Perhaps it is not I that will not accept (the ad hominem) of "anything that does not fit my conceptions?"
You are making unjustified accusations as far as I can see - and this is not merely because my own opinions differ from the mainstream of physics on information theory. I am certainly able to understand an argument even if I disagree with it. In fact, I see nothing in what you have said to actually disagree with, except in the matter of the ideal. And so we, you and I, are an example here. Information, as you said, is necessary (or base covariant) distinctions, observable/measurable in behavior. Shannon's mathematics is informative, it highlights the nature of distinctions and the quantifiable limits of their apprehension (their transmission). For me, at least, "communication" is an idea and not something that actually happens. It is something that we speak about. In apprehension, Shannon's work is informative in the above way, it tells us more about what is happening. It informs us concerning the nature of information and it is for this reason that it is the corner stone of modern information theory. In information theory it is important to understand the separation of ideas: i.e., the message from the messenger. Regards, Steven On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:35 PM, John Collier <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we will have to agree to disagree, Steven. You are going to > object to anything that doesn’t fit your notion of information. The trend > is pretty obvious. > > > > I said before that I thought your preconceptions do not allow you to see > other approaches, and I now take that as confirmed. So further discussion > on this is pointless. Fortunately that doesn’t make discussion on other > issues a problem. > > > > John > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf > Of *Steven Ericsson-Zenith > *Sent:* April 1, 2015 5:29 PM > *To:* John Collier > *Cc:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith; [email protected]; > [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8162] Re: Article on origina > of the universe > > > > Yes, I understood all this going in. Seth Lloyd, whom I like very much, is > more less grounded than I'd like. Muller's thesis, with all respect, did > not impress me. Where, exactly, was the error I supposedly made? :-) > > > > Characterizing black hole behavior is an evolving dynamic, far from > resolved. It is an assumption on the part of theorists that information > cannot be lost, but the evidence appears to the contrary. I'm not even sure > that the discussion has a consistent reference. > > > > What they mean, from my point of view, when they say information cannot be > lost is that processes are reversible, but there is, in fact, no evidence > at all that processes should be reversible in the way described - > Susskind's wishful thinking of "wait forever and it must happen" aside. > There is a failure here to understand the nature and scale of > combinortorics. > > > > Steven > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:12 PM, John Collier <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]> 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 .
