On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 12:00:39 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
> I read Caroll's article and wind up with more questions about his
> statement. First, what does he consider non-physical? Thoughts in our head,
> dreams. But those of the biochemical interaction fizzing about our
> neurology, as electrons. He never defines non physical, so what not just
> say that everything is matter, and when matter moves, its energy, and when
> its perforated with a pattern, that our neurochemistry recognizes, its
This is where the card up the sleeve is. What's a "pattern" physically?
What is our neurochemistry doing "recognizing" something.
Let's look at a complex system, like New York City. What constitutes its
"information"? Traffic entering and exiting the city limits? Architectural
spaces and their degrees of freedom over time? The assumptions of both
physics and mathematics are mutually defeating, and together, they obscure
any possibility of looking beyond the reflections of public form and
function to the reality of their private appreciation and participation.
Or should we define electrons, photons and neutrinos as non physical?
We should define matter and energy on a sliding scale in which microcosmic
and cosmological limits are characterized by a fusion of private and public
physics, whereas macrocosmic subjectivity provides the orthogonality of
maximum public-private divergence. The meaning of 'physical' would become
relativistic, as all presences private or public would be physical in an
absolute sense, but a representation of one experience (like a football)
within another (a human being's visualization) would allow 'physical' to
serve to differentiate the represented football as non-physical relative to
the presented football, but the represented football would still be
ontologically physical as a visual experience.
> I don't get what his point is? How reductionist (which is philosophy not
> physics) does he want us all to get? This is what I suspect he is going
> for. To be the Dawkins of physics.
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Tue, Dec 3, 2013 9:17 pm
> Subject: Question for Bruno Regarding the question of whether information
> is physical.
> Hey everyone,
> Here is a question for Bruno (and anyone else who wants to chime in) --
> I came across this
> at Sean Carroll's Preposterous Universe blog, wherein he seems to be
> claiming that the
> relationship between information, entropy, and physical processes is
> pretty well in the bag, i.e. it is well understood by physicists
> and it seems that the concept of information can be cashed out entirely in
> terms of physical processes.
> What does this do to your thought experiment and your Platonic orientation
> towards questions of information theory?
> How would you go about explaining the deep relationship between entropy,
> information, and the physical evolution of the universe?
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.