Knowledge is Power Part 1

Knowledge is Power

I'm writing this to get to the core of that idea. Knowledge is power, information is energy.

Scientists have known for a long time that information – knowledge – can be converted directly to energy. The proof of concept is the Szilard engine, a 1929 thought experiment, and refinement of Maxwell's demon that shows how having one bit of knowledge about a thermodynamic system can be used to harness work from that system.

Its an idea that makes sense of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics says that a system should move toward higher levels of entropy: If a box filled with gas has all particles on one side, (low entropy) the laws of probability say the vast majority of possible states have the particles distributed somewhat evenly across both sides, so the most probable state to find the system later is equilibrium. A move from imbalance to equilibrium is almost inevitable. And that's what it does, simply because its most probable.

However, this idea doesn't actually preclude movements from high entropy to low entropy. To see it, imagine 5 or so gas particles randomly moving around a box. It would happen from time to time that all 5 would end up on one side, it would simply be less probable than finding a mix with some on each side.

So then couldn't we simply watch the particles, wait for this to happen, and then harness work from them when they do as they seek out a higher entropy state? Without Szilard, the answer would be yes, and we would be able to build a free-energy machine.

But with Szilard, we see the fundamentally equivalence between information and energy, and know this is impossible. Simply put, it takes energy to know things. It takes energy to flip a bit. And his work shows that the energy cost needed to know where the particles are at any given time must be equal or greater than the amount of energy that can be harvested from having that information. Thermodynamics saved, Maxwell's demon slain.

But equivalence is a two-way street, the energy cost of knowing things isn't that much of a mind blowing fact: Computers take electricity, our brains take calories. So that's interesting, but well within the realm of the intuitive. But on the other hand, the conversion of knowledge/information to energy, the hidden side of this equivalence relation, is a BIG FUCKING DEAL.

Its a big fucking deal not just because what it says, but because of the scope of the truth it applies to. The second law of thermodynamics has proven to be one of the most powerful and far reaching laws, resonating in each new framework of science that is explored. The reduction of Von Neumann entropy to Shannon entropy shows yet another holy repetition of the same mantra.

But the ideas I think are most powerful are the common sense ones, which are informed by scientific realism. From this desire for common sense, I ask a simple question:

How Many Bits Does it Take to Power a Light bulb?

This is an absurd question really, but as is my style, through absurdity, veritas.

The question has an answer. The quantum nature of things – by which I mean a fundamental level under which units of energy can no longer be divided, must also apply to computer/information theory if the second law of thermodynamics is to hold. There must be a minimal energy to to both observe a system, and a minimal energy to record something, to set a bit. This ensures we cannot create a free energy machine from a Maxwell Demon or Szilard engine. It also gives to me a gut feeling of intuition on Young's double slit experiment, and the power of “observation” (information gathering) to change these systems, but exploring that feeling is beyond the scope of what I'm writing about here.

But what is this fundamental limit? There are probably physicists out there who could actually tell me, and I'd love to learn from them. But what interests me even more is how inequalities – departures from this pure level - so often manifest in this relation. For instance, the energy needed to literally track 5 atoms of gas around a chamber probably vastly exceeds the energy that could be harvested from them, if its even possible to track them at all. That's the dark side of this relation, the side that feels futile. But there is also a light side: How many bits of information were collected by exploratory deep earth imaging by X fossil fuel company before their latest fracking operation? And given the fundamental equivalence relation between information and energy, what order of magnitude describes the amount of energy they got out, vs the amount of information they put in? Certainly its huge. Or again, what is the relationship between the total amount of bits – again expressed in terms of these fundamentals - we will learn about how to create fusion energy before humanity actually does it? And what order of magnitude to the increase then, when we have discovered a power source that will provide zettajoules for eons of our great^18 grandchildren, after just a couple centuries of research? Certainly, there is so much to gain from that work.

The reason I'm presenting this image, this way of looking at things in terms of exploiting imbalances in information energy equality, is because I feel it provides a general framework for looking at things going forward. The peak oil question has long been a matter of great importance, and now we have a new lens: For a long time its been known that the cost of getting at the remaining oil increases as the most easy to get to reserves become tapped, but now we can see the whole picture: The actual cost is the energy/bit cost of finding the oil that remains, the energy/bit cost of figuring out how to get to it, and and the cost of getting to it, all this offset by the gains. (given by the same information seeking research) This provides the whole picture of oil costs going forward, a generalization of what has been said before. But what's elegant about this particular generalization is how elegantly it flows into alternative sources of energy, like fusion. The cost of getting to the deep oil, and the cost of getting to fusion, are measured in the same fundamental units of information/energy. “Drill baby drill” can mean into the earth, or it can mean into the unknown realms of high energy physics needed to make fusion a reality. How deep you may have to go before you hit gold can be an open question, but after putting enough in, you are guaranteed to get a hell of a lot more out, if the fundamental assumptions are right.

But I'm not here to advocate for fusion research, though I think its a good idea. What I'm saying is that at a deep and fundamental level of the universe, energy acquisition is an IT problem. (where “IT” can be taken to stand for Information Tech or Information Theory) And I mean “law of gravity” deep and fundamental:

Knowledge is power, and power is knowledge. Information is energy, and energy is information. Information systems are what can identify potential energy for harvesting within a physical system, whether these information systems are our brains identifying wood that we can burn at the camp sight, or food we can eat for calories, or complex computers identify thermal imbalances in our new climate that can be exploited for electricity. Its the same game. Its all the same fundamental forces at work. Information machines like brains identifying energy sources and exploiting them. This is as fundamental as the forces which drive life itself.

That's why, when I hear alternative energy narratives that focus on solar panels and windmills as “all there is”, I know we have failed. Both these these are good ideas, both of these ideas had a certain amount of bits of learning put in to make them happen and make them energy positive, and they work. But in saying these are all there is, we've missed the fundamental, profound, big fucking deal that is information-energy equivalence:

I've seen a once-free-energy-conspiracy-theorist attach a wire to hobby drone, and fly it up in to the air to power a small engine with the electrical potential difference between the air 100 feet up and the ground. Of course we know this potential difference can exist, when it gets really big that's where bolts of lightning come from. But what we ignore is that its there most of the time, and it can be harvested. Does the energy needed to know about it exceed the energy that can be harvested? I highly doubt it. With a tall tower I'll bet a person could harvest a little energy from the air above, on and off, all day long. More in a thunderstorm.

My point isn't that this small amount of energy is a solution to our energy needs, its not. My point is to say that sources of potential energy are around us all the time, if we only cultivate the information frameworks that can see them. That means embracing information acquisition as the path to energy acquisition in general, whether they apply to superficial knowledge of the systems around us, or to deep theoretic principles. The two are, at some level, one in the same.

Peace!