The Relation Between Information and Decisions

If you are reading this, you have probably read the last two blogs which introduce the idea that information can be defined as a record of decisions. You will recall that the idea was based on considering the nature of the unit of information, the bit, and understanding it was a decision between two options. Using this as a foundation, many types of information were examined to see if they conformed to this definition as well – which they did.

Yet, the idea that information is made up of a series of decisions does not seem to have made our understanding of its nature any better. Though scientists treat information mathematically using Shannon’s work as a foundation, it is done so without a firm link to other physical entities like time, space and matter. Information floats around like an add-on to a world described by physics. And there seems to be no clear path to create a firm tie between information and physics.

However, when we examine the decision as an entity we find that we have some promising hooks to connect it to physics. The objective, then, is to lay out the many ways the decision can be tied to other physical entities like matter, energy, space and time. The hope is that by doing so we will also be able to find a way to connect information to the rest of physics as well.

Before we do that, we will try to distinguish more clearly between a decision and information.

A Decision as the Cause of Information

When we define information as a record of decisions, we mean that the act of a decision leaves a record of that event in some material form that we can detect. In other words, information is the material record which exists in time and space after the decision event that created it. The decision event is in the past, but the information remains as a record. Information does not exist before the decision event, but only after.

As an illustration, as I typed this sentence, I took a decision to type the word “As” to begin the sentence. This decision happened in my brain – the location where the decision event occurred. The word “As” appeared on the computer screen as a result. That word is the material record that we can detect. It started existing on the screen after my decision, from the moment I typed it. It then continued to exist on the screen, until the screen was refreshed. Of course, for the moment we are ignoring the complex series of events that happen between the decision in the brain and my fingers typing the letters. Ignoring that sequence does not diminish the arguments laid out so far.

Had I, instead of typing, decided to speak, the material record would have been sound waves, which may have lasted only for a fraction of a second. Had I used pen and paper, the writing would be the material record, the information, which may have persisted for years or decades.

Based on this understanding we can assert that the decision is the direct cause of the information coming into existence. There is no reason to believe that this link between a decision and information is not universal. It is explicit in the definition of a bit itself which represents the result of a decision between two equally probable options.

The Mind as the Cause of Decision

As far as we understand, a decision is something that happens in a mind/brain or in a computer. It is instructive then to probe a little deeper and try to understand the causal relation between the mind and a decision.

When we define information as a record of decisions, the word decision is used in its basic sense: “the act of making up your mind about something”. So, clearly the mind and decision are connected: it is an entity that can generate a decision. This has been accepted in psychology for a long time. William James (William James, The Principles of Psychology, Holt, New York, 1910) states that the mind is what provides Purpose, Attention, Interest and Decision. In other words, a mind can take decisions almost by definition. It then follows that a mind can create information based on the relation between a decision and information. While not terribly insightful, this provides a clear connection between the mind and information.

Even so, we cannot take this analysis much further as we cannot explain what the mind is or how it operates. We barely understand how the brain operates. We know that the mind and brain are connected but we cannot describe how the mind emerges from the collection of atoms we call the brain. For example, the emergence of consciousness, a key attribute of the mind, is not understood at all. Moreover, it is not clear that we can study the mind by studying the brain, any more than we can study Microsoft Word by studying the underlying microprocessor.

Not only do we not know how the mind emerges, we do not understand how the mind/brain entity can take a decision. So, in our exploration of the nature of a decision, the connection to the mind, while interesting, does not take us far. We know that the mind and brain are linked. We also know that it is the mind, in conjunction with the brain, that causes a decision. But that is about all we know: that the decision is an event that happens in the mind/brain.

Though the brain is composed of matter, the mind is not composed of matter. So now we can state the following: a decision is that event that forms a bridge from the material world to the mysterious, non-material entity of the mind. So, while information is harder to connect to the mind, a decision is an event that very clearly happens in the mind, in the brain. In turn, this decision is connected to information. So, in a real sense, the decision connects the non-material mind and the material in which information is expressed. The significance of this must not be overlooked: we have a non-material cause, the mind, for a material effect, the material record which is information.

