Hello Neil It is curious to note that this post was in principle oriented to know "where" the information comes from, and turned into "what' information is I believe that this is important because IMO it doesn't really matter "what" is information and indeed matters "where" does it come from. The question for the "where" part of the title is relevant enough and always takes me to the same. That "where" is an address, what else can it be a "where" in this sense.
An address as an unique identifier, not two instances can share the same address, or ocupy the same space which to me means the same. The DNA is enough proof I believe. The same sequence can only be of the same being regardless the "what is it" part rgds Carlos On Feb 10, 4:19 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Much to agree with or try and play with Craig. Strapped for time > today. I watched a few illusions at New Scientist earlier and > wondered what the 'information' was - the 'actual' or my distorted > version. I'll get back - it's good to think upside down. > > On Feb 8, 5:21 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 8, 10:30 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I tend to the feeling that information is real and we access an > > > information world to get it. > > > I think that being informed is real, but that there is no information > > world, only a single concrete world which is divided by sense into > > subjective, objective, microcosm, macrocosm, time, space, etc. > > > > Quite a few biologists have tended to > > > this. We can safely say the bloody stuff is everywhere for something > > > 'unreal'! > > > Or it may be wherever we look because informing is what looking does > > for us. If you look at the universe through a microscope, you can only > > see a microscopic world. > > > > 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) - > > > Definitely. That doesn't mean that non-human awareness isn't involved. > > Indeed human consciousness arising from mere information independently > > of the life forms which the body is made of doesn't really make much > > sense in terms of reality. If it were the case that consciousness were > > only a kind of information exchange, then we should expect all forms > > of matter to be equally likely to host human consciousness. > > > > 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 > > > If it informs you, then it's not 'there', it's 'here'. > > > >- it's certainly more there than on an "empty" > > > disk. > > > Something is there, but it's not literally information. It's literally > > pits and grooves or dots, lines, etc. It is the sense and motive of > > the subject who interprets those generic bits as information who > > decides whether it is more there figuratively than on an empty (or > > meaninglessly scratched) 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. > > > Yes. I think distance is a function of how mater makes sense of it's > > division, not a Cartesian framework of emptiness. Think of it this > > way; if you had nothing in the universe but a single billiard ball, > > there can be no sense of space, no size or scale without something to > > compare it to. No difference between movement and stillness. Without > > something outside of it to observe some spatial perspective relative > > to the observer, there is no distance; everywhere to the billiard ball > > is 'here' or nowhere. > > > > Information can be sent at the > > > speed of light > > > I think because it's not being sent anywhere literally. It is being > > discovered at any number of locations simultaneously within any given > > inertial frame. The speed of light is really the relative latency of > > space (which is what you find if you research what the figure we use > > for the speed of light is based on: permittivity and permeability. The > > inertial drag of space when mass is set to zero.) Electronic > > transmissions are certainly subject to latency but not because they > > are physically moving through space. It is figurative movement. > > Electromagnetism is not something which occurs in space, rather space > > can be thought of as something which seems to occur through > > electromagnetism. > > > 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.
