On 14.01.2012 08:21 John Clark said the following:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012  Craig Weinberg<whatsons...@gmail.com>  wrote:

…

> For heavens sake, I went into quite a lot of detail about how the
> code is executed so that protein gets made, and it could not be more
> clear that the cell factory contains digital machines.
>
>> They are not information.
>>
>
> According to you nothing is information and that is one reason it is
> becoming increasingly difficult to take anything you say seriously.

I should say that I also have difficulty with the term information. A question would for example if information belongs to physics or not. Some physicists say that information is related to the entropy and as such it is a basic physical quantity. I personally do not buy it, as thermodynamics, as it has been designed, had nothing to do with information and information as such brings nothing to help to solve thermodynamics problem (more to this end in [1]).

Let us consider for example a conventional thermodynamic problem: improving efficiency of a motor. Is the information concept is helpful to solve this problem? If we look at modern motors, then we see that nowadays they are working together with controllers that allows us to drive the efficiency to the thermodynamic limit. The term information is helpful indeed to develop a controller but what about the thermodynamic limit of a motor? Does information helps here? In my view, not.

In the Gray's book on consciousness (Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem.) there is an interesting statement on if physics is enough to explain biology. Gray's answer is yes provided we add cybernetics laws and evolution. Let me leave evolution aside and discuss the cybernetics laws only as this is exactly where, I think, information comes into play. A good short video from the Artificial Intelligence Class that I have recently attended would be a good introduction (an intelligent agent sensing external information and then acting):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cx3lV07w-XE

Thus, the question would be about the relationship between physics and cybernetics laws. When we consider the Equation of Everything, are the cybernetics laws already there or we still need to introduce them separately? One of possible answers would be that the cybernetics laws emerge or supervene on the physics laws. I however does not understand what this means. It probably has something to do with a transition between quantity and quality, but I do not understand how it happens either. For myself, it remains a magic.

Let me repeat a series from physical objects discussed already recently (see also [2][3]):

1) A rock;
2) A ballcock in the toilet;
3) A self-driving car;
4) A living cell.

Where do we have the cybernetics laws (information) and where not? Can physics describe these objects without the cybernetics laws? What emergence and superveniece mean along this series? Any idea?

Evgenii

[1] http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2010/12/entropy-and-artificial-life.html
[2] http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2011/01/perception-feedback-and-qualia.html
[3] http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2011/02/rock-and-information.html

--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to