Where does the information come from?
sadovnik socratus
/ Quantum Theory as Quantum Information /
===…
#
Does information begin on the quarks level?
No. Quark cannot leave an atom.
Maybe does proton have quant of information?
No. Single proton has no quant of information.
Why?
Because information can be transfered only by
electromagnetic fields. And we don’t have a theory
about protono-magnetic fields.
#
In our earthly world there is only one fundamental
particle - electron who can transfer information.
Can an electron be quant of information?
Maybe at first glance this seems to be a rather senseless questions.
But . . . . .
Energy is electromagnetic waves (em).
In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn’t em waves without Electron
It means the source of these em waves must be an Electron
The electron and the em waves they are physical reality
==============
#
1900, 1905
Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
1916
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
it means: e = +ah*c and e = -ah*c.
1928
Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.
According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron’s
energy is infinite: E= ∞
Questions.
Why does the simplest particle - electron have six ( 6 ) formulas ?
Why does electron obey five ( 5) Laws ?
a) Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) Maxwell’s equations
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
d) Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
e) Fermi-Dirac statistics
#.
What is an electron ?
Now nobody knows
In the internet we can read hundreds theories about electron
All of them are problematical
We can read hundreds books about philosophy of physics.
But how can we trust them if we don’t know what is electron ?
====.
Quote by Heinrich Hertz on Maxwell's equations:
"One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae
have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own,
that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers,
that we get more out of them than was originally put into them."
====.
Ladies and Gentlemen !
Friends !
Electron is not as simple as we think and, maybe, he is wiser than we
are.
==========.
#
We know, there is no information transfer
without energy transfer. More correct: there is no quant
information transfer without quant energy transfer.
And the electron has the least electric charge.
It means it has some quant of the least information.
What can electron do with this information?
Let us look the Mendeleev / Moseley periodic table.
We can see that electron interacts with proton
and creates atom of hydrogen.
This is simplest design, which was created by electron.
And we can see how this information grows and reaches
high informational level. And the most complex design,
which was created by electron is the Man.
The Man is alive essence. Animals, birds, fish are alive essences.
And an atom? And atom is also alive design.
The free atom of hydrogen can live about 1000 seconds.
And someone a long time ago has already said, that if to give
suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he would turn into Man.
Maybe it is better not to search about "dark, virtual particles "
but to understand what the electron is,
because even now nobody knows what electron is.
=======================
In my opinion the Electron is quant of information.
Was I mistaken? No !
Because according to Pauli Exclusion Principle
only one single electron can be in the atom.
This electron reanimates the atom.
This electron manages the atom.
If the atom contains more than one electron
(for example - two), this atom represents " Siamese twins".
Save us, the Great God, of having such atoms, such children!
Each of us has an Electron, but we do not know it.
#
Many years ago man has accustomed some wild
animals (wolf, horse, cat, bull , etc.)
and has made them domestic ones.
But the man understands badly the four-footed friends.
In 1897 J. J. Thomson discovered new particle - electron.
Gradually man has accustomed electron to work for him.
But the man does not understand what an electron is.
By my peasant logic at first it is better to understand
the closest and simplest particle photon /electron and
then to study the far away space and another particles.
==========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
=====…
P.S.
The world of electron.
#
But maybe these electrons are World,
where there are five continents:
the art,
knowledge,
wars,
thrones
and the memory of forty centuries.
/ Valery Brusov./
===============…
awori achoka
This is always interesting...remember my simple non theory about energy-time, it could just be it...the electron.
But I don't know!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
Craig Weinberg
> Where does the information come from?
> Can an electron be quant of information?
I think it's helpful to understand that information is not real except
to something that can make sense of it. This text for example, has
different numbers of electrons depending on what kind of a screen or
page it is printed on. It has no fewer electrons if someone cannot
read English (even though there is much less information for that
reader).
The fundamental semantic principle I think is not information, but
sense. Information implies a disconnected currency of meaning that is
independent of any subject. Like 'data' or 'input', it is generic
language for something which can never be generic. Rather it is the
essence of a specific. To inform is to make clear, resolve ambiguity,
give shape and reason, etc. It is anything which can be detected that
potentially makes sense. A gear pushing another gear is not
information, it is a sense or detection-reaction experience where
metal contacts metal. This sense, which can be called
electromagnetism, perception, relativity, experience, energy,
sequence, order, pattern recognition, occurs on every level, in every
inertial frame of the cosmos.
I agree that the electron and photon are not what we think. I don't
necessarily assume they are actual particles that exist independently
of atoms in space. I think they are events - atomic moods which are
shared, the content of which actually carries our sense of time and
space through matter rather than being a substance moving in space
between matter. It sounds crazy, but if you think about it
impartially, I think you might find that it works.
Craig
sadovnik socratus
On Dec 12, 4:41 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Where does the information come from?
> > Can an electron be quant of information?
>
>
> I agree that the electron and photon are not what we think. I don't
> necessarily assume they are actual particles that exist independently
> of atoms in space. I think they are events - atomic moods which are
> shared, the content of which actually carries our sense of time and
> space through matter rather than being a substance moving in space
> between matter. It sounds crazy, but if you think about it
> impartially, I think you might find that it works.
>
> Craig
====================.
1.
Electron = Energy = Electrical waves =
= Information = Consciousness = One chain of Evolution.
2.
Proton = Atom = Complex Atom = Cell = Man = One chain of Evolution.
3.
How is possible to understand their difference and unity
as one chain of Evolution ?
=.
S.
awori achoka
= Information = Consciousness = One chain of Evolution".
Correction: Information is an abstraction of the conscious---it is an after fact noted by the brain---after receipt of electrical signals (change in the state of ionic energy).
sadovnik socratus
Information is a result of the conscious ---
it is an after fact noted by the brain ---
( Brain changes its state / program of neuron energy
structure after receipt of electrical signals from electron.)
==.
On Dec 14, 5:38 pm, awori achoka <awori.ach...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Electron = Energy = Electrical waves =
> = Information = Consciousness = One chain of Evolution".
>
> Correction: Information is an abstraction of the conscious---it is an after
> fact noted by the brain---after receipt of electrical signals (change in
> the state of ionic energy).
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
awori achoka
You are a good teacher. Yes, that looks plausible.
Craig Weinberg
>
> > > Where does the information come from?
> > > Can an electron be quant of information?
>
> > I agree that the electron and photon are not what we think. I don't
> > necessarily assume they are actual particles that exist independently
> > of atoms in space. I think they are events - atomic moods which are
> > shared, the content of which actually carries our sense of time and
> > space through matter rather than being a substance moving in space
> > between matter. It sounds crazy, but if you think about it
> > impartially, I think you might find that it works.
>
> ====================.
> 1.
> Electron = Energy = Electrical waves =
> = Information = Consciousness = One chain of Evolution.
> 2.
> Proton = Atom = Complex Atom = Cell = Man = One chain of Evolution.
> 3.
> How is possible to understand their difference and unity
> as one chain of Evolution ?
> =.
> S.
My understanding is that an electron is a concept of a specific charge
momentum conceived as an orbiting nuclear particle. Energy is a
concept of general physical change over time, or, to quote the Wiki,
"In physics, energy (Ancient Greek: ἐνέργεια energeia "activity,
operation") is an indirectly observed quantity. It is often understood
as the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical
systems".
It would be misleading to say that a concrete particle evolves into a
general abstract principle. You could say that an electron has energy
or an energy state, but so does everything else. Electrical waves are,
like energy, an indirect observation. There may not literally be waves
of electrical stuff flying through space (and I think that there
isn't) but rather matter can be induced to oscillate in synchronized
frequency and intensity with other instances of matter.
I'm not sure where electrical waves = information comes from. If you
are thinking that because we inform electronic computers by using
electricity, then that equation would work with anything. I can inform
a mechanical computer using waves of water or any kind of machine
using waves of liquid or quantities of particles. Think of an abacus.
We inform ourselves using the 'information' we can derive from our
configuration of the beads of an abacus. Electrons or electrical waves
aren't really relevant. There is energy, but the energy is just the
nominal accounting of how I move my fingers, how the beads move, how
the food I've eaten produces ATP in my cells to contract muscles and
fire neurons, etc. That in itself doesn't produce any information.
