You are asking me to admit, in front of everybody, that I do in fact recall Harry Potter doing anything, thereby admitting to having read (and re-read, for the later books) the entire series? I will, but only with the caveat that I am, and will always be, a die-hard Tolkien addict.

The clips, however, remind me more of Jacques Benveniste. I tend to find most research that tends toward "fringe" science (or pseudoscience) vital mostly because I regard challenges to reigning paradigms and notions important, and these mostly because I think that it is too easy to eventually accept as given findings that are based on citations from works few have bothered to read, and fewer if any to test. Also, every once in a while, some crazy nobody whose job is to file patents proposes ridiculous ideas about a "wave" that requires no medium through which it must propagate and further that this entails not only the lack of any (absolute) uniform motion but concurrently a lack of any "now" (no simultaneity) whilst the same year proposing, almost exactly a century after Young demonstrated the particle (corpuscular) theory of light was wrong, that the very "wave" he said could propagate in a vacuum wasn't a wave at all: it was composed of discrete energy "quanta".

[Aside: Ironically, the same radical thinker then spent much of his life after formulating general relativity to demonstrating the theory he'd helped to found, quantum mechanics, couldn't be correct. Even more ironically, perhaps his single most convincing argument AGAINST the idea that quantum physics is both a physical theory and complete (in the EPR sense) is one of the most cited papers because the property which Einstein thought to radical it meant QM must be incomplete or wrong, nonlocality (yes, I'm simplifying), turned out to be an empirically demonstrable property. Within the last decade, a surprising number of thought experiments (especially those from Schrödinger & Wheeler) have been empirically realized.}

That said, I am rather skeptical of most of the content of the clips, for various reasons. For example, in the second, we find Martin Chaplin talking about water in terms of something that sounded a lot more like hysteresis than the kind of memory in question here:

"The athermal nature of granular media implies in turn that granular configurations cannot relax spontaneously in the absence of external perturbations. This leads typically to the generation of a large number of metastable configurations; it also results in hysteresis, since the sandpile carries forward a memory of its initial conditions"

 Mehta, A. (2007). Granular physics. Cambridge University Press. (emphases added)

However, I don't think I've read more than 3-4 of Chaplin's publications, so I went looking and found:

Does water have memory?

The ‘memory of water’ is a popular phrase that is mostly associated with homeopathy and Jacques Benveniste [1211] following his and others’ allergy research work [132]. These research teams reported that solutes subjected to sequential physical processing and dilution show biological effects different from those apparent using just the water employed for the dilutions. The subject has drawn a lot of controversy with many scientists simply rejecting it outright without studying the evidence. The subject area has recently been the subject of a number of papers in the journal Homeopathy (July, 2007)c and has been reviewed [1206]. Although there is much support for water showing properties that depend on its prior processing (that is, water having a memory effect), the experimental evidence indicates that such changes are due primarily to solute and surface changes occurring during this processing. Certainly, simply stirring a solution may have pronounced effects on the vessel's surface charge and chemistry which can last for several minutes after the stirring has ceased [2138]. Another memory scenario concerns individual O:H–O hydrogen bond possessing memory of their physical temperature and pressure history that lasts over periods of minutes [2227]. This hypothesis, although well published in peer-reviewed journals, needs further substantiation. The experimentally corroborated memory phenomena cannot be taken as supporting the basic tenets of homeopathy although they can explain some effects"

(http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/memory_of_water.html#doesit)

Interesting, and this means I will be reading a good deal more about water than I thought I would.

I would also recommend, on a somewhat related, somewhat tangential note the videos from the seminar The Mathematics of Liquid Crystals (https://www.newton.ac.uk/event/mlc/seminars). & Mathematical Modelling and Analysis of Complex Fluids and Active Media in Evolving Domains (http://www.newton.ac.uk/event/cfm/seminars) for those who find fascinating or found fascinating (in the qualitative descriptions in the YouTube clips or via other sources)  the structures and dynamics of water or fluids.

You are asking me to admit, in front of everybody, that I do in fact recall Harry Potter doing anything, thereby admitting to having read (and re-read, for the later books) the entire series? I will, but only with the caveat that I am, and will always be, a die-hard Tolkien addict.

The clips, however, remind me more of Jacques Benveniste. I tend to find most research that tends toward "fringe" science (or pseudoscience) vital mostly because I regard challenges to reigning paradigms and notions important, and these mostly because I think that it is too easy to eventually accept as given findings that are based on citations from works few have bothered to read, and fewer if any to test. Also, every once in a while, some crazy nobody whose job is to file patents proposes ridiculous ideas about a "wave" that requires no medium through which it must propagate and further that this entails not only the lack of any (absolute) uniform motion but concurrently a lack of any "now" (no simultaneity) whilst the same year proposing, almost exactly a century after Young demonstrated the particle (corpuscular) theory of light was wrong, that the very "wave" he said could propagate in a vacuum wasn't a wave at all: it was composed of discrete energy "quanta".

[Aside: Ironically, the same radical thinker then spent much of his life after formulating general relativity to demonstrating the theory he'd helped to found, quantum mechanics, couldn't be correct. Even more ironically, perhaps his single most convincing argument AGAINST the idea that quantum physics is both a physical theory and complete (in the EPR sense) is one of the most cited papers because the property which Einstein thought to radical it meant QM must be incomplete or wrong, nonlocality (yes, I'm simplifying), turned out to be an empirically demonstrable property. Within the last decade, a surprising number of thought experiments (especially those from Schrödinger & Wheeler) have been empirically realized.}

That said, I am rather skeptical of most of the content of the clips, for various reasons. For example, in the second, we find Martin Chaplin talking about water in terms of something that sounded a lot more like hysteresis than the kind of memory in question here:

"The athermal nature of granular media implies in turn that granular configurations cannot relax spontaneously in the absence of external perturbations. This leads typically to the generation of a large number of metastable configurations; it also results in hysteresis, since the sandpile carries forward a memory of its initial conditions"

 Mehta, A. (2007). Granular physics. Cambridge University Press. (emphases added)

However, I don't think I've read more than 3-4 of Chaplin's publications, so I went looking and found:

Does water have memory?

