There are experiments (Lene Hau) where a mile or so of light is trapped in a bose-einstein condensate and stopped, 'becoming matter'. A matter wave can then be transferred from one BEC 'box' to another, where it becomes light again. This is knitting with very thin needles.
On 15 Dec, 12:15, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Indeed I know there is more to Georges Carlos. And indeed, there is > more information in this sentence than we can find through particulate > study, though we could find what I mean and even what might be taken > as meaning. The news today carries footage of an octopus making body > armour out of coconut shells discarded by humans. What consciousness > might be involved here? > > All manner of particles are postulated and we do not have a definitive > list. There may even be a 'reading particle'! > > On 14 Dec, 14:15, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > A wonderful article Neil, as from time to time you send for us to > > enjoy. > > You and Georges have something in common (believe it or not). You both > > like to write. :-) > > > Writing is may be the mother of all arts (although she wanted to be > > like music). > > Poor Science she does not admit she also wants to be literature. > > Instead she decided to tell us: Look, I'm not kidding, this is > > serious... Science is the serious sister of Fiction, sentenced to look > > for the truth, or something like that. Fiction instead, does not need > > her sister's frustrations > > > And talking about mothers we also have Nature, does she write as > > well? > > > I believe so. DNA is since human beings so declared, a text. > > Who/what writes and who/what reads. > > > I like to be reductionist here, I believe that everything is writen > > and read by the same, this email, all books, DNA, CERN conCERNS, etc > > > Allow me to quote you here "...I would say some particles carry > > information..." > > > Upside down I would say information plays with particles > > > There is no God here, there is a vacuum instead. The answer to the > > question "who reads DNA?" is better answered by Fiction. Science is > > too serious to my understanding > > > On 14 dez, 09:25, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Georges turning the question upside down trick is a good one here. We > > > are always talking about 'some shit that was before' - I'd leave it in > > > these graceless terms. I'm sort of with you at base Carlos, but I can > > > do little with a change in particle spin as changing information in > > > the sorry world I would put right (or perhaps retire from in > > > disgust)! I would say some particles carry information, as in when we > > > blow them up into other particles at CERN or Fermilab - though there > > > is clearly more to this. Books do require readers, yet one can > > > envisage a time in which 'reading' has gone but the books remain and > > > their meanings logically and painstakingly reconstructed (perhaps as > > > one can imagine Georges quipping, 'only to find there was nothing > > > worthwhile in them')! Alternate notions of information were around in > > > biology when I still did any. This was usually to split into a > > > material world and a world of information. I have no sense of contact > > > with the latter without the former. I used to like notions of > > > consciousness as emergent properties of life, but we could be tuning > > > into to something pre-existent of life, the development requiring > > > both. Your account is reductionist, though none the worse for that. > > > I can see where it goes in terms of what we might call 'unstable > > > computing', but can't grok with it on a wider basis. > > > > I'm sure we'd both be aware of the category leap once I start saying > > > I'm sure most people don't really know what information they give out > > > when they are saying anything, its reception is likely to be equally > > > vacuous or mundane and that misinformation is everywhere. I doubt > > > there is a 'Georges' Razor' to apply (though something like one > > > applies in science in terms of getting a better grok on what we are > > > dealing with). My guess is to go with defeasible reasoning, another > > > computer connected term. > > > > Reasoning is defeasible when the corresponding argument is rationally > > > compelling but not deductively valid. The truth of the premises of a > > > good defeasible argument provide support for the conclusion, even > > > though it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion > > > false. In other words, the relationship of support between premises > > > and conclusion is a tentative one, potentially defeated by additional > > > information. > > > > Much has been wittered already on the nature of consciousness. I find > > > myself interested in what reductionist science is telling us because > > > there is little to believe in religion and tradition. This still > > > leaves me interested in my consciousness of this vast universe, > > > plethora of them 'whizzing' above my head but unseen and potentially > > > contactable by gravity measurements and so on. Not only might there > > > be a world of information that is immaterial, there could be material > > > worlds not material to us. In a more day-to-day sense, we might make > > > more of what we refer to as consciousness, if we could develop > > > understandings about decision-making supposedly occurring very quickly > > > before apparent rational intervention, facts that might let us bring > > > new argument to rationality and how we are conscious. > > > > On 12 Dec, 10:59, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Neil > > > > > Now you added a little word "exchange", socratus talks about > > > > "information" and you added "information exchange" > > > > Indeed particles are exchanged, do you think information consists in > > > > the particles? > > > > > Without a reading instance there is no information. When you say > > > > information exchange you are correct, but you moved the focus to the > > > > exchange part of the statement > > > > > One can say there is no information without the "particles", and that > > > > is true as well > > > > > Information is made of three: > > > > > 1 - particle > > > > 2 - code (the instance which "understands" where the particles point) > > > > 3 - distance > > > > > On 11 dez, 20:52, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Information exchange has been construed as particle exchange Carlos. > > > > > Perhaps everything is a series of addresses, seen from a particular > > > > > address. It just doesn't seem to help me get through the day. > > > > > > On 5 Dec, 20:17, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I dont understand why many people want the information to be a sort > > > > > > of > > > > > > "thing", like electron/wave or any other substrate. > > > > > > > For instance, Time. is it time like...what. Do any body believe time > > > > > > is of substance. Time can even be questioned as really being. > > > > > > > At any rate time (and this is just an example) is a tough concept. > > > > > > Now > > > > > > believe that time is of information, just look around if not. > > > > > > > But this is not about exceptions, this does not mean that Time, > > > > > > whatever means, is an exception when looking at information. > > > > > > > There are not a single example, none, of material information, of > > > > > > information being a substance, a thing, It is even difficult to say > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > What you call here Consciousness, it is of course information, but > > > > > > what else. And if your theory is that Consciousness is a particle, > > > > > > then is not information sir, it is a particle. (which I doubt BTW) > > > > > > > On 5 dez, 03:42, socratus <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > The Information ( some basis of Consciousness) can be transfer > > > > > > > to you in our terrestrial world only by Electromagnetic waves. > > > > > > > Lorentz proved: there aren’t Electromagnetic waves without > > > > > > > Electron. > > > > > > > Therefore I say, > > > > > > > only Electron can be the Quantum of Information/ Consciousness. > > > > > > > We don’t have any other theory of Information’s transfers. > > > > > > > ========== . > > > > > > > SOCRATUS -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