Indeed, if you don't know how to use an abacus, it's nothing but a
strange sculpture. It can inform us aesthetically but not
mathematically.
Instead I would run the chain of evolution backward since, as human
beings, we only know about consciousness first hand. Everything we
know that we know is filtered through consciousness:
Consciousness <> Awareness <> Perception <> Feeling <> Sensation <>
Detection
Each level is a nested holarchy so that consciousness is an awareness
of awarenesses, awareness is a perception of perceptions, perception
is a feeling of feelings, feeling is a sense of senses and sense is a
detection of detections. Each level represents a perceptual frame of
reference (which relates to inertial frame of reference in general
relativity) so that consciousness is stories about a person in their
universe, awareness tells an organism about it's world, perception
relates to organs and their specialized channels of sense, feeling is
about tissues and glands and their biochemistry - emotion, sensation
and detection get into the cellular and molecular frames of reference.
Information is an idea that consciousness has about how to conceive of
itself in a way that doesn't seem subjective. It doesn't physically
exist. It must be subjectively decoded. If anything, information
'insists'. I would say informally that the evolution looks more like
this:
<Human-Primate> consciousness <Mammal-Vertebrate> awareness <Organism-
Body> perception <Organ-Tissue> feeling <Cell-Gene> sensation
<Molecule-Atom> detection <quantum-arithmetic*>
*quantum arithmetic embodiment is not a concrete realism but an
analytical interpretation. It's how we make can make sense of the
microcosm, but I suspect that we are mistaking atomic detection for
quantum mechanics. It's just the sense that atoms make together, not
literal particle/waves flying through space instantaneously. This may
sound fringe and speculative, but I think that may actually be the
correct interpretation.
Craig
sadovnik socratus
‘ It is important to realize that in physics today,
we have no knowledge of what energy is.
We do not have a picture that energy comes in little
blobs of a definite amount. ‘
( Feynman. 1987)
2.
Comment by Richard Norman
It is quite true that "information" means many things but in this
case
it has a technical meaning that is quite specific. The "information
content" of a physical system is a specification of its state. In
quantum mechanics, this is the wave function.
The problem is that, under quantum mechanics, the evolution of the
wave function is a unitary operator that preserves the information,
the specification. No two different states (wave functions) can
converge to a singlefuture state and every state must have a distinct
set of antecedents -- projected backwards (reverse time, if you will)
they cannot converge.
If information in this sense disappers, then these principles would
be
violated. This first really became crucial when considering what
happens in a black hole -- the "black hole information paradox."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
Using the simple mention of the word "information" as the trigger for
a philosophical discussion of alternate notions of the word is a
useful and interesting enough exercise. When "people" talk about
information in physics, such a discussion might be necessary. When
physicists talk about information in physics, they all know exactly
what it is about -- no massive ambiguity traded there.
On Dec 14, 7:33 am, Richard Norman
==.
P.S.
‘ Where did the information go?
The laws of physics dictate that information, like energy,
cannot be destroyed, which means it must go somewhere.’
/ Book ‘ The big questions’ by Michael Brooks.
Page 195-196. /
==.
> Craig- Hide quoted text -
Craig Weinberg
It's like asking, 'Where did the football game go?'. Information does
not exist. It insists. Quantum Mechanics works because of the
simplicity of the microcosm. The behaviors of atoms are extremely
literal and discrete. As matter becomes more complex and multiply
recapitulated (as chemistry, biology, zoology, neurology), the
possibilities of 'information' acquire qualitative degrees of freedom
- sensation, feeling, awareness, thought. Each perceptual frame
evolves a new fundamental unit - the molecule, the cell, the body, the
mind, which exists within it's own perceptual frame of reference with
it's own rules which cannot be reduced to simpler levels.
Craig
awori achoka
Great. Information = consciousness = being. The only claim you have to consciousness is being aware... awareness/sensory perception ...is information. Inability to abstract information from physical stimuli..invalidates its existence. So, information is a subjective inpu/output of the conscious....with no claim to existence. A plant absorbs and uses light energy, but does not visualize light. It has no 'information' about the existence of light.
einseele
I'm following your posts, which I found very interesting. Basically I
agree with you when saying the information does not exist, but
insists. Which is a sort of enigmatic stament like describing any
instance able or necessarily acting or "informing" without actually
"being".
I also want to call the attention to the very title of this post.
To me "Where does the information come from" is not exactly a question
but the answer itself.
IMHO the information matches the concept of address.
In other words any physical instance (without any physical relevance,
I mean nothing in its physical component is of relevance), electrons,
waves, words, bits.. etc, is able to convey the intended information
as far as any other "aware" instance is able to identify where that
instance points. That "where" is an address which its only role is to
be unique within any given system.
If I say in English "this life" there is just one sequence of given
characters including spaces which is the same as to think on an unique
integer able to represent the same sequence. That number is unique and
no othe instance can occupy that specific point in the given space.
This is the same as saying that the concerned system has an specific
address.
I consider that address the information itself, can also be considered
of course as non existent since numbers do not exist either, and
certainly they insist.
Carlos
Craig Weinberg
> Hello Craig
>
> I'm following your posts, which I found very interesting. Basically I
> agree with you when saying the information does not exist, but
> insists. Which is a sort of enigmatic stament like describing any
> instance able or necessarily acting or "informing" without actually
> "being".
Hi Carlos,
Thanks, yes, it does lend an interesting enigmatic quality that can
either be illuminating or off-putting I think, and I think that I
intend it in both senses. Literally, it in-sists as far as it being
interior to matter rather than an object that occupies or travels
through space, and figuratively it insists - it urges, motivates,
instructs, etc. It is purposeful. Existence is not purposeful. It's an
entropic teleonomy.
> I also want to call the attention to the very title of this post.
> To me "Where does the information come from" is not exactly a question
> but the answer itself.
> IMHO the information matches the concept of address.
> In other words any physical instance (without any physical relevance,
> I mean nothing in its physical component is of relevance), electrons,
> waves, words, bits.. etc, is able to convey the intended information
> as far as any other "aware" instance is able to identify where that
> instance points. That "where" is an address which its only role is to
> be unique within any given system.
Right, it's a pointer or a label. Pearce's semiotic trichotomy is
helpful:
"the symbol/index/icon triad focuses on the relations of signs to
their objects: symbols have a convention-based relationships with
their objects (e.g. alphanumberic symbols); indexes/indicies are
directly influenced by their objects (e.g. a weathervane or a
thermometer); and icons have specific properties in common with their
objects (e.g. portraits, diagrams)"
http://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/symbolindexicon.htm
You are talking about information in the sense of symbols - a
correlation between a referent and its label.
That's true, but it's really an analysis of the function of what
information does, how it works. It doesn't get into what it actually
is, as far as if I had to create the cosmos from scratch, what
ingredients do I need to get information? What's it made of? I think
the answer is that it is made of sensorimotive experience - that is,
change within matter experienced from it's interior orientation. From
the exterior, it looks like electromagnetism or other kinds of energy
- kinetic, thermodynamic, etc. Information is one specific band of how
energy feels about energy. Otherwise, you have to think of information
as some kind of disembodied metaphysical presence that's also absent.
We don't observe anything like that though.
Craig
Craig Weinberg
> Great. Information = consciousness = being. The only claim you have to
> consciousness is being aware...
That is the only claim that is required, which is why it is primitive.
All other claims are a consequence of awareness.
> awareness/sensory perception ...is
> information.
Not the way I understand those terms. Information is a generalization
about perception which conceives it as a-signifying and independent of
medium. If I count to ten, what am I counting? Nothing. It's just a
cognitive rhythm and expectation with numerical names attached to
them.
Perception is an organic physical reality. It is the native subjective
experience of feeling, seeing, thinking, etc. If I am a fish, I
perceive fish information. Information implies an objective phenomenon
independent of a perceiver, but there isn't any such thing. Perception
is always a relation between the perceiver and the perceived. It's the
context from which information (texts) arise. Texts by themselves
cannot exist.
> Inability to abstract information from physical
> stimuli..invalidates its existence. So, information is a subjective
> inpu/output of the conscious....with no claim to existence. A plant
> absorbs and uses light energy, but does not visualize light. It has no
> 'information' about the existence of light.
