany each chapter. The topics (chapters) are organised in the themes of history, physics and biology, with philosophy and theology combined at the end. Alas, the detail of this review trails off about half way through as I sped up my reading, finding less rewards and continuing with the main aim of getting it over with. A concluding chapter is definitely needed to wrap up the many strands of thinking. I dislike writing negative reviews, preferring to focus on the positive and noting that preferences vary. However, I felt it important to flag to readers of Paul Davies's books that he is only an editor here, writing one chapter, and that the collection of essays does not deliver the level of exposition that his books usually do.

In Part 1, History, Ernan McMullan surveys the changing theories of matter in Western philosophy. His writing and vocabulary reflect a philosophical review and may be considered poetic or opaque depending on reader preference. More importantly, it offers one of the most concise and intelligible accounts of our perception of matter from Aristotle to dark matter that this reviewer has ever read. As a philosopher reviewing science, his emphases are incisive and clear, and have no doubt benefited from the comments of the editors, as he states. His references break an academic tradition in slightly favouring the more recent and accessible assessments of theories rather than their original proponents. Philip Clayton challenges materialism, and thereby science, with less convincing arguments which give inadequate weight to empiricism and the scientific method.

Part 2, Physics, starts with an eclectic appraisal of information theory in physics by Paul Davies who is always interesting and entertaining. There were loose ends: I am not sure if the `measurement to infinite' precision question was answered in terms of all phenomena, or why the 10 to the power 90 particles in the universe included photons and not gravitons. Davies needs to focus more so that readers can get their head around a discrete topic rather than gain a general impression of a field of study. Please note, this won't stop me buying his books. Seth Lloyd introduces the concept of the universe being a quantum computer where events generate outcomes, each of which may be considered a bit of information and resulting in the "complex order and structure" we know. Henry Stapp made my heart race when he undertook to provide "a non-paradox-laden description of the quantum universe and the place of our minds in it". Stapp's claim that our mind have been conditioned by three centuries of orthodox physics extended this appeal but his arguments became impenetrable, with a conclusion that his analysis is concordant with the "idea of a powerful God" coming out of the blue. I would like to give his interesting theory another chance and a re-read, perhaps with a strong coffee. I also wonder if this is an overly distilled decant of his views in Mindful Universe.

In Part3, Biology, John Maynard Smith examines DNA transcription and central dogma predictably with examples below the par we see from Dawkins and others. He touches on epigenetics, although not by this newer name. Except for statements such as "genes and regulatory proteins carry information, but enzymes do not", one needs to read between the lines to decide what information means in the context of biology. In fairness, more clarity is occasionally offered by Deacon, often through helpful analogy, in his attempt to argue against sceptical paradigms that conclude "either content is fundamentally relativistic, holistic, and ungrounded or else is merely epiphenomenal and ineffectual except in its arbitrary correlation with the physical properties of the signs that convey it". Such word strings are common in this book. Chapters by Kuppers, Hoffmeyer and Rolston unfortunately maintain similarly loquacious arguments, using unnecessarily obscure terms and vocabulary to arrive precipitously at esoteric points. Rolston's treatment of group selection offers promise, but examination through the concept of `caring' is haphazard. These chapters trawl the literature up to a point, but their inefficient arguments make them a chore to read.

Chapters in Part 4, Philosophy and Theology, continued to attempt to answer interesting questions with sophistic and mangled logic, with embarrassing levels of self citation. These chapters would leave any reader concluding that studies of science and religion mix in the manner of oil and water.

I would buy the book again, at least to read a couple of great chapters and for the bibliographies.