Message from Gavin Ritz --------------------------------------------------------
Stan SS: I think this view, given the obtuse attitudes of most academic scientists, requires a label, preferably one that shocks. Yes, this view was prefigured by logicians, and as well, most forcefully in my view, by Jacob von Uexküll's 'Theoretical Biology'. In any case, most generally, the postmodern view is anti-modern in that it eschews any supposedly universal understanding, which modern science implicitly pretends to. Within science, the famous incongruity between general relativity and quantum mechanics might have engendered a kind of postmodernism. GR: The incongruity relates to the simple fact that QM focuses only on matter (only 4% of the universe) whilst Relativity takes into account the entire universe (70% exotic repulsion stuff and 26% exotic matter both totally unknown). Maybe the European particle accelerator folks will find the Higgs Field. Then we can all sigh a breath of relief. SS:Instead, it has sent many brilliant minds upon the evidently thankless task of trying to ?square the circle?! GR: I agree Stan; another Joke is also on us in actually thinking there is even such a thing as information. I cannot find one robust article on what information is how it is transported or conveyed, its structure/processes on anything other than a logic abstraction. Or anything other than a configuration we have dreamed up. Probably only representing an energy signature and/or transformation. I know this is one hellava statement and it?s going to piss a lot of people off. I?m afraid the emperor has no clothes. For example, when someone reads a spectral pattern (in fact all of science is about spectral patterns), they say, that?s the information relating to Cyanide. But what they should really say (which we don?t in normal dialogue) that?s a combination of sight and sound configuration (because that?s what really happening) relating to chemistry (another form of energy too). So there?s an agreed logical structure (form) and content behind all energy configurations. All that language really is, is a sight and sound combination configuration plus time. Basically an energy configuration. No information here, logical structures yes. Everyone seems to be complicit in this strange deception, Richard Dawkins says in one of his books we know that living matter is a combination of ?matter and information? and that?s the difference between living matter and all other matter. It?s rather complex chemistry (a complex energy configuration). Saying it is just information plus matter is plain wrong. There was one well know scientist commenting on how much ?bits? the eyes can absorb, I did a quick calc and it was one million times more than the visible electromagnetic spectrum, the eyes have nothing to do with ?bits?. All human sensory inputs are ?energy transduction? systems. No information here. What?s going on? Regards Gavin STAN _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