Sense isn't beholden to information. It is possible to have a feeling
that you cannot understand or identify, but the feeling still exists.
Information however, depends on sense to have any meaning.
A plant probably doesn't visualize light in the way that we do, but
it senses light, maybe in a tactile way, similar to how we feel
warmth. Plants bend to grow into the light. Flowers open and close
with the light. They have complex and beautiful visual patterns, so
that could mean something to them. If there were nothing on Earth but
flowering plants, it would be odd for the planet to be overflowing
with florid beauty that was utterly undetectable to anything in the
universe. Doesn't that seem a bit unlikely? Humans and plants both
have experiences of light, but probably very different ones.
Illuminated matter informs them differently.
Craig
einseele
Nice conversation here, thank you
> ...ingredients do I need to get information? What's it made of?
This is the million $ question. We cannot say what information is made
of but only point to it
For instance a simple dot on any given surface, when considered a bit
(within a binary context) surrounded by empty space (which we can also
consider as a bit within the same binary context), will be decoded by
a given system which will print on my screen let's say a letter, which
in turn I will read within my language context and I will
understand.... whatever
In the end we only have a dot.
Neither that dot, or the surrounding space, nor the letter, nor the
language and etc is the information but just pointers.
But of course we cannot say that there is not information, there is
indeed.
Now come the hard part. You used a sharp expression that I will pick
up below, sorry for clipping it, no other way to follow up
>...Otherwise, you have to think of information
> as some kind of disembodied metaphysical presence that's also absent.
First I also agree that there are not such methaphysical presence
whatsoever, I believe we agree on this.
But the word "absent" is crucial I also believe. Because absent in no
way means not existent, but something like "not here"
And to me information has always in all cases that attribute of "not
here" and it is always the absent part of the equation.
Is there any other option for something which is always absent not to
be a metaphysical concept?
Yes I believe there is another option.
Please allow me to go back to the dot example. The empty space where
that dot is not, is considered in computer science a positive signal.
I mean that "nothing" is represented by "0" (could be any other symbol
as far as we maintain 2 instances, one for the dot and one for its
"absence").
Two signs are enough to create a number system. (curiously you just
need one presence)
And so the reader part of this primitive information system can "read"
an absence, a string made of a physical presence (the dot), and absent
"not dot". This is not metaphysical whatsoever, but part of a system.
I believe as well that the DNA, which can be considered as the
paradigm for the information concept, has a lot to say about absent
instances.
Does not look to me that the DNA is like a biologic zip which builds
the elephant unzipping anything. On the contrary I think the DNA
builds that elephant reading a "code" in a very similar way that my
poor computer example above. That information is absent, it is not a
methapysical idea, and in the end it is its main "component", if I may
say. As such has no material attributes, can not be "compressed",
"sent", "destroyed", "lost", etc. All these processes happen only to
that part we called here "pointers".
regards
Carlos
Craig Weinberg
> Hello Craig
> Nice conversation here, thank you
Thanks, yes, I'm glad to meet you.
>
> > ...ingredients do I need to get information? What's it made of?
>
> This is the million $ question. We cannot say what information is made
> of but only point to it
I think that I can say what it is made of though. It is the
sensorimotive interior of matter. The same thing which governs our
exteriors as matter across space (we call electromagnetism, gravity,
relativity, probability, and entropy) allows our interiors to govern
energy through time (being, feeling, doing, perception, volition, and
memory, I call sensorimotive orientation, significance, and cumulative
entanglement).
> For instance a simple dot on any given surface, when considered a bit
The idea of a 'dot' on a surface is a generalization abstracted from
our human visual sense (presumably other organisms with eyes see in
'dots' but it's hardly a simple case or something that exists
independently of our perception. Calling it a bit is further
abstracting it to a computer science context. A dot on a given surface
might actually be a colony of bacteria or mold. If you reduce it to a
bit, you have flattened thousands of fantastically complex living
organism into nothingness.
> (within a binary context) surrounded by empty space (which we can also
> consider as a bit within the same binary context), will be decoded by
> a given system which will print on my screen let's say a letter, which
> in turn I will read within my language context and I will
> understand.... whatever
>
> In the end we only have a dot.
I think that we never had a dot to begin with. Only a person who can
see and understand that they have a dot has a dot. 'We' see a dot
because the cells in our eyes and visual cortex make sense of the
optical exterior of the surface as being dot like. What is to us a dot
may be like a town to bacteria or molecules. That we see anything at
all is only because on a molecular level, there is a common sense
between the molecules of our cells, the molecules of the dotted
surface, and the molecules of whatever light source is enabling the
visual sense channel.
> Neither that dot, or the surrounding space, nor the letter, nor the
> language and etc is the information but just pointers.
All of those things are information too. All of the characteristics we
can sense inform our minds as to the location, relation, and precise
nature of the referent in the sensemaking terms which we have access
to. The final level of information you are talking about is just the
semantic-linguistic tip of the iceberg. You're talking about the kind
of sense it makes to the communities of neurons of our frontal lobes
rather than our visual cortex, limbic system, skin receptors, etc.
>
> But of course we cannot say that there is not information, there is
> indeed.
It's not 'there', it's 'here'. A dollar bill is a piece of paper, but
in here, with 'us', it's money. There is no money in the paper. No
dollars in the dollar bill. No money anywhere in the literal sense,
only in a figurative sense as an aspect of our anthropological-
economic perceptual frame of reference.
>
> Now come the hard part. You used a sharp expression that I will pick
> up below, sorry for clipping it, no other way to follow up
>
> >...Otherwise, you have to think of information
> > as some kind of disembodied metaphysical presence that's also absent.
>
> First I also agree that there are not such methaphysical presence
> whatsoever, I believe we agree on this.
> But the word "absent" is crucial I also believe. Because absent in no
> way means not existent, but something like "not here"
I think non existent would be "not there" but since sensorimotive
experiences, perceptions, subjects, etc are "in here", then
'information' is, pardon my pun, 'neither here nor there' - in that it
is a term of generalizing significance an an a-signifying way. It
kills it. Do we say "Damn, look at the information on that chick!" or
"This business of getting my teeth ripped out one by one with no
anesthetic is quite information dense." Information is a forensic
examination of living sensorimotive processes - an occidental
abstraction of the concrete subjective realism. The word only has
legitimate use in the context of quantitative abstraction, digital
data or analog arithmetic. Nothing that we experience directly is mere
information, unless we are catatonic or on heavy antipsychotic drugs.
>
> And to me information has always in all cases that attribute of "not
> here" and it is always the absent part of the equation.
>
> Is there any other option for something which is always absent not to
> be a metaphysical concept?
Yes. Another option that it is not real at all. It's a way of thinking
about reality, no more or less explanatory than talking about aethers,
phlogiston, or humors. Information is a mirage.
>
> Yes I believe there is another option.
>
> Please allow me to go back to the dot example. The empty space where
> that dot is not, is considered in computer science a positive signal.
> I mean that "nothing" is represented by "0" (could be any other symbol
> as far as we maintain 2 instances, one for the dot and one for its
> "absence").
> Two signs are enough to create a number system. (curiously you just
> need one presence)
> And so the reader part of this primitive information system can "read"
> an absence, a string made of a physical presence (the dot), and absent
> "not dot". This is not metaphysical whatsoever, but part of a system.
What is the reader made of? How does it 'read' anything? What is the
number 'system' when it is not being read or written? Why does calling
it a system make it not metaphysical? Where is it? What is it's
melting point and specific gravity? In what sense can it be called
physical?
(sorry, not trying to provoke you at all, just questioning the
position you're describing)
>
> I believe as well that the DNA, which can be considered as the
> paradigm for the information concept, has a lot to say about absent
> instances.
>
> Does not look to me that the DNA is like a biologic zip which builds
> the elephant unzipping anything. On the contrary I think the DNA
> builds that elephant reading a "code" in a very similar way that my
> poor computer example above. That information is absent, it is not a
> methapysical idea, and in the end it is its main "component", if I may
> say. As such has no material attributes, can not be "compressed",
> "sent", "destroyed", "lost", etc. All these processes happen only to
> that part we called here "pointers".
