The relations between meaning and information have been addressed several times 
in the FIS forum. I agree with Francesco that these relations should be 
explicited in your approach. 
Your wording: ‘meaning refers to the responsive behavior of an apprehension’ 
does not tell that much about origin and nature of meaning. It would be 
interesting you address the meaningful/meaningless aspect of information for an 
agent as well as their relations with the behavior of the agent.
Regarding meaningful information and locality, I agree that they are tightly 
linked. Interpretation (meaning generation) is done by an agent that has a 
More can be said. You may remember about an evolutionary perspective on 
locality starting within an abiotic universe populated with ubiquist 
physico-chemical laws applying averywhere. Life emerged in that universe as a 
far from thermodynamical equilibrium status that maintained itself localy. The 
satisfaction of a local constraint was something new in a universe submitted to 
ubiquist laws. And such local constraint satisfaction naturaly introduces 
meaning generation with links to teleology, agency, autonomy, and of course 
life  (see Chart 10 in
But I’m not sure how that fits with your approach. 

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 01:17:41 -0700
Subject: Re: [Fis] Information and Locality.

On Sep 21, 2015, at 11:19 PM, Francesco Rizzo <> 
wrote:Assisted translation to English:I bring the thought of Chilean 
neuro-biologist Maturana: "The experience of the physical, that deals with 
classical physics, relativity or quantum, does not reflect the nature of the 
universe, but the 'ontology of the observer as a living system, because he 
"operates linguistically" while achieving physical entities and the operational 
coherences of their domains of existence. As Einstein said' theories 
(explanations) of science are free creations of the human mind ‘" (Maturana, 
In this context, "operate linguistically" means being and living in language, 
cooperating behavior, recursive and described semantically. Everything exists 
and takes place within the communication, not outside. And that is why one can 
not ignore the relationship between information and meaning.
It is important to have a clear epistemology. 
Einstein, in fact, said many things of epistemic merit and he was very clear to 
draw the distinction between existence (ontology) and merely language. So for 
me your presentation here does not hold. I have no doubt, however, that he said 
that theories are the "free creations of the human mind.” But he did not intend 
to imply that physics arises as a consequence, he clearly believe in the 
process of empirical science. 
Now he is known to engage in speculation, for example asking the question is 
the moon still there if no one is looking. Einstein was very much a determinist 
and absolutely did believe in a world independent of our ideas.
Maturana seems too vague to me, but his idea of autopoiesis is interesting.
I started this discussion with a very clear description of the relation between 
information and meaning. 
To recap, meaning refers to the responsive behavior of an apprehension. Even 
referential meanings are captured by this definition. We have no need to say 
that “this does that” or “A is a B” and suggest anything in the world. 
We may say, for example, that "this train takes me to the city” and the meaning 
of this sentence is that I get onto the train and am taken to the city. I may 
say that “pretty flowers grow in spring” but the meaning of this sentence is 
that I pick those flowers in spring and give them to someone I love, for you it 
may simply mean that you have an allergic response when in their proximity.
In this way we can, for example, determine the meaning of the Spanish text you 
sent me, for my case - its meaning is that I immediately translated it to 
English text and then wrote this email. 
In short, the sentence alone holds no meaning, it is merely a sentence, marks 
upon paper. Interpretation cannot be fixed.
Meaning is only present when we act upon the apprehension of such a mark. 
Language is simply a convention that tells me how to treat marks of this kind 
and provides some social pragmatics. When I hear the sentence that “this train 
takes me to the city” I know that it means I may act and use the train to 
travel to the city. If I ignore the sentence then it has no meaning to me, it 
has no effect.
A = B, only has meaning to those who act upon apprehending it. 
Also note that, for me, communication is simply a way of speaking about the 
engineering of machines and the activity of social groups. In essence 
communication is simply a convenience, a way to speak about a group of 
apprehenders, be they machine or human.
Similarly “intelligence" is also a way of speaking about actions that we deem 
are the product of intent.
The bottom-line is that if you live only in language then you live in an 
impoverished world.
Of course all theories are the free creation of the mind, it is what comes next 
that matters.
This inevitably leads me to the work of Benjamin Peirce, who may have been the 
first to observe that all the laws of nature are necessarily the algebraic sum 
of their action together. The idea was developed by Einstein, though Einstein 
was motivated by Maxwell’s work on covariance, as General Covariance and 
emphasizing that the natural laws are necessarily independent of any particular 
coordinate system.
The challenge that Benjamin Peirce saw was how to unify this purely 
mathematical view with the physical sciences. I believe he set both of his sons 
James and Charles upon this task.
This goal of unifying pure mathematics and the physical sciences has yet to be 
achieved, although I am hopeful. In particular the movement against truth value 
systems may be gaining momentum.
And this leads me to mention locality because Einstein was concerned by 
concerns that I share. It is certainly the case that in GR we can speak only of 
the local event but if you want to solve real problems you yourself provide the 
unification of calculations, for example, to take man out of the solar system. 
Indeed, to do anything at all requires that we provide the missing locality.

    Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith, Los Gatos, California. +1-650-308-8611                                                            
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to