Dear John,

Can you give some more your explorations about "it from bit"? Do you know how 
many reflections there from orthodox physicists about the Wheeler's "HELL" (a 
saying from a physicist) these years?

If it is true, can we reduce all of our information studies, simulating Søren's 
word, from biological and experiential psychological and the social 
communication to physical information?

Best wishes,



From: [] On 
Behalf Of
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:26 PM
Subject: fis Digest, Vol 571, Issue 5

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: 
Contents of fis digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: Information and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (John Collier)
2. Re: Information and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (Joseph Brenner)
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 20:19:49 +0200
From: John Collier <>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Information and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology
To: "" <>,  Pedro Clemente
 Marijuan Fernandez <>, ""
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 12:26:06 +0200
From: "Joseph Brenner" <>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Information and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology
To: Søren Brier <>, "John Collier",
"Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez" <>,  "fis"
Message-ID: <2671E14A34304C138EAEFF7FC2AAD51E@PCdeJoseph>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Dear John, Dear Sören and All,

I think John is basically correct in starting from a physical basis for the 
origin of information in the universe, but Sören is also correct in that 
something "more" is needed to get to meaning. My view is, however, that the 
latter's cybersemiotics is based on a Peircean view of the properties of the 
universe, and that this view is crtitically incomplete, especially with regard 
to partial determinism, discontinuity and the operational nature of signs.

Logic in Reality provides the missing link between the physical and 
"non"-physical positions by relating them to the synergetic/antagonistic 
interactions between the actuality and potentiality of energy and energetic 
processes at all levels of reality, between presence and absence (cf. Deacon), 
etc. In my opinion, this is what "gets us to experience". Floridi has 
criticized my position since he assigns only epistemological value to levels of 
reality, whereas I try to show that the epistemology and ontology of levels 
cannot be totally separated.

The nexus of the debate is thus here, but it would require some "actualization" 
of understanding of the relevance of LIR (or lack of it!) to continue along 
these lines. Any takers?

Best wishes,

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Søren Brier
  To: John Collier ; ; Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez 
  Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:08 PM
  Subject: SV: [Fis] Information and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology

Dear John

I think the discussion you have here, no matter how qualified it is, shows that 
it is doubtful strategy to want to explain our world, meaningful communication 
and our own consciousness from the physical view of  reality alone. In my 
cybersemiotic model I suggest that we cannot reduce the physical to the 
biological and that to the experiential psychological and the social 
communicative and cannot expect to produce one unified story of the world based 
on natural science. For those interested I give a PhD-course in Cybersemiotics 
at CBS in Copenhagen 12-16. of August with invited speakers explain the idea. 
Information here  <> .

Best wishes

Søren Brier
  Fra: [ <>] På vegne af John Collier
  Sendt: 16. maj 2013 20:20
  Til:; Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez;
  Emne: Re: [Fis] Information and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology

Joseph, fisers,

I have been busy with teaching (250 students in an environmental ethics course 
I have never taught before), so I set this aside to look at later. I am getting 
250 essays in tomorrow, less laggards, so I decided to get this out now.

At 02:42 AM 2013/03/17, wrote:

Dear Pedro, Dear FISers,

In our search for the "foundations of information" two years ago, we looked at 
Michael Conrad's fluctuon model of the universe. We came to the conclusion, I 
think, that 

1) any coupling of fluctuations(波动) in the quantum vacuum to thermodynamic 
entities (biological macromolecules) has not been confirmed and 

2) the concept of information as energy does not apply to the  "timeless" 
vacuum background.