Not sure what you mean here exactly, but I think I get the gist. DNA
can't build anything unless molecules can read other molecules. The
'information'-centric model presumes that there is this 'code'
hovering somewhere or nowhere which somehow makes it's correlations
into mechanical instructions. If we turn that model upside down and
consider the innate capacity of molecules to learn and remember
molecular conditions - to feel them as concrete sensormotive
experiences in which they participate (in whatever way that is -
collectively, individually, periodic imprints with mechanical
consequences, etc.. who knows what a molecule experiences, they are a
trillion times smaller, simpler, and faster than we are), then the
code just becomes a consensus of habits, like our civilization. See
what I mean?
Craig
PS I hope you don't mind I'm posting this on my blog. I leave the
names off. http://s33light.org/
>
> regards
>
> Carlos
awori achoka
When it can not be communicated it is not information...that is the essence of vacuum. Hence information must be capable of intelligent abstraction. A painting must communicate subjective meaning; sub-atomic forces hidden and overt energy forms and dimensions which in turn influence observable/unobservable phenomena....which give rise to meaning or what we call 'discoveries'.
Sam Carana
What about a letter that never gets sent, or gets lost in the mail?
Cheers!
Sam Carana
awori achoka
Interesting, the 'letter' is only literally a letter when a conscious mind somewhere is able to abstract meaning out of the mutually understood lingual (alphabet etc) code it contains. Otherwise it's just a lost piece of paper.
Sam Carana
I mean, if information only exists when observed by the receiver,
isn't that merely an observation, rather than communication?
Isn't communication more than merely the observation at the receiver's
end? Doesn't communication imply meaning being transferred from the
sender to the receiver?
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Craig Weinberg
> If that's the case, does any communication actually occur?
>
> I mean, if information only exists when observed by the receiver,
> isn't that merely an observation, rather than communication?
>
> Isn't communication more than merely the observation at the receiver's
> end? Doesn't communication imply meaning being transferred from the
> sender to the receiver?
>
The transfer is figurative, not literal. Just as you can only
understand your own version of what I'm writing, which is the overlap
of my ability to put my meaning into words and your ability to get
your meaning out of them. The meaning actually comes from within 'you'
as opposed to within these pixels/characters/binary signals. The
meaning of the pixels comes from within the cells of the retina and
the neurons of the visual cortex. It's a protocol stack of sense.
Craig
Sam Carana
If that were true, then what is the meaning of the word communication?
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Craig Weinberg
> So there is actually no communication taking place at all?
>
> If that were true, then what is the meaning of the word communication?
Sure there's communication, just not literally moving through space
like a substance. It just works in a different (opposite) way. Our
senses aren't solipsistic simulations, they are our channels of
concrete participation in our world. Communication is like a
resonating of the semantic common ground between subjects. To the
extent that we are the same, we can establish a common channel through
which we can influence the kind of sense each other makes. It's like
an invitation to dance rather than a projectile passively received.
Think of seeing someone smile at you in the street and you smile back.
There is not smile information flying though the air, the dynamic is a
shared subjective sensorimotive experience.
Craig
Sam Carana
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Craig Weinberg
> So, what's the story in case of entanglement?
>
> Cheers!
> Sam Carana
I don't know enough about how the experiments are actually conducted
to really give any better than a guess. It's difficult to find
accounts of the actual materials and observations online, since the
existence of photons and other particles is so unquestioned, the
experiments are described in terms which take that for granted. My
guess though is that entanglement may be an example of observing our
own equipment at such a microcosmic level, that what we are detecting
has not developed any sense of space. We are basically pinging the
singularity. It's hard to speculate on what sensorimotive experience
is like on these levels - it may be the case that every particle,
every quantum event is actually a diffracted instance of the
singularity itself. There may only be one proton, it's just very very
busy from out perspective.
Craig
Sam Carana
with everyday objects.
See:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21235-entangled-diamonds-blur-quantumclassical-divide.html
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-vibration-entangled-diamonds.html
Cheers!
Sam Carana
awori achoka
I am not physist...but could it be that at a certain level, nature is bounded by one dimension...an energy-time dimension that keeps the universe together.
Sam Carana
effectively takes place instantaneously in case of entangled objects.
In this way, it defeats the speed limit of the speed of light.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
awori achoka
Interesting.
Craig Weinberg
> It's a fascinating topic, if one considers that communication
> effectively takes place instantaneously in case of entangled objects.
>
> In this way, it defeats the speed limit of the speed of light.
>
> Cheers!
> Sam Carana
Right. Think of c not as the speed of light but the minimum latency of
space. If stillness is when something holds position relative to the
changing position of an observer, and motion is when something's
position changes relative to the observer, then c is like 'absolute
motion', the opposite of stillness. Meaning within it's inertial
frame, "light" is instantaneous. Different inertial frames have
different latencies relative to each other (otherwise scale would not
be honored in the ordering of the frames), so that a human conscious
mind has a different sized 'instantaneous' than an electron gun or a
solar system.
Think about how a radio antenna receives a radio broadcast - we have a
concept of 'tuning in to a frequency'. That is more accurate than the
idea of radio waves passing through space. We just look to the antenna
itself and amplify the activity it is detecting naturally. Someone
talking on a microphone is vibrating the sensitive surface of a
microphone and that sensitivity is passed to the tower, which is
passed to the listeners eardrum, effectively collapsing the distance
(which isn't 'real, it's just a very low level sensorimotive logic of
matter) between the listener and the station, but honoring the
distance and other materially relevant phenomena in between the two
nodes as latency, static, interference, distortion, etc. Entanglement
is just electromagnetism near the singularity level so zero latency,
zero distortion. Although you may get a lot more crazy shit happening
at that level. If you piggyback on the singularity - you may get
semantic ambiguities eventually that you wouldn't get with fully
formed electromagnetic sense. Matter level protocol doesn't care about
the feelings of biological organisms, so quantum level protocol may
not be able to care about matter and end up being hard to control.
This may be:
why we can see the light from stars so far away relatively free of
distortion
why things that are red hot look more transparent rather than more
opaque and chaotic (as it seems like it would if there were a
gazillion 'photons' blasting out of it).
why microwave ovens cook the food without heating the oven. The water
in the food is tuned into the microwave emitter's electronic activity
and is compelled to participate in it. The food cooks itself.
why light shines better through holes blocked with metal than open
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111122133326.htm)
why we see in visual semantic experiences in our view of the world
rather than streams of generic optical content. (http://s33light.org/
post/10775700452)
why specular reflections are always flat to the observer regardless of
the angle of the tilt of the reflective surface (http://
media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltfzg9Wb2m1qe3q3v.jpg) (that is a shiny hard
disk reflecting the parking lot outside my office)
why light doesn't act like any substance - it never pools or leaves a
residue, never collides with itself, etc. It can only be explained in
nonsensical terms as massless, intangible, chargeless paradoxical wave/
particles. There is no such thing as a wave that is a particle. They
are opposite physical forms. Superposition, the observer effect,
uncertainty, emergence, incompleteness, etc are all better understood
as aspects of subjective interiority and sense channel conversion
across different inertial frames.
At c, distance distance breaks down and matter becomes subjective as a
distributed sensorimotive event. It becomes a moment in the story of
the entire universe instead of part of the local scenery. Matter sort
of turns inside out and becomes a function of the observer
independently of position.
Craig
archytas
information world to get it. Quite a few biologists have tended to
this. We can safely say the bloody stuff is everywhere for something
'unreal'! Appreciate your arguments Craig and often find Carlos good
for the soul. Life seems to do a lot of information exchange without
human consciousness being involved (until we get to know) -
epigenetics being the most obvious and probably the best candidate we
have as the mover in evolution - here what we generally term the
environment affects what the genes will build. The built-in
adaptation can suggest an intelligent design, though I deplore
attempts to link such to ancient religious pisswitter. Much is
probably not what it seems to us as Craig entertains. Animals live in
our world without particle physics and even plants have learned
complex abilities without consciousness as we have it. A monkey
ain't gonna switch on the whole works of the Bard on a hard disk let
alone relish the stuff (I'm no fan either), but this doesn't mean the
stuff ain't there - it's certainly more there than on an "empty"
disk. We may well be living in the history of an electron and all
that as Wheeler suggested. I'm not sure it helps but is interesting.
