Steven,
I I suggest the work by the physicists I have mentioned, and also Scott
Muller’s book on information. Shannon was brilliant in communication theory,
but communication theory is not information theory. You can find the idea of
distinctions making a difference in writings of Arabic philosophers like ibn
Arabi and later in Leibniz, who Arabi indirectly influenced. The applications
of the ideas by more recent physicists are designed to explain and predict
things like the activity at the boundaries of black holes (information cannot
disappear is a basic tenet of the problem they are investigating – obviously
this is not Shannon information, which certainly can disappear). Seth Lloyd
goes a step further and hypothesizes the world is a quantum computer.
Information, of course, is a distinction that makes a difference. Shannon’s
work is an application of the basic idea of information. But it is a relatively
restricted (nongeneric) application, though within the restrictions there are a
lot of cases.
Mathematically Shannon's formalism has been shown to be equivalent to
algorithmic information theory and some other formats that don’t presuppose
either probability or combinatorics (Chaitin, Kolmogorov, Ingarden). But of
course common mathematical models don’t imply sameness of kind in the real
world. So it is possible to use the combinatoric version of Shannon’s approach
and apply it (via group theory) to intrinsic information (Muller) and to the
information flows at the boundaries of black holes (though “boundary” is a bit
misleading). Lloyd discusses this case in his book Programming the Universe -
Random House, which is a semi-popular introduction. His PhD thesis was Black
Holes, Demons and the Loss of Coherence: How complex systems get information,
and what they do with it.<http://meche.mit.edu/documents/slloyd_thesis.pdf>
(Ph.D. thesis). The Rockefeller
University<https://www.wikiwand.com/en/The_Rockefeller_University>.
I In any case, as you say, this has little to do with biological
information or biosemiotics, which does involve things like coding (transfer
RNA encodes information in DNA, for example, which eventually decoded in
ribosomes to make proteins, though the code is certainly not 1-1). I gave an
account of biological information flow that does not invoke Shannon, but does
deal with semantic aspects (I have previously recommended the work on
distributed information flow this is based on to Sung). In fact one of the more
slippery problems for the people who work on information flow (mostly at
Stanford) is how to incorporate Shannon information. Intuitively it seems
obvious, but it is mathematically tricky. Conceptually tricky is how to
integrate information flow through a channel with biosemiotics. A group of us
have one paper that addresses the issue, with some examples. It can be found on
my web page if anyone is interested (published in Biosemiotics). I think a lot
more work is required.
Regards,
John
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Sent: April 1, 2015 3:50 PM
To: John Collier; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8162] Re: Article on origina of the
universe
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]<mailto:[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]>
[mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of
Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Sent: March 30, 2015 7:55 PM
To: John Collier
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]>
[mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of
Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Sent: March 30, 2015 5:50 PM
To: John Collier
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>]
Sent: March 30, 2015 5:18 PM
To: Biosemiotics; [email protected]<mailto:[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<mailto:[email protected]>
To: Biosemiotics<mailto:[email protected]> ; Peirce Discussion Forum
([email protected])<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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<mailto:[email protected]>
To: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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<mailto:[email protected]>
To: Edwina Taborsky<mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: Steven Ericsson-Zenith<mailto:[email protected]> ;
Biosemiotics<mailto:[email protected]> ; Peirce Discussion Forum
([email protected])<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Steven - are you saying that information 'is nothing'?
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith<mailto:[email protected]>
To: Biosemiotics<mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: Peirce Discussion Forum
([email protected])<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>
Affiliation: University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel
Avi Wasser
Electronic Address:
[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
[email protected]<mailto:[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 .
