A computer is much the universal machine. Depending on the programming and what peripherals you attach to it, it can do pretty much anything. It leads to the the idea that everything in the universe is an information-processor of some sort, for if information processors can do anything, then by parsimony anthing that is done, is done by an information-processor.
Many scientists are currently considering replacing the particle with information as the fundamental unit of existence. Since the study of information was rather restricted to the humanities before, we now get the odd situation that the humanities are becoming the cutting edge hard science, while traditional particle-physics becomes reclassed as soft-science.
Aside from Shannons practical theory of information, the mention of information in science is mainly in the socalled which-way information in quantum physics experiments. A photon can travel trajectory A or B, the trajectory is decided when the alternatives reaches a decider. At that point a new piece of information enters the universe, namely the result of the decion on the trajectory.
Let's see how for instance a rock is described in terms of information theory. If I look at the rock I get information from the rock. I can set up a computer with some peripherals to look at the rock, and the computer will churn out numbers depending on things like the rock's weight and shape. It churns out information coming from the rock. As we've seen before, information is created per decision. So by what decisions, did for instance the weight information came to be?
To answer the question we should first take note of an important distinction between information theory and particle theory on the principle of time. In information theory time is a sequence of decisions. That is basically consistent with the notion of time as it is used in the humanities' study of history, where only decisive moments, only decisions are acknowledged in the timeline. In particle theory time is a relative measurement of motion. To see the difference between the 2 principles of time, take for instance an atomic clock. If we look at the atom a thousand times, and 900 out of 1000 times it is in a different position than when we looked before, then according to particle physics 900 units of time have passed for the atom, but according to information theory a 1000 units of time have passed, since every time we looked was a decision to look. Or so to say if the handles on the clock do not move, then the particle theory of time based on relative motion says no time passes. Yet another way to make this clear, if you calculate the passage of time with the relative motion of the earth to the sun, and if the earth would just happen to stand still, then you get an equation where the relative motion is 0, and so the result is going to be 0. Fortunately the earth goes round the sun reliably, and an atomic clock is even more reliable. In any case it should be clear that the particle notion of time is questionable, and that the information notion of time doesn't have this problem.
Getting back to the rock, we should get a time perspective from the point of view of the rock. If we look at a rock, we can tell by various measurements how the rock used to be. So the rock has information about it's past. And looking at the rock, we can predict very reliably it's future state. So the rock also carries information about it's future. So we know the future and the past, but the present is more difficult. To find out the present state of the rock is not possible without directly participating in deciding it's state. That's because the present is new, and for the new information to travel to an observer in the form of energy takes time. The movement of alternatives however is instantaneous over a distance. So if we could get a handle on the alternatives for the rock, then we could decide it's state. We can see that this is so, if you pick up the rock and break it, then you would know the present state of the rock, because you would have taken over the alternative futures of the rock. But a rock left to itself would decide it's own state, because of it's large size. Large in the sense of consisting of many atoms, which could all generate a decider. A single atom, or a single photon on the other hand, is generally not in a decided state. So the universe is very efficient, not deciding things which need not be decided.
---
Phew.. that was part 1, feel free to add part 2 where the weight information is described from origin to observation. I'm going to add how things such as rocks are computers by selfreferential equations of universal alphabets, later. These basics are already solid theory, and clear with examples and common language, if you go through it step by step.
™ Version 4.2