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

2013-05-22 Thread 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

2013-05-17 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
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

2013-05-17 Thread Zong-Rong Li
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