Now, whether a decision can be caused by anything other than a mind we do not know. We have no experience of any other entity that can cause a decision.  At this point, the astute reader will immediately raise the question: what about computers? Don’t computers generate decisions? Yes, they do, but only those already taken by the programmer.

Computers can be likened to a chain of dominoes set up to topple in some long, complex way. The person who sets it up, takes all the decisions in advance on how the dominoes will topple. Then, when the decision is taken to push the first domino over, it begins a chain of events that unfolds. All the decisions of how it unfolds were taken in advance. The computer is very similar. All the decisions it can take is bottled in the program. Once the decision is taken to start the program, a chain of events unfolds in very complex ways that may make the computer appear intelligent. Yet, computers are just mechanisms to bottle decisions taken by a programmer. Unless we create a new computer architecture, that can take new decisions that were not programmed by the programmer, we will not have a machine that we can say is another entity that can take a decision.

Based on the above, we can set computers aside and conclude that, ultimately, the mind is the only entity that can take a decision. Which implies, in turn, that the mind is the only entity we know that can create information.

Key Implications

What we have described is a chain of cause and effect: the mind causes a decision; a decision causes information. We also saw that the only entity we know that can take a decision is a mind, and so the only entity we know that can create information is the mind. This has some interesting implications.

If the mind is the only entity we know that can create information, it follows that DNA must have a mind as a cause. When we see an anonymous document, we know it had to be a mind that caused it. We do not need to know the identity of this mind to know that a mind was involved. Similarly, DNA is pure information coded in the material of the nucleic acids that form DNA. Clearly, it could not have been a human mind that caused the DNA. This very clearly then points to a non-human intelligence. This was so obvious to Francis Crick, that he published a paper identifying the mind that created DNA as some alien life form that seeded the earth with life. (Crick).

Another implication is that the mind must be real if the mind is the cause of information. Anything that can create a detectable change in the material world must be real. Hence the mind must be real.  

There are those who maintain that the only real thing is the brain – and that the mind is not real. The motivation for this belief is the assumption that everything real must be explained by physics. If it cannot be explained by physics then it cannot be real. Physics only deals with matter and energy in space and time. The mind is not made of matter or energy so it must follow that the mind is not real. This position is held as a dogma, and not based on evidence.

In reality, the evidence opposes the dogma.

The existence of information is evidence that physics does not explain everything. If information is real then clearly there is more to the world then what physics can explain. Information is not made of matter or energy even though it is manifested in it. Clearly there are real entities that are not matter or energy. Another example of an entity that is real but not made of matter or energy is the set of the laws of physics. The laws are not made of matter or energy – they are information. If the laws of physics are not real, then neither is physics. 

Now some may argue that the brain alone is adequate to cause a decision. The brain is made of matter and energy so it is real and we do not need to invoke a mind to explain decisions.

The first problem with this position is that we don’t have any idea how the brain can take a decision. We barely understand how a single neuron works. The brain has about 100 billion neurons interconnected in an awe-inspiring network. We have no idea how that network produces consciousness or decisions. Asserting that the brain solely can explain decisions, without a mind, is baseless. It is an article of blind faith driven by the desire not to have to invoke something like a mind.

Having said that, there is one basis on which to argue that the brain is enough: that is to assume that the brain is a computer. We know that computers can take decisions. Computers are made of matter. It does not have this mysterious thing called a mind. The problem with this position is that any computer that we can think of, is effectively a method to bottle decisions taken by the programmer. So now we are left with the problem that, if the brain is a computer, then we must acknowledge the existence of the Programmer. This only makes matters worse for someone trying to evade invoking a non-material mind. They must now deal with a non-material super-Mind.  Assuming the existence of a mind is the simpler option.

In conclusion, we have shown how the decision is the key bridge between information and the mind. In our next blog we will explore the relationship between the decision and space and time.