2013/12/4 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> > > > 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 >> information? >> > > 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. >
Speaking with rigurously as far as i can, the information depends on the granularity of the states that you consider. If you are contemplating the Premier Leage along the history looking at the leage winners of each year, the information is that. If you zoom in to a particular year and see the classification, you have another level of information. if you proceed day by day, tean after team, player after player yo will have more and more detailed states. In Statistical Mechanics, the information is contemplated at the molecular level.. There are higuer levels: at the atomic, quark and superstring level, that is supossedly the ultimate level, where the units of distance energy etc are called Planck units. But in ordinary matter where the atoms are individual, not in the form of plasma the statistical mechanics level is well defined. that base level is called the microstate. But information in the usual sense is refered to states of macroscopical entities, like the speed of my car, or the height of a building, not the position and speed of the particles of the car or the building. the building can be hot or cold and the microstates can vary. but I don´t care. However the total information at the microstate level is constant. But the macrostate can loose information. a building can fall as a result of a eathquaque. in this process of loss of information the entropy grows. > > 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. > > Craig > > >> 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----- >> From: freqflyer07281972 <thismind...@gmail.com> >> To: everything-list <everyth...@googlegroups.com> >> 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 >> post<http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/11/28/thanksgiving-8/>over >> 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? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dan >> -- >> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >> >> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- Alberto. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 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.