Rocks (other than through metaphor) don't make good hard disks and I'm
struck that 'space' might be as structured as a hard disk. Some maths
even suggests distance is an illusion. Information can be sent at the
speed of light - something currently absurd to think humans can
survive (space isn't empty and has 'friction'). We are finding
planets information could reach in a reasonable timescale. Maybe we
will become information and 'real' as such - there being many reasons
not to worry too much about shuffling off this mortal coil! There is
little doubt that our realism is structured Craig - and as you say
that we forget this too easily.
Craig Weinberg
> I tend to the feeling that information is real and we access an
> information world to get it.
world, only a single concrete world which is divided by sense into
subjective, objective, microcosm, macrocosm, time, space, etc.
> Quite a few biologists have tended to
> this. We can safely say the bloody stuff is everywhere for something
> 'unreal'!
for us. If you look at the universe through a microscope, you can only
see a microscopic world.
> Appreciate your arguments Craig and often find Carlos good
> for the soul. Life seems to do a lot of information exchange without
> human consciousness being involved (until we get to know) -
Indeed human consciousness arising from mere information independently
of the life forms which the body is made of doesn't really make much
sense in terms of reality. If it were the case that consciousness were
only a kind of information exchange, then we should expect all forms
of matter to be equally likely to host human consciousness.
> epigenetics being the most obvious and probably the best candidate we
> have as the mover in evolution - here what we generally term the
> environment affects what the genes will build. The built-in
> adaptation can suggest an intelligent design, though I deplore
> attempts to link such to ancient religious pisswitter. Much is
> probably not what it seems to us as Craig entertains. Animals live in
> our world without particle physics and even plants have learned
> complex abilities without consciousness as we have it. A monkey
> ain't gonna switch on the whole works of the Bard on a hard disk let
> alone relish the stuff (I'm no fan either), but this doesn't mean the
> stuff ain't there
>- it's certainly more there than on an "empty"
> disk.
pits and grooves or dots, lines, etc. It is the sense and motive of
the subject who interprets those generic bits as information who
decides whether it is more there figuratively than on an empty (or
meaninglessly scratched) disk.
> We may well be living in the history of an electron and all
> that as Wheeler suggested. I'm not sure it helps but is interesting.
> Rocks (other than through metaphor) don't make good hard disks and I'm
> struck that 'space' might be as structured as a hard disk. Some maths
> even suggests distance is an illusion.
division, not a Cartesian framework of emptiness. Think of it this
way; if you had nothing in the universe but a single billiard ball,
there can be no sense of space, no size or scale without something to
compare it to. No difference between movement and stillness. Without
something outside of it to observe some spatial perspective relative
to the observer, there is no distance; everywhere to the billiard ball
is 'here' or nowhere.
> Information can be sent at the
> speed of light
discovered at any number of locations simultaneously within any given
inertial frame. The speed of light is really the relative latency of
space (which is what you find if you research what the figure we use
for the speed of light is based on: permittivity and permeability. The
inertial drag of space when mass is set to zero.) Electronic
transmissions are certainly subject to latency but not because they
are physically moving through space. It is figurative movement.
Electromagnetism is not something which occurs in space, rather space
can be thought of as something which seems to occur through
electromagnetism.
Craig
archytas
today. I watched a few illusions at New Scientist earlier and
wondered what the 'information' was - the 'actual' or my distorted
version. I'll get back - it's good to think upside down.
einseele
It is curious to note that this post was in principle oriented to know
"where" the information comes from, and turned into "what' information
is
I believe that this is important because IMO it doesn't really matter
"what" is information and indeed matters "where" does it come from.
The question for the "where" part of the title is relevant enough and
always takes me to the same. That "where" is an address, what else can
it be a "where" in this sense.
An address as an unique identifier, not two instances can share the
same address, or ocupy the same space which to me means the same.
The DNA is enough proof I believe. The same sequence can only be of
the same being regardless the "what is it" part
rgds
Carlos
archytas
On Monday, December 12, 2011 3:18:45 PM UTC, sadovnik socratus wrote:
Where does the information come from?
/ Quantum Theory as Quantum Information /
===…
#
Does information begin on the quarks level?
No. Quark cannot leave an atom.
Maybe does proton have quant of information?
No. Single proton has no quant of information.
Why?
Because information can be transfered only by
electromagnetic fields. And we don’t have a theory
about protono-magnetic fields.
#
In our earthly world there is only one fundamental
particle - electron who can transfer information.
Can an electron be quant of information?
Maybe at first glance this seems to be a rather senseless questions.
But . . . . .
Energy is electromagnetic waves (em).
In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn’t em waves without Electron
It means the source of these em waves must be an Electron
The electron and the em waves they are physical reality
==============
#
1900, 1905
Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
1916
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
it means: e = +ah*c and e = -ah*c.
1928
Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.
According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron’s
energy is infinite: E= ∞
Questions.
Why does the simplest particle - electron have six ( 6 ) formulas ?
Why does electron obey five ( 5) Laws ?
a) Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) Maxwell’s equations
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
d) Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
e) Fermi-Dirac statistics
#.
What is an electron ?
Now nobody knows
In the internet we can read hundreds theories about electron
All of them are problematical
We can read hundreds books about philosophy of physics.
But how can we trust them if we don’t know what is electron ?
====.
Quote by Heinrich Hertz on Maxwell's equations:"One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae
have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own,
that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers,
that we get more out of them than was originally put into them."
====.
Ladies and Gentlemen !
Friends !
Electron is not as simple as we think and, maybe, he is wiser than we
are.
==========.
#
We know, there is no information transfer
without energy transfer. More correct: there is no quant
information transfer without quant energy transfer.
And the electron has the least electric charge.
It means it has some quant of the least information.
What can electron do with this information?
Let us look the Mendeleev / Moseley periodic table.
We can see that electron interacts with proton
and creates atom of hydrogen.
This is simplest design, which was created by electron.
And we can see how this information grows and reaches
high informational level. And the most complex design,
which was created by electron is the Man.
The Man is alive essence. Animals, birds, fish are alive essences.
And an atom? And atom is also alive design.
The free atom of hydrogen can live about 1000 seconds.
And someone a long time ago has already said, that if to give
suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he would turn into Man.
Maybe it is better not to search about "dark, virtual particles "
but to understand what the electron is,
because even now nobody knows what electron is.
=======================
In my opinion the Electron is quant of information.
Was I mistaken? No !
Because according to Pauli Exclusion Principle
only one single electron can be in the atom.
This electron reanimates the atom.
This electron manages the atom.
If the atom contains more than one electron
(for example - two), this atom represents " Siamese twins".
Save us, the Great God, of having such atoms, such children!
Each of us has an Electron, but we do not know it.
#
Many years ago man has accustomed some wild
animals (wolf, horse, cat, bull , etc.)
and has made them domestic ones.
But the man understands badly the four-footed friends.
In 1897 J. J. Thomson discovered new particle - electron.
Gradually man has accustomed electron to work for him.
But the man does not understand what an electron is.
By my peasant logic at first it is better to understand
the closest and simplest particle photon /electron and
then to study the far away space and another particles.
==========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
=====…
P.S.
The world of electron.
#
But maybe these electrons are World,
where there are five continents:
the art,
knowledge,
wars,
thrones
and the memory of forty centuries.
/ Valery Brusov./
===============…
Craig Weinberg
On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 1:47:18 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
The idea that information comes into being in a receiver sort of precludes the idea of radio.
That still models information as an object. I'm suggesting that it doesn't 'come into being' but rather comes into a being... if that being's body is equipped with the proper antenna and the being itself has the proper previous experience to make some sense out of it.
In the case of radio, we have no antenna to hear the vibration of the broadcast tower directly, but the receiver we are using does. The radio antenna imitates the tower, the tower imitates the amplifier, the amplifier imitates the microphone (or recorded microphone, computer chip, etc), the microphone imitates the vocal chords. We aren't hearing radio, we are hearing a speaker imitating vocal chord vibration - which means our inner ear is imitating vocal chords, and our neurons, in their way, are imitating the entire inner ear. It's not a model of 'information' or 'data', it's a concrete feeling that happens when the inner ear jiggles.
