Re: [Fis] fis Digest, Vol 571, Issue 5

[Jerry LR Chandler]

John:

> Which does "this" refer to, Jerry? 

My response was to the section of your post that I pasted / cited in my post.

Your further assertion that: 

>  Since the scientists involved are among the top in the respective fields, I 
> take that what they are doing with information concepts is reasonable. I 
> can't judge that as I am not a specialist in their fields.

is really astounding to me!

As you are well aware, numerous philosophies and metaphysical concepts of 
information exist in the published literature.
Given your extensive list of publications in the information sciences over 
several decades, I find your stance with respect to your judgments to be 
remarkable.

Finally, I do not feel that I have a quarrel with anyone.
 
As a natural scientist, I merely asked a provocative question about your 
metaphysical position.
I use the term "metaphysical" as I do not find a relationship with either 
mathematics or the sciences of information as I understand them.  

Does the tone of these posts suggest that you would like to change your 
position?

Cheers

Jerry




On May 22, 2013, at 3:26 PM, John Collier wrote:

> Which does "this" refer to, Jerry? My paper is about scientists who use 
> information concepts to explain things and make predictions. And then I 
> organized them into a nested hierarchy. Since the scientists involved are 
> among the top in the respective fields, I take that what they are doing with 
> information concepts is reasonable. I can't judge that as I am not a 
> specialist in their fields. If you are, then any quarrel you have is with 
> them, not me. I assume, prima facie, that scientists know what they are 
> doing. I have found Smolin, who uses the it-from-bit view to explain 
> conservation of information around a black hole, very approachable.
> 
> John
> 
> At 05:42 PM 2013/05/17, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
>> 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

[John Collier]

I wouldn't say the last. New capabilities appear as new laws come into
play.
Someone, a physicist, who takes Wheeler's view very seriously is Lee
Smolin,

Lee
Smolin

 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAlso, Seth Lloyd,

Seth
Lloyd

 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaNeither, I am pretty
sure, thinks that even all of physics can be reduced to physics can be
reduced to basic physics, but that information has some unifying
power.
John

At 04:07 PM 2013/05/17, you wrote:
Dear John,
Can you give some more your explorations about "it from bit"?
Do you know how many reflections there from orthodox physicists about the
Wheeler's "HELL" (a saying from a physicist) these years?
If it is true, can we reduce all of our information studies, simulating
Søren's word, from biological and experiential psychological and the
social communication to physical information?
Best wishes,
Xueshan




From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es
[
mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of
fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es

Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:26 PM

To: fis@listas.unizar.es

Subject: fis Digest, Vol 571, Issue 5


When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of fis digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. Re: Information and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (John Collier)

2. Re: Information and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (Joseph
Brenner)


--

Message: 1

Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 20:19:49 +0200

From: John Collier 

Subject: Re: [Fis] Information and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology

To: "joe.bren...@bluewin.ch"
,  Pedro Clemente

 Marijuan Fernandez ,
"fis@listas.unizar.es"

  

Message-ID: <201305161819.r4gijpla003...@isuela.unizar.es>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

URL:

http://webmail.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20130516/8f9f0440/attachment-0001.htm


--

Message: 2

Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 12:26:06 +0200

From: "Joseph Brenner" 

Subject: Re: [Fis] Information and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology

To: Søren Brier , "John Collier"
colli...@ukzn.ac.za,

"Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez"
,  "fis"

 

Message-ID: <2671E14A34304C138EAEFF7FC2AAD51E@PCdeJoseph>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

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] PÃ¥ 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