Not only logic, but also language is not directly and one-to-one coupled
to physics. The hidden positivism of claiming priority for physics by
some of us, is at odds with the linguistic turn in the philosophy of
science. Furthermore, the issue is not directly related to the
I suspect I am past quota for the week. Apologies for that.
1. Work in logic and mathematics is scientific even if mathematicians and
logicians sometimes deny being scientists.
2. Exact work is logical work coupled with precise and repeatable methods of
3. The point
You claim: "all computations exists independently of the existence of anything
I never heard, apart probably from Berkeley and Tegmark, a more untestable,
metaphyisical, a-scientific, unquantifiable claim.
Dear FISers, we NEED to deal with something testable and
Hi Lou, Colleagues,
> On 25 Apr 2018, at 16:55, Louis H Kauffman wrote:
> Dear Krassimir and Mark,
> Let us not forget the intermediate question:
> How is information independent of the choice of carrier?
> This is the fruitful question in my opinion, and it avoids the
Dear Krassimir and Mark,
Let us not forget the intermediate question:
How is information independent of the choice of carrier?
This is the fruitful question in my opinion, and it avoids the problem of
assigning existence to that which is relational.
The same problem exists for numbers and other
Dear Mark and Colleagues,
Very nice “simple question”: “Is information physical?”
I agree that “letters, electromagnetic waves and actually all physical objects
are only carriers of information”.
The brain is carrier of information, too.
Now, I think, what we need to clear is another