I think this brief discussion is most instructive and it may highlight the source of much discontent over the years in the community discussing the Perigean works.
Pierce put ideas first. So if we take this position then I begin to understand Edwina's position as Ideal. And in this sense she may be correct - all though I have some dispute with her passive definition of information. In Shannon's terms, information is an act. However, as I pointed out in the recent discussion on Peirce's definition of evolution, no Peirce family member ever dismissed the ontological world, and their long term goal was to build the bridge between pure mathematics, rigorous and impartial ideas, and the physical sciences, the world in which these ideas exist. As Einstein points out, there is no difference between energy and matter - but again, I am puzzled by Edwina's description. However, the hierarchy she describes does make some sense. Energy exists as matter (Einstein) and matter "exists" (and can be spoken of) as information. So energy appears fundamental in her model. I would not disagree with that had it not been for ... ... her confusing assertion that "not energy, nor matter." By asserting that neither matter nor energy exist, the measurable subjects of our experience, and that only ideas (information) exists, the world is vacuous. There is not basis but ideas. Ideas manifestly have a physical basis and to state otherwise, in my mind, is denial. It the inverse argument of those that argue that our feeling of ideas (often called "consciousness") is an illusion. Also, nonsense. Edwina may be happy with such assertions, but it does not satisfy me. Steven On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Stan- no, matter does not exist before/prior to information. > Matter=information. Since, to be existent as matter, it must be organized. > This means, that it is information. > > Information is fundamental. Not matter or energy - for they do not exist > 'per se'. Energy exists as matter and matter exists as information. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Stanley N Salthe <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 2:59 PM > *Subject:* [biosemiotics:8150] Re: Article on origina of the universe > > Edwina -- Your > > information is 'matter-that-is-organized' > > suggests that matter exists before, or is prior to, information. Is that > right? > > STAN > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:40 PM, 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 .
