Hello Craig Nice conversation here, thank you > ...ingredients do I need to get information? What's it made of?
This is the million $ question. We cannot say what information is made of but only point to it For instance a simple dot on any given surface, when considered a bit (within a binary context) surrounded by empty space (which we can also consider as a bit within the same binary context), will be decoded by a given system which will print on my screen let's say a letter, which in turn I will read within my language context and I will understand.... whatever In the end we only have a dot. Neither that dot, or the surrounding space, nor the letter, nor the language and etc is the information but just pointers. But of course we cannot say that there is not information, there is indeed. Now come the hard part. You used a sharp expression that I will pick up below, sorry for clipping it, no other way to follow up >...Otherwise, you have to think of information > as some kind of disembodied metaphysical presence that's also absent. First I also agree that there are not such methaphysical presence whatsoever, I believe we agree on this. But the word "absent" is crucial I also believe. Because absent in no way means not existent, but something like "not here" And to me information has always in all cases that attribute of "not here" and it is always the absent part of the equation. Is there any other option for something which is always absent not to be a metaphysical concept? Yes I believe there is another option. Please allow me to go back to the dot example. The empty space where that dot is not, is considered in computer science a positive signal. I mean that "nothing" is represented by "0" (could be any other symbol as far as we maintain 2 instances, one for the dot and one for its "absence"). Two signs are enough to create a number system. (curiously you just need one presence) And so the reader part of this primitive information system can "read" an absence, a string made of a physical presence (the dot), and absent "not dot". This is not metaphysical whatsoever, but part of a system. I believe as well that the DNA, which can be considered as the paradigm for the information concept, has a lot to say about absent instances. Does not look to me that the DNA is like a biologic zip which builds the elephant unzipping anything. On the contrary I think the DNA builds that elephant reading a "code" in a very similar way that my poor computer example above. That information is absent, it is not a methapysical idea, and in the end it is its main "component", if I may say. As such has no material attributes, can not be "compressed", "sent", "destroyed", "lost", etc. All these processes happen only to that part we called here "pointers". regards Carlos > 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.
