Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 571, Issue 5
Dear friends, I am glad to hear from you and interested in the topic you mentioned. However, recently I am busy at preparing a booklet for the academic exchange in FIS 2013, Moscow, there is not enough time for me to read, think, and respond. I will do that later and give my response in detail. With best regards, Zong-Rong Li ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Information and Logic
Dear Sören, Thank you for your prompt and pertinent response, which nevertheless allows me to make three points about my differences with cybesemiotics, starting, you will see why, from the last: 1. I am not a supporter of modern logics as these are generally understood (Peirce's trivalent, modal, fuzzy, dynamic, abductive, etc.) precisely because they are still propositional and truth-functional and do not provide a basis for meaning. 2. All these logics, including Peirce's are or refer to the formal aspects of semiosis, but Logic in Reality establishes a theory of the grounds of perception and experiential quality. 3. My Logic in Reality is about making probable inferences, not about making correct deductions. In conclusion, if my logic, as I claim, is /sui generis/, it is not proper to ascribe to it the properties of standard logics, all of which are included in the Universal Logic of Béziau - He. The statements I make about information in my logical perspective, accordingly, should if possible be judged on whether or not they add something new to the resolution of still unresolved problems. e.g., the relation to physics. I note the oblique reference to Maimonides in de Waal's book and will be sure to buy it, but those of you who are familiar with Maimonides will be aware of his limitations . . . Best regards, Joseph - Original Message - From: Søren Brier To: 'Joseph Brenner' ; John Collier ; Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez ; fis Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 2:03 PM Subject: SV: [Fis] Information and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology Dear Joseph Logic does not in itself guide empirical research. It is just about how to make correct deductions. What lead me to Peirce from a traditional science view was the lack of a theory of perception and experiential qualities and therefore the whole basis for empirical work. Peirce established a phenomenological basis for his semiotics and an empirical realistic pragmaticism, where it is sign that carry perception, thinking and communication and logic is only the formal aspect of semiosis. I have just received Cornelis de Waal's wonderful little book: "Peirce for the perplexed" that gives a very clear explanation of Peirce philosophy of science and how it integrates with his theory of semiotics. Peirce was one of the founders of the modern logic , which you are so supportive of. Best Søren Fra: Joseph Brenner [mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch] Sendt: 17. maj 2013 12:26 Til: Søren Brier; John Collier; Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez; fis Emne: Re: [Fis] Information and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology Dear John, Dear Sören and All, I think John is basically correct in starting from a physical basis for the origin of information in the universe, but Sören is also correct in that something "more" is needed to get to meaning. My view is, however, that the latter's cybersemiotics is based on a Peircean view of the properties of the universe, and that this view is crtitically incomplete, especially with regard to partial determinism, discontinuity and the operational nature of signs. Logic in Reality provides the missing link between the physical and "non"-physical positions by relating them to the synergetic/antagonistic interactions between the actuality and potentiality of energy and energetic processes at all levels of reality, between presence and absence (cf. Deacon), etc. In my opinion, this is what "gets us to experience". Floridi has criticized my position since he assigns only epistemological value to levels of reality, whereas I try to show that the epistemology and ontology of levels cannot be totally separated. The nexus of the debate is thus here, but it would require some "actualization" of understanding of the relevance of LIR (or lack of it!) to continue along these lines. Any takers? Best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From: Søren Brier To: John Collier ; joe.bren...@bluewin.ch ; Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez ; fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:08 PM Subject: SV: [Fis] Information and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology Dear John I think the discussion you have here, no matter how qualified it is, shows that it is doubtful strategy to want to explain our world, meaningful communication and our own consciousness from the physical view of reality alone. In my cybersemiotic model I suggest that we cannot reduce the physical to the biological and that to the experiential psychological and the social communicative and cannot expect to produce one unified story of the world based on natural science. For those interested I give a PhD-course in Cybersemiotics at CBS in Copenhagen 12-16. of August with invited speakers explain the idea. Information here http://www.cbs.dk/en/node/254737 .
Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 571, Issue 5
John: On May 17, 2013, at 5:26 AM, fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es wrote: > The vacuum background is random, and hence contains no information in the > negentropy sense (see my "kinds" at Kinds of Information in Scientific Use. > 2011. cognition, communication, co-operation. Vol 9, No 2 ). However "it from > bit" information appears and disappears. It can be magnified in principle, > but I know of no detected cases. How would a rational realist distinguish this metaphysical perspective from witchcraft or magic? Cheers Jerry___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 571, Issue 5
l interactions of photons at very high densities. I would need help with that one. Taken at face value, this might tend to confirm that particles/fields, that is, energy, are different from the information about them but inseparable from it, as some of us have argued. I would be very interested to know how some of you interpret these concepts. There is a formal resemblance to Feynmann's concept of anti-particles being normal particles moving backward in time. However, I am not at all sure that the analogy helps because it refers to thermodynamic time and this is exactly what disappears in the cosmological framework. As I said above, I am working on this, but how far I will get before October is not predictable right now. Maybe I could use some of that reverse photon information :-) Best, John -- Professor John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 <http://web.ncf.ca/collier> Http://web.ncf.ca/collier -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://webmail.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20130517/1cb76e0e/attachment.htm> http://webmail.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20130517/1cb76e0e/attachment.htm -- __ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es <https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis End of fis Digest, Vol 571, Issue 5 *** ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Information and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology
Dear John, Dear Sören and All, I think John is basically correct in starting from a physical basis for the origin of information in the universe, but Sören is also correct in that something "more" is needed to get to meaning. My view is, however, that the latter's cybersemiotics is based on a Peircean view of the properties of the universe, and that this view is crtitically incomplete, especially with regard to partial determinism, discontinuity and the operational nature of signs. Logic in Reality provides the missing link between the physical and "non"-physical positions by relating them to the synergetic/antagonistic interactions between the actuality and potentiality of energy and energetic processes at all levels of reality, between presence and absence (cf. Deacon), etc. In my opinion, this is what "gets us to experience". Floridi has criticized my position since he assigns only epistemological value to levels of reality, whereas I try to show that the epistemology and ontology of levels cannot be totally separated. The nexus of the debate is thus here, but it would require some "actualization" of understanding of the relevance of LIR (or lack of it!) to continue along these lines. Any takers? Best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From: Søren Brier To: John Collier ; joe.bren...@bluewin.ch ; Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez ; fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:08 PM Subject: SV: [Fis] Information and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology Dear John I think the discussion you have here, no matter how qualified it is, shows that it is doubtful strategy to want to explain our world, meaningful communication and our own consciousness from the physical view of reality alone. In my cybersemiotic model I suggest that we cannot reduce the physical to the biological and that to the experiential psychological and the social communicative and cannot expect to produce one unified story of the world based on natural science. For those interested I give a PhD-course in Cybersemiotics at CBS in Copenhagen 12-16. of August with invited speakers explain the idea. Information here http://www.cbs.dk/en/node/254737 . Best wishes Søren Brier Fra: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] På vegne af John Collier Sendt: 16. maj 2013 20:20 Til: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch; Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez; fis@listas.unizar.es Emne: Re: [Fis] Information and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology Joseph, fisers, I have been busy with teaching (250 students in an environmental ethics course I have never taught before), so I set this aside to look at later. I am getting 250 essays in tomorrow, less laggards, so I decided to get this out now. At 02:42 AM 2013/03/17, joe.bren...@bluewin.ch wrote: Dear Pedro, Dear FISers, In our search for the "foundations of information" two years ago, we looked at Michael Conrad's fluctuon model of the universe. We came to the conclusion, I think, that 1) any coupling of fluctuations in the quantum vacuum to thermodynamic entities (biological macromolecules) has not been confirmed and 2) the concept of information as energy does not apply to the "timeless" vacuum background. The vacuum background is random, and hence contains no information in the negentropy sense (see my "kinds" at Kinds of Information in Scientific Use. 2011. cognition, communication, co-operation. Vol 9, No 2 ). However "it from bit" information appears and disappears. It can be magnified in principle, but I know of no detected cases. David Layzer, in his Cosmogenesis, argued that our branch of the universe got a "cold start" from a large fluctuation, at least part of which we reside in. In this case we get both an information and an energy bulge, which produces negentropic information as the expansion rate exceeds the relaxation rate. This happens as the universe expands, and relaxation takes longer. Before that we have undifferentiated energy. After that we have at least a phase separation between matter and energy that is not just fluctuations in the background. I plan to present some stuff on the relation between information and energy at the China meeting, and hope to have things better worked out by then. Roger Penrose's 2011 book, Cycles of Time, which I have just read, presents a new view of the universe as described by a conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC). It makes some remarkable statements about information which I believe are worth discussion. His key point is to make information loss in black holes the condition for the reduction in the phase-space volume of the universe to permit geometrical matching between a De Sitter "end" of one universe or aeon and the smooth transition to an Einsteinian Big Bang in a new aeon, both involving massless particles. Penrose thus goes back to Hawking's original theory, as he finds