I know Wheeler said the Sun wouldn't radiate if there was nothing to receive the radiation
Yes! I keep asking this question but nobody seems able to give me a straight answer:
"If I have two thermometers, one being hot and one being cold, and there is nothing else in the universe but a vacuum, will the temperatures average out the same eventually regardless of how far the thermometers are placed, or will some energy be lost (ie the total temperature of the two temperatures do not add up to 100% of the total of the average of the two) if you move them far apart?"
I suspect that the truth is that there is nothing lost in transit, and that no matter how far apart the two thermometers are, one cannot go down unless the other goes up, and that the total will always equal the same.
, but this doesn't help me with the idea the Goon Show isn't on World Service because I'm not listening to it or my radio is on in another room.
We can't see how it works very well using our own experience as an example. Our ears and auditory cortex give us a particular range of whole-person-scaled experience. It doesn't mean that the tissues of our body or our entire skull as a whole can't pick up radio. Maybe sometimes our brain uses teeth as an ear? (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/657/is-it-possible-to-hear-radio-broadcasts-through-your-teeth).
I accept my students may well get very different information from what I intend or the actual content of what I'm saying-doing. I don't know what the heat from dark matter is, but would no doubt warm my feet at its fire if suitably adapted.
I agree with Rupert Sheldrake that dark matter and dark energy are likely fictional. Their most amazing quality is to plug up the holes in a mechanistic worldview that we have found longer makes sense but refuse to consider the alternatives (http://vimeo.com/37792854
Dispelling the Ten Dogmas of Materialism and Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry)
Molecules have managed to get into information exchange without us even if we have found ways to explain some of this and change some of what happens. Affect one end of a molecule and different information appears at the other end.
Yes, everything in the universe has some kind of sense experience, independently of our own. In a single molecule, maybe it only occurs when something happens, or maybe it's every molecule of a certain type experiencing one vast macrocosmic experience.. who knows. We can't try to make sense of the experience of things quintillions of times more primitive than ourselves. I suspect there is a primordial sense of holding/receiving and releasing but that's only a guess. We can only know our version of something else's version. The only way we can know our native sense directly is internally.
Jon Frum cargo cultists no doubt glean different information from a convenient plane crash than I would. We used to say it was all about information exchange and the hard facts of observation were probabilities. Now we are 'detecting' stuff we can't sense as our 'reception devices' become more driven by theory to ground the information in our understanding - but our assumptions are still that the information was there before we could get at it. Maybe our understanding of what is 'out there' is still too primitive and information is not something we can yet 'see' in operation and will become a redundant concept.
I don't think there is any information 'out there'. There is only experiences which enable us to make sense of out there 'in here'. Making sense of it means bridging the gap, connecting the dots, taking a leap of faith, making a guess, etc, and in our case it is happening on many levels by billions of entities at the same time. Educated guesses upon meta-educated meta-guesses. In this way the separation between the sense we make and the sense the phenomena makes is figuratively elided on one level. We are figuratively united with the thing, it becomes part of us, which I think is what under-standing means (comes from PIE root *nter, as in entero...a settling within). In another sense of course, we remain separated literally from everything about the phenomena which we do not, and cannot understand because we are ourselves and not a radio antenna. Think of information not as a positive object but as a negative hole in 'everythingness'. Like scratching black wax to see the bright colors beneath. This is why precognition is not uncommon. We are informed through many scales of 'now', some large enough to seem like the future to our other, more tightly focused experiencers of smaller nows.
Craig
archytas
will try to get back. Physicists are to be found (we do the pub
together on the odd Friday) talking of information leaking from our
causal patch in the universe into others, allowing our part of the
universe to "decohere" into one state or another, resulting in the
universe that we observe. I usually quibble from some empiricist
point by asking how they can set up experiments of observations to
prove such, and they hiss 'chemistry bastard' on the way to get me
another pint. I go with your under-standing - within it I still stick
with the reality hypothesis believing I structure this only in part
and through 'design' I don't construct but carry.
On Mar 6, 1:16 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 1:47:18 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote:
>
> > The idea that information comes into being in a receiver sort of precludes
> > the idea of radio.
>
> That still models information as an object. I'm suggesting that it doesn't
archytas
How data can come to have an assigned meaning and function in a
semiotic system in the first place is one of the hardest problems in
semantics. One can turn to whether data constituting information as
semantic content can be meaningful independently of an informee. Data
(as relata) can have a semantics independently of any informee.
Before the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, Egyptian hieroglyphics were
already regarded as information, even if their semantics was beyond
the comprehension of any interpreter. The discovery of an interface
between Greek and Egyptian did not affect the semantics of the
hieroglyphics but only its accessibility. That is, meaningful data
being embedded in information-carriers informee-independently supports
the possibility of information without an informed subject. Meaning is
not (at least not only) in the mind of the user. This is the weak end
of such claims, to be distinguished from the stronger, realist thesis,
supported for example by Dretske [1981, Knowledge and the Flow of
Information, Oxford: Blackwell], according to which data could also
have their own semantics independently of an intelligent producer/
informer.
I tend to the realist hypothesis (as in structural realism). The Bar-
Hillel-Carnap Paradox states that a self-contradictory message even
contains too much information to be true! I must admit the
argumentation gets so complex I go with Sam's (not quite) notion of
poking a stick at the singularity!
Craig Weinberg
> There are some fairly standard arguments on information in semantics.
> How data can come to have an assigned meaning and function in a
> semiotic system in the first place is one of the hardest problems in
> semantics. One can turn to whether data constituting information as
> semantic content can be meaningful independently of an informee. Data
> (as relata) can have a semantics independently of any informee.
> Before the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, Egyptian hieroglyphics were
> already regarded as information, even if their semantics was beyond
> the comprehension of any interpreter. The discovery of an interface
> between Greek and Egyptian did not affect the semantics of the
> hieroglyphics but only its accessibility. That is, meaningful data
> being embedded in information-carriers informee-independently supports
> the possibility of information without an informed subject.
only single layer of semantic content. What I propose looks more like
this:
http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/slide19.jpg
http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/slide20.jpg
http://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/zig_stack.jpg
We can tell that Egyptian hieroglyphics seem like human language texts
because our frames of human experience include making sense of iconic
visual signals. A cat is not going to be able to tell that
hieroglyphics or Greek seem like language - writing is above the
anthropological threshold. A cat may be able to tell if you are angry
at it (a dog even more) but probably not a cockroach.
This indicates to me not that information exists independently of a
subject, but rather that subjects have many different channels of
sense which they share and do not share with other subjects. I think
that is it a mistake to take perception for granted - to assume that
because we do not understand an explicit cognitive meaning from a
given text that we are not already interpreting a variety of visual
semantic cues which allow us to categorize the text in a general way.
What could 'information' or 'data' be without some capacity to detect
it? What causal efficacy could it have? Nothing. Information that does
not inform something in some way is not anything at all.
> Meaning is
> not (at least not only) in the mind of the user.
organs, cells, and molecule. The way that sense works is that it is
not contained by volumes of matter, rather it is the interior
experience available through matter. It uses matter as an antenna and
tendril. It is subtractive rather than additive, so that when we turn
on the light in a room, rather than being bombarded with trillions of
'photons' or 'bits' of information which have to be assembled into
static images, our visual sense actively sees the concrete optical
environment of the entire room as it appears from our anthropological-
level perspective.
We see a continuous world which corresponds with our other sense
channels, thus tapping into a presentation of realism 'in here' which
faithfully (as far as such a complex and cumbersome thing can relate
as a single subject) recapitulates the conditions 'out there'. This is
not a solipsistic projection, although there is projection going one.
It is not veridical reception, as we are not universal receivers of
all truths of all perspectives. Instead it is the appropriate
interiority of the human organism that we are to relate to the many
worlds potentially accessible through our experiences as human beings
and even as individuals. Each of us may have extended sense ranges or
even budding sense channels which are not yet recognized by the
species at large.
> This is the weak end
> of such claims, to be distinguished from the stronger, realist thesis,
> supported for example by Dretske [1981, Knowledge and the Flow of
> Information, Oxford: Blackwell], according to which data could also
> have their own semantics independently of an intelligent producer/
> informer.
