I remain unclear on what you are referring to with respect to the empirical results. I have long been involved with information theory. Where is my error, exactly? How do physicists, as you appear to claim, speak about information in a way that is not consistent with Shannon?
Regards, Steven On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:43 AM, John Collier <[email protected]> wrote: > Steven, > > > > I am not just asserting it, I am pointing to research traditions with > empirical results. The researchers involved are not idealists in any sense > I can see. You are stubbornly holding on to your idea of information and it > is blinding you to how the idea has been used by physicists for several > decades now. > > > > I don’t expect you to follow the work, but I take exception to you dissing > it when you clearly do not understand its basis, as evidenced by your > attributing incorrect attributes to it. > > > > John > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf > Of *Steven Ericsson-Zenith > *Sent:* March 30, 2015 7:55 PM > *To:* John Collier > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8162] Re: Article on origina > of the universe > > > > If there is anything that I have learned at all, ever and anywhere, it is > that because people think for a long time that it is so, it does not make > it so. > > > > This is why humanity invented the scientific method and it is the entire > reason for Epistemology as a discipline ... to keep us honest. You may > persuade yourself of anything at all in its absence. > > > > The basis of this method is Empiricism, the actual measurement of motion. > If this is what the discussion reduces to then I am happy and I do not care > what you call it as long as we understand that there is a distinction, a > necessary distinction, between the conception of measure, the idea, and the > world. Because, for example, measure is discrete, it does not follow that > the subject of the measure is, in fact, discrete. > > > > The power of assertion must stand aside. > > > > I understand the power of "information" as an IDEA, just as I understand > the power of the notion of "communication" as an IDEA, but neither can have > existential status unless you are a strict idealist and assert that ideas > exist. > > > > From my point of view, Ideas must become the subject of Empirical measure > - we must, as we have done for gravitation and electromagnetism, measure > the motions produced by ideas. Given that ideas are necessarily measurable > in this way, they cannot be first anywhere - denying strict Idealism as the > basis of the world. > > > > Asserting it is otherwise makes no sense. > > > > Steven > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:30 PM, John Collier <[email protected]> wrote: > > “It from bit.” Information as the ground of “stuff”. > > > > Well I guess you have to have a modicum of understanding of the physics > (my original field). To understand what is meant by the slogan it helps to > study the writings on the topic of Wheeler, Gell-Mann and Seth Lloyd, and > the literature on Hawking radiation helps (I’d stay away from Paul Davies’ > work, which is too idealistic for my taste and probably yours). I have been > thinking of information as “stuff” since I was an undergraduate, and I have > also talked with a number of these people or their students, and was able > to match the idea up with my understanding of physics. I suppose these > interactions were important to my understanding in the way that Kuhn argues > that membership in a research group is required to fully understand how a > research program can be carried forward. > > > > I’ve been asked on occasion what entropy is in job interviews and I have > to say that you can’t understand it in a few words. You need to work with > it, dealing with real problems. Some very smart people I know got it wrong > in their undergraduate physics and physical chemistry course. It is not an > easy concept. The relationship between entropy and information (as stuff) > is at least as difficult, but opens the door to understanding information > as stuff. BY the way, one of my students, Scott Muller, took my ideas of > intrinsic information and origin of information through symmetry breaking > much further than I did in his PhD thesis, published as Asymmetry: The > Foundation of Information > https://books.google.com.br/books?id=oMFsko4E9FQC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=asymmetry+principle+of+information+muller&source=bl&ots=lO024N84sa&sig=1LDiHZu1Jyet8ABBpTPZ3NJ-UUc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9LsZVdn8C8P3yQS-4YDQAQ&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=asymmetry%20principle%20of%20information%20muller&f=false > > Scott uses group theory to show that information content is not a relative > quantity, as Jaynes thought, but is specific to the asymmetries in a > structure. He gives a number of simple examples, but the argument is fairly > abstract. But as I was suggesting above, the meat is really in the > applications to real cases and the capacity to extend them to other cases. > Scott’s background is in physical chemistry (PhD), philosophy (PhD) and > programming (his occupation). > > > > That said, so far the article I initiated this discussion with is a step > too far for me. But it does illustrate, right or wrong, that time needn’t > exist prior to the universe, and that there is another, logical, sense of > priority. If we accept Rosen’s idea of logic mirroring causal connection, > then this latter is a form of causal priority. The problem I see is not the > use of the information concept, but the basis of the distinction space and > what determines it. The paper gives nothing but existence and > non-existence, which is pretty spare. > > > > John > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf > Of *Steven Ericsson-Zenith > *Sent:* March 30, 2015 5:50 PM > *To:* John Collier > *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected] > *Subject:* [biosemiotics:8162] Re: Article on origina of the universe > > > > Here's my problem with this. Simply stating that information is "stuff" is > insufficient. "It from Bit" is a cute slogan but nowhere (and I mean > NOWHERE) near good enough. > > > > Steven > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:20 PM, John Collier <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yeh, the sort of information talked about in the article is “stuff”. It > from bit. > > > > John > > > > *From:* Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* March 30, 2015 5:18 PM > *To:* Biosemiotics; [email protected] > *Subject:* [biosemiotics:8156] Re: Article on origina of the universe > > > > Steven - I'd agree that information is, as it exists, an action. In my > view, matter only exists as 'organized' and thus is in a differentiated > form, which is to say, it is 'in-formation'. BUT this organization operates > within networked interactions; in other words - there is no such thing as, > for example, an isolate 'bit' of matter unconnected to other matter. > Everything is interactive, is networked, is in that sense, 'in action' and > in interaction. So, I would say that this is an 'active description of > information'. Not a passive definition. > > > > i don't think that energy or matter exist per se. They exist only as > in-formed, as organized into a particular differentiated unit - i.e, as > information. As we know, energy exists in our universe only as matter > (Einstein)...and I'm agreeing that this matter isn't unorganized but is > organized into a differentiation from other matter. > > > > However, you and I disagree on the meaning of information. You seem to say > that it is 'ideas'; while I am defining information as organized matter. > The analytic outline of this organized matter, the conscious sign of this > organized matter - is an 'idea'. But that is secondary to the basic > ontological reality that is information..i.e., that organized unit of > matter. > > > > I'm not saying that ideas have a physical basis - for they may not. eg, a > unicorn has no physical basis. I'm not talking about ideas at all. > Information is not the same as an idea, in my view. > > > > Edwina > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> > > *To:* Biosemiotics <[email protected]> ; Peirce Discussion Forum > ([email protected]) <[email protected])> > > *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 4:05 PM > > *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8151] Re: Article on origina of > the universe > > > > > > 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 > . > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
