On Dec 13, 11:35 pm, sadovnik socratus <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Where does the information come from? > > > Can an electron be quant of information? > > > I agree that the electron and photon are not what we think. I don't > > necessarily assume they are actual particles that exist independently > > of atoms in space. I think they are events - atomic moods which are > > shared, the content of which actually carries our sense of time and > > space through matter rather than being a substance moving in space > > between matter. It sounds crazy, but if you think about it > > impartially, I think you might find that it works.
> > ====================. > 1. > Electron = Energy = Electrical waves = > = Information = Consciousness = One chain of Evolution. > 2. > Proton = Atom = Complex Atom = Cell = Man = One chain of Evolution. > 3. > How is possible to understand their difference and unity > as one chain of Evolution ? > =. > S. My understanding is that an electron is a concept of a specific charge momentum conceived as an orbiting nuclear particle. Energy is a concept of general physical change over time, or, to quote the Wiki, "In physics, energy (Ancient Greek: ἐνέργεια energeia "activity, operation") is an indirectly observed quantity. It is often understood as the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems". It would be misleading to say that a concrete particle evolves into a general abstract principle. You could say that an electron has energy or an energy state, but so does everything else. Electrical waves are, like energy, an indirect observation. There may not literally be waves of electrical stuff flying through space (and I think that there isn't) but rather matter can be induced to oscillate in synchronized frequency and intensity with other instances of matter. I'm not sure where electrical waves = information comes from. If you are thinking that because we inform electronic computers by using electricity, then that equation would work with anything. I can inform a mechanical computer using waves of water or any kind of machine using waves of liquid or quantities of particles. Think of an abacus. We inform ourselves using the 'information' we can derive from our configuration of the beads of an abacus. Electrons or electrical waves aren't really relevant. There is energy, but the energy is just the nominal accounting of how I move my fingers, how the beads move, how the food I've eaten produces ATP in my cells to contract muscles and fire neurons, etc. That in itself doesn't produce any information. Indeed, if you don't know how to use an abacus, it's nothing but a strange sculpture. It can inform us aesthetically but not mathematically. Instead I would run the chain of evolution backward since, as human beings, we only know about consciousness first hand. Everything we know that we know is filtered through consciousness: Consciousness <> Awareness <> Perception <> Feeling <> Sensation <> Detection Each level is a nested holarchy so that consciousness is an awareness of awarenesses, awareness is a perception of perceptions, perception is a feeling of feelings, feeling is a sense of senses and sense is a detection of detections. Each level represents a perceptual frame of reference (which relates to inertial frame of reference in general relativity) so that consciousness is stories about a person in their universe, awareness tells an organism about it's world, perception relates to organs and their specialized channels of sense, feeling is about tissues and glands and their biochemistry - emotion, sensation and detection get into the cellular and molecular frames of reference. Information is an idea that consciousness has about how to conceive of itself in a way that doesn't seem subjective. It doesn't physically exist. It must be subjectively decoded. If anything, information 'insists'. I would say informally that the evolution looks more like this: <Human-Primate> consciousness <Mammal-Vertebrate> awareness <Organism- Body> perception <Organ-Tissue> feeling <Cell-Gene> sensation <Molecule-Atom> detection <quantum-arithmetic*> *quantum arithmetic embodiment is not a concrete realism but an analytical interpretation. It's how we make can make sense of the microcosm, but I suspect that we are mistaking atomic detection for quantum mechanics. It's just the sense that atoms make together, not literal particle/waves flying through space instantaneously. This may sound fringe and speculative, but I think that may actually be the correct interpretation. Craig -- 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.