The ‘memory of water’ is a popular phrase that is mostly associated with homeopathy and Jacques Benveniste [1211] following his and others’ allergy research work [132]. These research teams reported that solutes subjected to sequential physical processing and dilution show biological effects different from those apparent using just the water employed for the dilutions. The subject has drawn a lot of controversy with many scientists simply rejecting it outright without studying the evidence. The subject area has recently been the subject of a number of papers in the journal Homeopathy (July, 2007)c and has been reviewed [1206]. Although there is much support for water showing properties that depend on its prior processing (that is, water having a memory effect), the experimental evidence indicates that such changes are due primarily to solute and surface changes occurring during this processing. Certainly, simply stirring a solution may have pronounced effects on the vessel's surface charge and chemistry which can last for several minutes after the stirring has ceased [2138]. Another memory scenario concerns individual O:H–O hydrogen bond possessing memory of their physical temperature and pressure history that lasts over periods of minutes [2227]. This hypothesis, although well published in peer-reviewed journals, needs further substantiation. The experimentally corroborated memory phenomena cannot be taken as supporting the basic tenets of homeopathy although they can explain some effects"

(http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/memory_of_water.html#doesit)

Interesting, and this means I will be reading a good deal more about water than I thought I would.

I would also recommend, on a somewhat related, somewhat tangential note the videos from the seminar The Mathematics of Liquid Crystals (https://www.newton.ac.uk/event/mlc/seminars). & Mathematical Modelling and Analysis of Complex Fluids and Active Media in Evolving Domains (http://www.newton.ac.uk/event/cfm/seminars) for those who find fascinating or found fascinating (in the qualitative descriptions in the YouTube clips or via other sources)  the structures and dynamics of water or fluids.

As lay man I can say --- No!

When water flows, gives sound! I don't know more than that!

Dear @Sonam, this is not my research interest, but after some reading, I have found an interesting article about WATER'S MEMORY! "The topic of memory in water has fascinated scientists for decades. Computer scientists have tried to understand how water can act in a manner similar to computer chips, potentially storing billions of bits of information in a teaspoon of water. Of course, we don't see Intel, IBM, HP, AMD and others using water for computer memory so its safe to say that water holds little promise for this critical function. Or does it?"

ELECTROMAGNETIC EFFECTS AND FUNCTIONAL WATER is another artice about. "...the use of electromagnetic "information" which can be imprinted or "cloned" into the electronic "memory" of clusters of water molecules(Dr. Lorenzen's clustered water is an example)..."

http://www.aquatechnology.net/watermemory.html

http://www.aquatechnology.net/electromagneticeffects.html

No liquid water cannot store informations. Good joke!

In my view, we cannot reject this theory, without in depth study.  It is an interesting line of thinking.

Regards

Dear @Hanno, as I am very familiar with switching theory! Researchers do speak about colloid, not liquid water.

"...We present a generic methodology for precise and parallel spatiotemporal control of nanometre-scale matter in a fluid, and demonstrate the ability to attain digital functionalities such as switching, gating and data storage in a single colloid, with further implications for signal amplification and logic operations. This fluid-phase bit can be arrayed at high densities, manipulated by either electrical or optical fields, supports low-energy, high-speed operation and marks a first step toward ‘colloidal information’..."

http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nnano.2015.173.html

Dear Ljubomir,

colloids and water are two different worlds. And colloids must show directional orientations to show a memory. 

I like water, thats why I try to construct a super computer with my bath shower.

Sorry for my sarcasmus.

Dear @Hanno, I think it is misunderstanding. Your comment is related to the question, not to the article Information storage and retrieval in a single levitating colloidal particle! Am I right?

Yes dear Ljubomir. I´m scoffing about water memory.

Water can store and transfer information, say scientists

Professor Boris Koch of the Institute for Polar Research (Germany) together with a group of other scientists discovered that the water at the molecular level keeps a “memory” of all organic life forms that have existed in it. This discovery was made with the help of a powerful mass spectrometer which can accurately decipher the structure of each molecule.

The scientists found organic molecules in water and managed to determine what living organisms they belong to and for how long they have been in it. Exact atomic structure of each molecule can help identify what species it belonged to. There were many such “traces of life” in the water, so they were called “molecular memory of water”.

http://www.learning-mind.com/water-can-store-and-transfer-information-say-scientists/

www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread831963/pg1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILSyt_Hhbjg

No dear Subhash,

water is H2O, looks like mickey mouse with the two ears (H-atoms) in a certain angle (104.45 degrees). Water shows a filled up L-shell with 8 electrons. There is absolutely no mechanism to store information. And at all, water is a fluid without any macroscopic orientation of the molecules. They move thermally depending on temperature. 

No! Wasted time!

Dear Prof. Ljubomir,

Thank you for your inputs and discussions. Water is very important for experiments, with heavy water finding importance in NMR, neutrino detectors. Tritium also finds a lot of useful applications, so why not H2O?

Yes, dear Hanno,

You have the point. No alternative!