Again, referring to my previous posting, arguments that place information first appear to be arguing from the position of strict idealism and dismissing the ontological world.
Apart from this, we appear to not disagree. My particular concerns are very much the same. Beginning with bits is a gross assumption that is unjustified. The notion of infinity, the idea of addition (from where does any of this world come?) producing the popular notion of a symmetry break discloses a failure to comprehend the ideas of both symmetry and infinity. In short it reads mathematically as incomprehensible nonsense even if I suspend the need for "necessary conclusions." Steven On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:06 PM, John Collier <[email protected]> wrote: > Not enough detail to understand what your beef with it is, Steven. They > refer to some plausible work that argues that information is logically > prior to matter and energy (not temporally on most accounts) and time (or > at least temporal direction). What I have trouble with is the idea that the > distinction between being and not being is forced into existence in a > random but self-organizing way (all possibilities being present – what > determines the possibility space?). It is a commonplace in several mystical > traditions I have studied, but while I think it is mathematically possible > (it isn’t contradictory), I don’t find it satisfying. This is not > sufficient reason to dismiss it, though, I think. Better people than me > have found it believable, but I remain sceptical, perhaps a fault of my > understanding. I have no problem with the model if QM (or something > succeeding it that includes all four fundamental forces) is presumed, which > they don’t do. The presumption of original quantum fluctuations is > basically Layzer’s view, with varyingly complex bubbles distinguished by > chance through distinctions (symmetry breaking) in the quantum field, > whatever constitutes it. I have no problem with that, though I don’t think > we know what constitutes the universal quantum field yet, since we haven’t > explained quantum gravity, dark matter or dark energy, but the process of > symmetry breaking and emergence of new forms (like the very early > separation of matter and energy) are fairly well confirmed, and presumably > the preceding processes are similar. > > > > What exactly is your beef? > > > > John > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf > Of *Steven Ericsson-Zenith > *Sent:* March 30, 2015 3:33 PM > > *To:* John Collier > *Cc:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith; Edwina Taborsky; Biosemiotics; Peirce > Discussion Forum ([email protected]) > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8138] Article on origina of > the universe relevant to some recent discussions on these lists > > > > I understand what you say but that really is not it. I do try to interpret > mathematical physics in non-philosophical ways. The base assumptions have > no justification and the mathematical leaps are simply not credible. > > > > Steven > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:08 AM, John Collier <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Oh, I think they make sense. The question is whether the mathematics can > do what the authors claim. This requires a bit deeper analysis than you > have shown, so I retain my belief that you are considering what they say as > having interpretation that fits your usages, and probably not theirs. Of > course you would not be able to see this if I am right. > > > > John > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf > Of *Steven Ericsson-Zenith > *Sent:* March 30, 2015 3:04 PM > *To:* John Collier > *Cc:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith; Edwina Taborsky; Biosemiotics; Peirce > Discussion Forum ([email protected]) > > > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8138] Article on origina of > the universe relevant to some recent discussions on these lists > > > > That is not the source of my criticism. My criticism is toward the > mathematics, that make not sense what so ever. > > > > Steven > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:03 AM, John Collier <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Steven, > > > > You can use words however you want, but to criticize a view because it > uses words differently than you do and to put your own interpretation on it > is just silly, and should be dismissed and disregarded. > > > > There is certain information in the paper. Like all information it > requires interpretation to be meaningful. You seem not to understand this. > > > > I think there are severe problems with the paper, but the ones you find > laughable are very much beside the point. Irrelevant. To be dismissed as > pointless. Misconceived. > > > > John > > > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf > Of *Steven Ericsson-Zenith > *Sent:* March 30, 2015 2:35 PM > *To:* Edwina Taborsky > *Cc:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith; Biosemiotics; Peirce Discussion Forum ( > [email protected]) > *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 .