The vacuum background is random, and hence contains no information in the 
negentropy sense (see my "kinds" at Kinds of Information in Scientific Use. 
2011. cognition, communication, co-operation. Vol 9, No 2 ). However "it from 
bit" information appears and disappears. It can be magnified in principle, but 
I know of no detected cases. David Layzer, in his Cosmogenesis, argued that our 
branch of the universe got a "cold start" from a large fluctuation, at least 
part of which we reside in. In this case we get both an information and an 
energy bulge(膨胀), which produces negentropic information as the expansion rate 
exceeds the relaxation rate. This happens as the universe expands, and 
relaxation takes longer. Before that we have undifferentiated energy. After 
that we have at least a phase separation between matter and energy that is not 
just fluctuations in the background. I plan to present some stuff on the 
relation between information and energy at the China meeting, and hope to have 
things better worked out by then.

Roger Penrose's 2011 book, Cycles of Time, which I have just read, presents a 
new view of the universe as described by a conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC). It 
makes some remarkable statements about information which I believe are worth 
discussion. His key point is to make information loss in black holes the 
condition for the reduction in  the phase-space volume of the universe to 
permit geometrical matching between a De Sitter "end" of one universe or aeon 
and the smooth transition to an Einsteinian Big Bang in a new aeon, both 
involving massless particles. Penrose thus goes back to Hawking's original 
theory, as he finds it difficult to see how any real structural information can 
be maintained outside the black hole by the photons leaking through. 
Deterministic unitary "Schroedinger" evolution must be accompanied by 
probabilistic processes, as is also clear from Lupasco. Also clear is that as 
matter evaporates, the associated space (and time) collapses to the necessary 
conformity for which Penrose gives good mathematics, without violation of the 
2nd Law as in other cyclic models. Mass reappears in the new aeon under the 
influence of something like a Higgs field.

The idea that black holes reduce information in the universe is not the most 
widely accepted view, to say the least. Smullyan explains why this idea is 
wrong in his Three Roads to Quantum Gravity. I think his account is correct. 
Seth Lloyd takes up similar issues in Progamming The Universe. I was pleased to 
see that he did not make the elementary error of adopting the "collapse of the 
wave-packet" view of measurement, but sees decoherence as producing diversity, 
which I think is right. I believe it is an entropic process, following the work 
of Tony Leggett and Hank Stamp on the implications of now observed reversible 
measurements on quantum macrosystems. In an expanding phase space this can 
create both negentropy and entropy together if the expansion is faster than the 
relaxation time. Penrose had a screwy idea about the origins of irreversibility 
from QM itself. My colleague Steve Savitt debunked these ideas in the intro to 
his edited volume, Time's Arrows Today. I was visiting him when he worked this 
out, and we discussed Steve's doubts about Penrose's arguments extensively. 
Frankly, I don't trust Penrose's work, though that does not mean that he 
doesn't sometimes get things right.

The other remarkable statement is in the text of Fig. 3.1, page 142, which 
reads as follows: "Photons and other (effectively) massless particles/fields 
can propagate smoothly from an earlier pre-Big Bang phase into the current 
post-Big Bang phase or, conversely, we can propagate the particle/field 
information backwards from post- to pre-Big Bang phase (italics mine)."

This seems correct to me. Any particle that is massless moves at the speed of 
light (ignoring deviations that can reduce the average speed), so its proper 
distance travelled is 0. It's trajectory is on the light cone, not across 
space. It is neither a time-like or space-like trajectory. This means that 
there is no point where it makes the transition, except from some other 
external frame of reference. The only thing that worries me is potential 
interactions of photons at very high densities. I would need help with that one.

Taken at face value, this might tend to confirm that particles/fields, that is, 
energy, are different from the information about them but inseparable from it, 
as some of us have argued. I would be very interested to know how some of you 
interpret these concepts. There is a formal resemblance to Feynmann's concept 
of anti-particles being normal particles moving backward in time. However, I am 
not at all sure that the analogy helps because it refers to thermodynamic time 
and this is exactly what disappears in the cosmological framework.

As I said above, I am working on this, but how far I will get before October is 
not predictable right now. Maybe I could use some of that reverse photon 
information :-)

Professor John Collier
Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa
T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292       F: +27 (31) 260 3031
 <> Http://

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
fis mailing list
End of fis Digest, Vol 571, Issue 5

fis mailing list

Reply via email to