You are confusing differentiation with information. Information, per Shannon, acts.
Steven On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Ah, so, to you, 'information is a way of speaking about something'. To > me, information is 'matter-that-is-organized' such that it is > differentiated from other matter. This matter exists because it is > in-form-ed, i.e., organized within a particular form. Therefore, I agree > with the outline provided by John Collier. > > To me, information has nothing to do with the secondary level of speaking > about something. And of course, no requirement therefore for 'adding to > knowledge' and 'identifying cause'. Those are secondary levels. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> ; Biosemiotics > <[email protected]> ; Peirce Discussion Forum > ([email protected]) <[email protected])> > *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 1:35 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8138] Article on origina of > the universe relevant to some recent discussions on these lists > > Information is a way of speaking about that which adds to knowledge and > identifies cause. > > Where I use the term "knowledge" in the general Liberal Physicalist sense > to refer to that which determines subsequent action. > > Steven > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Steven - are you saying that information 'is nothing'? >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> >> *To:* Biosemiotics <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* Peirce Discussion Forum ([email protected]) >> <[email protected])> >> *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 1:22 PM >> *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8138] Article on origina of the >> universe relevant to some recent discussions on these lists >> >> Stunningly comical. Energy from information ... an unplausible >> mathematical description of something from nothing. It goes to show what >> you get from an ungrounded purely mathematical education. >> >> Steven >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 9:47 AM, John Collier <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear lists, >>> >>> >>> >>> The following article is relevant to issues of “What came before the Big >>> Bang?”, the evolution of laws in the universe and some others. It cites, >>> among others, David Layzer and myself, and generally follows the approaches >>> that we have argued for. It also brings together other related material >>> from other sources related to symmetry breaking (information formation, >>> and, if on a cosmic scale, law formation). In particular it invokes the “no >>> boundary conditions” requirement for a satisfactory cosmological theory >>> (favoured by Hawking, Smolin, Layzer and many other cosmologists). The >>> authors give this condition as that the universe originated in a >>> singularity that is not knowable, since it contains no information. >>> Information, here, is of course the physicists’ notion of “it from bit”, >>> used in cosmology, the study of black holes and in some branches of Quantum >>> Theory (quantum computation and quantum field theory in particular), >>> according to which energy and matter are incidental, and information >>> (distinctness) is fundamental. >>> >>> >>> >>> The paper is Spontaneous Creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo >>> >>> Maya Lincoln >>> >>> Electronic Address: [email protected] >>> >>> Affiliation: University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel >>> >>> Avi Wasser >>> >>> Electronic Address: [email protected] >>> >>> Affiliation: University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel >>> >>> >>> >>> It can be found online with a good search engine. >>> >>> >>> >>> The paper is a sketch of the theory rather than a theory (as they say “a >>> first step”). I don’t think it differs all that much from David Layzer’s >>> views, judging by my discussions with him about twenty years ago. But >>> perhaps it is more boldly stated. I am not satisfied that it really >>> resolves the issue of why there is something rather than nothing, but if it >>> does, it makes the existence of the Universe necessary rather than >>> contingent. >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> John Collier, Philosophy, UKZN, Durban 4041 >>> >>> http://web.ncf.ca/collier >>> >>> >>> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at >> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >> >> >> >> >> >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
