Since "information is [active] organized matter" or "information is matter that is organized" and further that there is no matter that is not organized (by definition), according to Edwina - we have a chicken and the egg problem. From where does anything that is "in-formation" or "matter" come? And if I mess it up, remove the "organization," I assume that by necessity it simply disappears.
I am quite sure BTW that none of this discussion belongs on the biosemiotics list. I apologize to the moderators. Steven On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Stan, calm down. I don't write that 'matter is matter that is > organized'. I write that 'information is matter that is organized'. I'd > like to just use the term 'information' and have people understand that as > meaning 'matter'. And have them understand 'matter' as meaning that it must > be organized in order to exist'. And understand that matter=energy (at > above the speed of light). > > But people use these terms differently. Most people use the term > 'information' to mean 'consciously analyzed and described > things'...whereas I don't mean that. Most people don't view matter as > *necessarily* organized. > > So- that's why I use these terms in that way. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Stanley N Salthe <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 4:25 PM > *Subject:* [biosemiotics:8160] Re: Article on origina of the universe > > Edwina -- If there is no matter that is not organized, then why do you > write matter is "matter that is organized"? > > STAN > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Stan - no, in my view, there is no such thing as 'matter that is not >> organized'. >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Stanley N Salthe <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 4:14 PM >> *Subject:* [biosemiotics:8155] Re: Article on origina of the universe >> >> Edwina -- Replying to >> >> 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. >> >> Then, is there matter that is not organized? If not, why do we need the >> extra verbiage? >> >> I can see that, e.g., H and O, when combined, make H2O, and that that >> might be said to be organized by chemical affinities, while H and O >> themselves are organized at a different level by quantum activities. In >> this sense all matter is organized by some actions. What do we gain by >> assembling many different activities under the label 'information'? This >> word 'information' has many prior meanings. I agree that the basic sense >> of 'information' is organization, and other senses (like ways of speaking) >> can be assimilated to that. >> >> STAN >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Stanley N Salthe <[email protected] >> > wrote: >> >>> 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 .