>
> I tend to the realist hypothesis (as in structural realism). The Bar-
> Hillel-Carnap Paradox states that a self-contradictory message even
> contains too much information to be true! I must admit the
> argumentation gets so complex I go with Sam's (not quite) notion of
> poking a stick at the singularity!
working from a mechanist model. There really is no plausible
explanation as to why, if information were concretely real, there
would be anything besides information, or how physics and information
would interact. What would be the purpose for all of the transductions
from one modality to another - ie, why have any senses at all if you
can simply download information from your environment directly? What
possible difference would it make to a computer, regardless of how
sophisticated, whether a given resource was seen, heard, smelt,
tasted, etc.?
With a sense-based realism model, information is revealed as an inside-
out model of realism. A shadow or silhouette of concrete experiences
on many different levels in which coherence is related through
accumulated experience ('time') rather than space. Information is only
a name for our experience of detecting similar patterns which we
understand as being common to multiple contexts. Our consciousness is
ultimately the common denominator of all that we consider to be
information. If we are trying to actually understand consciousness, I
think it is a catastrophic mistake of inversion to conceive of
'information' itself as an independent agent. It's a modern equivalent
of magic spells or phlogiston...an exercise in tortured reasoning to
prop up a mechanistic model which is expiring.
Craig
archytas
the point of many who taught me Craig - the position being 'everything
is information exchange' which seemed to me as helpful as
methodological solipsism. Data is always capta to some extent, but
this is a distraction from really doing stuff and not very important
in most contexts - philosophy so rarely is. If we wanted 'tortuous'
I'd recommend dynamic semantics. I don't see modern realism as
mechanistic and though I agree with your thrust, don't see our
consciousness as necessarily much to do with anything that matters
(though I retain the hope it might be and this may be the mental
equivalent of 'warp technology'). It may be that there is no
information world that we entangle in some analogue of sensing as we
do what we more easily regard as real, but then this 'real' is less
real than we once regarded it. So where does information come from?
It seems to pre-date us as a species, and may be coming from Lord
knows where in this universe or another. We carry the stuff in our
genes and these are in interaction with the environment to the extent
of massive activity in our DNA as a result of exercise, changing what
gets switched on and off. I'm led to suspect another 'meta-
information world' that somehow organises information's interactions
in the environment it finds.
I don't do philosophy largely because I can't shake a stick at it, but
sometimes I appreciate some of its products. I quite like Snell and
Lugwig on such matters as there being no 'leap' from alleged
mechanistic Newton to quantum ideas - however pedantic the explanation
it seems to me deductive and painstaking in the good sense. Of
course, lots of argument is really just people taking sides over what
doesn't matter. One might consider the future of information and what
it might be if we could experience both 'ends' of distant objects in a
wave equation at once.
On Mar 7, 4:40 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 10:42 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There are some fairly standard arguments on information in semantics.
> > How data can come to have an assigned meaning and function in a
> > semiotic system in the first place is one of the hardest problems in
> > semantics. One can turn to whether data constituting information as
> > semantic content can be meaningful independently of an informee. Data
> > (as relata) can have a semantics independently of any informee.
> > Before the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, Egyptian hieroglyphics were
> > already regarded as information, even if their semantics was beyond
> > the comprehension of any interpreter. The discovery of an interface
> > between Greek and Egyptian did not affect the semantics of the
> > hieroglyphics but only its accessibility. That is, meaningful data
> > being embedded in information-carriers informee-independently supports
> > the possibility of information without an informed subject.
>
> It seems like that only if we use a model of semiotics which presumes
> only single layer of semantic content. What I propose looks more like
> this:
>
archytas
Fungiculture in the insect world is practiced by ants, termites,
beetles and gall midges. Ants use the antibiotics to inhibit the
growth of unwanted fungi and bacteria in their fungus cultures which
they use to feed their larvae and queen. Ants not only evolved
agriculture before humans but also combination therapy with natural
antibiotics. Humans are just starting to realise that this is one way
to slow down the rise of drug resistant bacteria - the so called
superbugs. These antibiotics are produced by actinomycete bacteria
that live on the ants in a mutual symbiosis.
As humans we often make much play of the idea that our rational minds
do the inventing - yet we are clearly borne in more than that and
'science' in some senses is afoot without us.
einseele
Craig Weinberg
Also, it's important to not that converting the string "Fungiculture in the insect world is practiced by ants, termites, beetles and gall midges" into an understandable concept requires a human being who can understand English well enough to convert that alphanumeric string into something meaningful.
Craig
awori achoka
Thank you for this comparison, I've been observing the behavior of ants...their ability to communicate and adapt to changing environments is a marvel. Why do they keep doing this? Do they aspire to be anything special?
einseele
archytas
motivation' alleged necessary in our economic system Awori! I presume
ants don't read binary or anything else in our general sense, though
Carlos' point is on some other track. There was a time before ants,
though this presumably bore the information to create ants and their
chemical gardening abilities, and our meaning giving skills. Meaning
is generally within a form of life, so Carlos' binary is probably of
different meaning to an ant, or between me and my friend (though I
guess of it mattered he could bring me up to his speed). If Carlos
sends me a letter I can say, in some sense, where its information came
from, but this clearly leaves out history of a photon stuff.
We can speculate on the history of a photon, and no doubt on some
other "particle" if we lived off energy from dark matter and had
evolved in such circumstances. We might even be able to communicate
with such a society. Wittgenstein once described using language as
like climbing a ladder in the clouds! I wonder what our speculation
would be at a time when we've built an Alcubierre warp-drive, found a
way to protect its inner bubble from Hawking radiation and are off to
'eat some dark food'? Information does not seem static, but to do
with a context being built.
>
> read more »
archytas
speed - but however we think of this what information brings about
such a transport system? What does it mean for us to be aware of such
processes and be able to change them? Even in philosophy origin seems
endlessly deferred and we make it up in myth.
>
> read more »
awori achoka
At founding the original encoding determines our behavior and probably our fate...same thing goes for ants, termites and plants...but of all these beings only humans are moronic enough to produce and store instruments of mass destruction, able to completely destroy their own race. Why do we 'advanced' as presumed to be.... the ones who carry and perpetuate such primitive encoding?
einseele
archytas
Carlos says to a list we can keep adding to - so what? There are
prawns that see more colours than we manage and yet we once imagined
being able to discriminate many shades a mark of the superiority of
sophisticated, western man. We have just discovered that cosmic rays
are changing the chemistry of ice on the moon, perhaps part of 'life-
giving information'. What forms the address system? Even the I of
Descartes reads differently when not alone in terms of brain scans.
Much reading of information is only possible by excluding noise - and
sooner or later we read the noise too.
>
> read more »
awori achoka
Partly the problem has to do with the definition of knowledge as 'what we know'. This selfish exclusivist approach presurposes that 'others do not know'. It partly informs our flawed approach, to the search for other 'intelligences'.
Ants after deductive study pick a path to the source of nutrients....they all cumulativetively use that path until something ugly interferes with their pursuit. They share that space with harmonious regularity...no quarrels no wars over Who has more say or right. Humans, begin by excluding others, imposing hierarchy and soon greed overcomes reason. Why this flawed, primitive encoding in us?
archytas
at a bee hive raid by Japanese hornets. They behead the opposition in
thousands - almost like short-sword killings by victorious infantries
of the past or maybe the Rwandan genocide. Nature is red in tooth and
claw. The consensual harmony of insects is ruthlessly enforced by
hygiene operatives - dissenters are subject to high pitched screaming
and killings if this doesn't work (bees).
It wasn't unusual for quantum physicists to ponder on whether their
abilities put them in touch with the universe's quantum code. I don't
stray that far from Carlos' address frame really - but there's a kind
of 'so what' about this - it wouldn't be in my mind much in devising
experiments to see, say, what gene activity is caused by exercise,
other than in the background thinking of it all as a study of an
information exchange system. How these things have built up through
what we call time remains fascinating and what I find important (a big
issue in information) is the possibility human nature can escape the
worst of our genetic machines.
