Dear Krassimir,

I apologize because I have just realized that I have miss-replied in my last posting, and send them only to the writer of the post, and not to the list. Same for some comment I made to John Collier.

I intent to send a mail where I sum up my position on the information debate. I will read some of your text you are linking too, also.

Meanwhile I will answer only your question about theology: is it a science. I think that science does not really exist, but that the human scientific attitude can exist whatever the domain is, be it gardening, gastronomy, philosophy or theology. That attitude consists in accepting that we never know the truth, but that we can try to make theory precise enough to solve problems and to test consequences.

I have discovered that ideally correct machine have a rich theology, that they can discover by "looking inward", and that it contains physics, making it testable: just compare machine's theological physics with the empiric science. Until now it fits, and many "weirdness" of nature (like the "many-world") becomes simple theorem, but also admit different interpretation (it is more machine dreams than "world"). I will come back on this.

The main concept used in my work is the concept of Turing Universal Machine: she is the one feeding on information, and doing the interpretation of it. That might add some light on the present debate on information. I am aware that this sort of theology is closer to the greek neoplatonists theology (where God is mainly Truth, by definition) than to Aristotelian naturalism (with primary materiality), which might explain some resistance that I have often encountered. But science is not wishful thinking, like we do in the religion since it has been separated from science.



On 15 Jun 2015, at 22:59, Krassimir Markov wrote:

Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,

This discussion was not planed. It started without any a priory explanation and because of this become more emotional.

I see, we have different “fen clubs” depending of sympathy to one or other definition of information.
This is nice. Variety is important for development of science.

What is not good is that we stay only on the stage of definition of information. It is not needed if no theory is built on it.
The theory has to be experimented and proved.
Finally, such theory has to explain all information appearances and processes around us – I say around us but not all imaginable ones!

How much theories we have till now?
FIS is just place to present Theories!
Unfortunately, Masters stay silent and not teach us to use their theories.

Below I attach my answers to Stan and Bruno which was sent last week.

Friendly regards

Dear Stan,
I have no more attempts for FIS List for this week and will send this my answer to FIS tomorrow.
But it is pleasure for me to answer to you now.

Yes, I do not agree with the Wheeler concept that information was the basis upon which everything else was founded – this is the concept of God and it could not be proved, only to believe. Yes, information doesn't appear in the universe until life makes it appearance. More, the information does not appear independently from live creatures, it is their internal state(s). No, information does not appear in the universe until it is manipulated by modern human society as a commodity, it appeared together with live. Without reflections of external and internal structures and processes, as well as without memory, processing of reflection, and, at the end, reacting – without all of this the live is impossible. What is done by modern society is to start understanding (but still not finished) what is the information.

Friendly regards

Dear Bruno,
Thank you for the remarks. Now I will answer only to you due to limit of posts in FIS List – tomorrow I’ll resend it for the list.

I agree with you partially.
Deep analysis and explanation of this problem is published in:
I hope, in this publication you will find answer of your remarks as well as basis for further discussion.

I think that it is crucial to keep the harmony and dialectical unity of the scientific and non-scientific approaches, following the wisdom of St. Augustine: "Intelligo ut credam, credo ut intelligam!".

Finally, please answer: Is the Theology a science or not? What kind of experiments one may provide to proof the Theology statements?

Friendly regards
Fis mailing list

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to