-----Original Message----- 
From: Russell Standish 
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 4:57 PM 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Subject: Re: Vic Stenger on information models 

There is something a bit different about information than the other
conceptions of reality. We must, by definition, interact with reality
by information - we cannot know any other reality.

What is possibly in doubt is our theories of what information is - but
I'm sceptical that the hard-won insights of the likes of Turing, von
Neumann, Shannon, Kolmogorov, Solomonoff, Chaitin et al. will be

In any case, I don't understand what Vic means by the following:

> If the universe is a digital computer, that computer still is made of
> elementary particles. 
> Theologian Gregersen makes a key observation:
>     The theological candidate that the divine Logos is the
>     informational resource of the universe would be scientifically
>     falsified if the concept of information could be fully reduced to
>     properties of mass and energy transactions.
> Well, I don't know if this constitutes a falsification, but as far as
> I can tell, information does reduce to mass and energy transactions.

This seems pivotal to his HuffPosting. Maybe I should ask him.


On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:53:28AM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
> This, from my friend Vic Stenger, might be of interest to you Bruno.
> Brent
> -------- Original Message --------
> My latest HuffBlog is at
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-new-information-theol_b_825648.html
> Vic
> -- 

Dear Russell,

    Could you elaborate on how "information does reduce to mass and energy 

    I am having trouble with this idea because it seems that that reduction 
would amount to a isomorphism between information and mass/energy transactions. 
This seems fine at first but things get complicated. For example, it is a fact 
that for any given mass/energy transaction there exist multiple information 
structures that can represent said transaction faithfully. Additionally, for a 
given information structure there exist many different ways to implement that 
structure. For example, say that we have a Rolls Royce Phantom automobile and 
we which to describe it so that we can create copies of it or we wish to create 
Virtual Reality version of the car that exactly matches its behaviors in many 
different environments. Is there not more than one  language that we could use 
to accomplish this goal? Once we have the faithful description of the Phantom, 
what media are we going to print the description on? What font, what scale, 
etc.? None of these variables are necessitated by the mere existence of the 
object. Now say that we have created a program that generates that Virtual 
Phantom, what machine are we going to run it on? I hope you can see the idea 
    The fact that there does not exist just a single language and grammar for 
all persons and the fact that we can implement a given description or VR 
simulation of a given physical system seems to argue strongly against the 
reduction of information to mass and energy transactions. What am I missing?



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to