I tend to the feeling that information is real and we access an information world to get it. Quite a few biologists have tended to this. We can safely say the bloody stuff is everywhere for something 'unreal'! Appreciate your arguments Craig and often find Carlos good for the soul. Life seems to do a lot of information exchange without human consciousness being involved (until we get to know) - epigenetics being the most obvious and probably the best candidate we have as the mover in evolution - here what we generally term the environment affects what the genes will build. The built-in adaptation can suggest an intelligent design, though I deplore attempts to link such to ancient religious pisswitter. Much is probably not what it seems to us as Craig entertains. Animals live in our world without particle physics and even plants have learned complex abilities without consciousness as we have it. A monkey ain't gonna switch on the whole works of the Bard on a hard disk let alone relish the stuff (I'm no fan either), but this doesn't mean the stuff ain't there - it's certainly more there than on an "empty" disk. We may well be living in the history of an electron and all that as Wheeler suggested. I'm not sure it helps but is interesting. Rocks (other than through metaphor) don't make good hard disks and I'm struck that 'space' might be as structured as a hard disk. Some maths even suggests distance is an illusion. Information can be sent at the speed of light - something currently absurd to think humans can survive (space isn't empty and has 'friction'). We are finding planets information could reach in a reasonable timescale. Maybe we will become information and 'real' as such - there being many reasons not to worry too much about shuffling off this mortal coil! There is little doubt that our realism is structured Craig - and as you say that we forget this too easily.
On Dec 18 2011, 4:11 am, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Dec 17, 10:28 pm, Sam Carana <[email protected]> wrote: > > > So, what's the story in case of entanglement? > > > Cheers! > > Sam Carana > > I don't know enough about how the experiments are actually conducted > to really give any better than a guess. It's difficult to find > accounts of the actual materials and observations online, since the > existence of photons and other particles is so unquestioned, the > experiments are described in terms which take that for granted. My > guess though is that entanglement may be an example of observing our > own equipment at such a microcosmic level, that what we are detecting > has not developed any sense of space. We are basically pinging the > singularity. It's hard to speculate on what sensorimotive experience > is like on these levels - it may be the case that every particle, > every quantum event is actually a diffracted instance of the > singularity itself. There may only be one proton, it's just very very > busy from out perspective. > > 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.
