On Dec 16, 1:26 pm, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Craig > > I'm following your posts, which I found very interesting. Basically I > agree with you when saying the information does not exist, but > insists. Which is a sort of enigmatic stament like describing any > instance able or necessarily acting or "informing" without actually > "being".
Hi Carlos, Thanks, yes, it does lend an interesting enigmatic quality that can either be illuminating or off-putting I think, and I think that I intend it in both senses. Literally, it in-sists as far as it being interior to matter rather than an object that occupies or travels through space, and figuratively it insists - it urges, motivates, instructs, etc. It is purposeful. Existence is not purposeful. It's an entropic teleonomy. > I also want to call the attention to the very title of this post. > To me "Where does the information come from" is not exactly a question > but the answer itself. > IMHO the information matches the concept of address. > In other words any physical instance (without any physical relevance, > I mean nothing in its physical component is of relevance), electrons, > waves, words, bits.. etc, is able to convey the intended information > as far as any other "aware" instance is able to identify where that > instance points. That "where" is an address which its only role is to > be unique within any given system. Right, it's a pointer or a label. Pearce's semiotic trichotomy is helpful: "the symbol/index/icon triad focuses on the relations of signs to their objects: symbols have a convention-based relationships with their objects (e.g. alphanumberic symbols); indexes/indicies are directly influenced by their objects (e.g. a weathervane or a thermometer); and icons have specific properties in common with their objects (e.g. portraits, diagrams)" http://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/symbolindexicon.htm You are talking about information in the sense of symbols - a correlation between a referent and its label. That's true, but it's really an analysis of the function of what information does, how it works. It doesn't get into what it actually is, as far as if I had to create the cosmos from scratch, what ingredients do I need to get information? What's it made of? I think the answer is that it is made of sensorimotive experience - that is, change within matter experienced from it's interior orientation. From the exterior, it looks like electromagnetism or other kinds of energy - kinetic, thermodynamic, etc. Information is one specific band of how energy feels about energy. Otherwise, you have to think of information as some kind of disembodied metaphysical presence that's also absent. We don't observe anything like that though. Craig > If I say in English "this life" there is just one sequence of given > characters including spaces which is the same as to think on an unique > integer able to represent the same sequence. That number is unique and > no othe instance can occupy that specific point in the given space. > This is the same as saying that the concerned system has an specific > address. > > I consider that address the information itself, can also be considered > of course as non existent since numbers do not exist either, and > certainly they insist. > > Carlos > > On Dec 16, 10:03 am, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Dec 16, 1:08 am, sadovnik socratus <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 1. > > > ‘ It is important to realize that in physics today, > > > we have no knowledge of what energy is. > > > We do not have a picture that energy comes in little > > > blobs of a definite amount. ‘ > > > ( Feynman. 1987) > > > 2. > > > Comment by Richard Norman > > > It is quite true that "information" means many things but in this > > > case > > > it has a technical meaning that is quite specific. The "information > > > content" of a physical system is a specification of its state. In > > > quantum mechanics, this is the wave function. > > > The problem is that, under quantum mechanics, the evolution of the > > > wave function is a unitary operator that preserves the information, > > > the specification. No two different states (wave functions) can > > > converge to a singlefuture state and every state must have a distinct > > > set of antecedents -- projected backwards (reverse time, if you will) > > > they cannot converge. > > > If information in this sense disappers, then these principles would > > > be > > > violated. This first really became crucial when considering what > > > happens in a black hole -- the "black hole information paradox." > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox > > > Using the simple mention of the word "information" as the trigger for > > > a philosophical discussion of alternate notions of the word is a > > > useful and interesting enough exercise. When "people" talk about > > > information in physics, such a discussion might be necessary. When > > > physicists talk about information in physics, they all know exactly > > > what it is about -- no massive ambiguity traded there. > > > On Dec 14, 7:33 am, Richard Norman > > > ==. > > > P.S. > > > ‘ Where did the information go? > > > The laws of physics dictate that information, like energy, > > > cannot be destroyed, which means it must go somewhere.’ > > > / Book ‘ The big questions’ by Michael Brooks. > > > Page 195-196. / > > > It's like asking, 'Where did the football game go?'. Information does > > not exist. It insists. Quantum Mechanics works because of the > > simplicity of the microcosm. The behaviors of atoms are extremely > > literal and discrete. As matter becomes more complex and multiply > > recapitulated (as chemistry, biology, zoology, neurology), the > > possibilities of 'information' acquire qualitative degrees of freedom > > - sensation, feeling, awareness, thought. Each perceptual frame > > evolves a new fundamental unit - the molecule, the cell, the body, the > > mind, which exists within it's own perceptual frame of reference with > > it's own rules which cannot be reduced to simpler levels. -- 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.