On Mar 20, 4:52 am, awori achoka <awori.ach...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Partly the problem has to do with the definition of knowledge as 'what we
> know'. This selfish exclusivist approach presurposes that 'others do not
> know'. It partly informs our flawed approach, to the search for other
> 'intelligences'.
>
> Ants after deductive study pick a path to the source of nutrients....they
> all cumulativetively use that path until something ugly interferes with
> their pursuit. They share that space with harmonious regularity...no
> quarrels no wars over Who has more say or right. Humans, begin by excluding
> others, imposing hierarchy and soon greed overcomes reason. Why this
> flawed, primitive encoding in us?
einseele
archytas
having been anywhere other than as it is addressed may mislead us.
Modern realism is always structured realism to help with the issue
that data is always spun with theory. I still like its 'big stick'
feel - maybe it's all the cricket I played?
>
> read more »
awori achoka
So, information is an end? Our understanding or not, of a ant's genome has nothing to do with its existence, it exists anyway!
Craig Weinberg
> So, information is an end? Our understanding or not, of a ant's genome has
> nothing to do with its existence, it exists anyway!
genome is predicated purely on the ribosome's ability to recognize or
at least reproduce that arrangement and our ability to recognize the
entire process as relevant to reproduction. Even the atoms themselves
may be only a text predicated on a common language of physical
substance which we can access through our body's access to laboratory
instruments. What happens in an ant exists, but any information about
it is a figment of interpretation.
Craig
awori achoka
So, information is an end? Since we are also It?
archytas
part of our bodies Craig.
On Mar 21, 5:42 pm, awori achoka <awori.ach...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, information is an end? Since we are also It?
Craig Weinberg
> So, information is an end? Since we are also It?
is not an end, it isn't even an 'it' in literal terms. Information is
a figurative term for how meaning is projected and acquired.
Craig Weinberg
than exists. Not sure what you mean about ant parts.
Craig
archytas
theory, start to genetically enhance to get other senses. There are
realist accounts of information Craig. I'll track one down and report
back - but I expect pedantry.
archytas
get really wordy - I'm taking the dog for a walk!
socr...@bezeqint.net
Book ‘ The big questions’ by Michael Brooks.
Page 195-196.
‘The laws of physics dictate that information, like energy,
cannot be destroyed, which means it must go somewhere.
Where did the information go? ’
========================…
socr...@bezeqint.net
awori achoka
Nowhere, because we exist in its realm...natural phenomena are it.
archytas
approaches to information and was quickly impressed enough to slope
off for a couple of pints. I generally prefer the realist hypothesis
(much modified) because alternatives are much more difficult and don't
seem to resolve anything. We have many conservation laws in physics
and chemistry and lots of fantasy on mirror-worlds and multiple
universes to cope with them breaking down. Economics and banking are
dumb enough to assume risk is not conserved if you wave enough maths
at it. Come exam time I'm not sure much information is conserved or
when looking a a fried hard disk. But then it is obvious the term
means many different things.
Trying to define data is tough enough.
On Mar 23, 1:24 pm, awori achoka <awori.ach...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nowhere, because we exist in its realm...natural phenomena are it.
socr...@bezeqint.net
(all elementary particles and all quarks and
their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
muons… gluons field ….. etc.) – were assembled in a “single point”.
It means that all information also was assembled in a "single point".
And then after big bang all particles flew in different sides.
#
Suppose, that every particle is the owner of some information.
Then it was impossible to create Intellect Existence by the chance
during as short time as 14 billions years after ‘big bang’.
The intelligence could have never appeared by the chances
according to Theory of Probability (as per the infinite monkey
theorem ).
#
Somebody gave another example.
He said that there are many – many different details.
And suddenly began strong hurricane and as result of this
storm the ‘ Boeing 777’ was created.
========.
archytas
Turok did some calculations that suggest all that might survive this
are some quantum fluctuations. Biologists have pondered on how there
could be enough information 'in evolution' to explain the diversity of
species ( a classic here - http://www.discovery.org/a/2177), but these
days we are inclined to stress epigentics rather than, say, mutation.
On Mar 24, 8:12 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" <socra...@bezeqint.net>
wrote:
Craig Weinberg
wrote:
> (all elementary particles and all quarks and
> their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
> all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
> muons… gluons field ….. etc.) – were assembled in a “single point”.
being a single point (having zero space) also means there was no time.
No time means the same thing as all time, which makes sense since
there is no frame of reference outside of the singularity with which
to establish any kind of sequence.
What I think this *must* mean is that the singularity is not an event
that happened x billions of years ago, rather it is an event which
never happened but which is perpetually projected ever further
backwards. As this happens, space expansion happens within the
singularity from within rather than the singularity expanding into an
infinite void. Such a void cannot exist outside of the singularity
since it is the singularity itself which is creating space and time,
as well as causality and sequence itself.
I call this the 'Big Diffraction', as it is no more an expansion of
matter into space as it is an ingression of non-matter into the
singularity. Instead of a cosmology which imagines a hypothetical
explosion at the dawn of time as viewed from a distance by a generic
voyeur, we must recognize that this is an impossible perspective as
the singularity cannot possibly have an exterior. It is not merely an
innocent way of conceiving a physical event, but actually hopelessly
confuses the reality of the thing. There was no explosion and no
expansion. Those are reverse engineered narratives based upon our own
scales of time, space, density, etc. At the 'time' of the actual
event, concepts like intensity and magnitude would be inconceivable as
they had literally not been invented yet. A singularity has no measure
or frame of reference, it is boundary-less in every sense, as it would
have to be in order to contain the entire cosmos condensed to a single
point-event. Within that point, must be all the potential for all
times and places as well as all mass-energy.
> It means that all information also was assembled in a "single point".
is subjective. It arises through the enactment of timespace (the
ingression of the vacuum into the singularity) as sensorimotive
experience which accumulates as significance.
> And then after big bang all particles flew in different sides.
> #
> Suppose, that every particle is the owner of some information.
> Then it was impossible to create Intellect Existence by the chance
> during as short time as 14 billions years after ‘big bang’.
> The intelligence could have never appeared by the chances
> according to Theory of Probability (as per the infinite monkey
> theorem ).
Craig
archytas
if we are just brains in vats - not that I'm keen on that old chestnut
or such matters as Putnam's "semantic disproof" of an instance of it.
The realists only insist on the real for what it does in explanation
as against other hypotheses, including acceptance of before human time
and distrust of such argumentive dodges as the world being created in
4004BC complete with memories and fossil record. I am very unsure
what we prod with out 'sticks' or our attention is attracted to. Some
of our equations work out better if two dimensions of time are
included and all origins turn out to be endlessly deferred, even that
of 'no time' if this universe was created in another.
archytas
wrong temporal order as in face-blindness and that information changes
depending on commutative or non-commutative declension. That sort of
expands just how much information there may be.
socr...@bezeqint.net
On Mar 25, 5:05 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
even that of 'no time' if this universe was created in another.
>
our universe was created in another universe -
in infinite spacetime vacuum - T=0K.
The natural phenomena begins from vacuum.
( vacuum quantum polarization - fluctuations)
And we exist in shadow of the vacuum.
As Herman Minkowski said:
' Henceforth, space by itself, and time by itself,
are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,
and only a kind of union of the two will preserve
an independent reality.'
===.
Craig Weinberg
wrote:
> even that of 'no time' if this universe was created in another.
>
> ============================.
> our universe was created in another universe -
> in infinite spacetime vacuum - T=0K.
> The natural phenomena begins from vacuum.
> ( vacuum quantum polarization - fluctuations)
> And we exist in shadow of the vacuum.
equations work out correctly, but it has no explanatory power. What
created the possibility of 'fluctuations' in a vacuum?
I think that eventually we will find that the fluctuations are in the
instruments we use to take measurements themselves and not external to
matter. Quantum is actually rhythmic qualia - lowest level common
sense of matter. Space and time are a true void, sense and motive are
primordial.
Craig
archytas
to 'mail' from outside. Your ontology seems credible Craig but I'm
not sure it helps other than as interesting speculation.
Craig Weinberg
> Socratus provides another Carlosian address that may still be subject
> to 'mail' from outside. Your ontology seems credible Craig but I'm
> not sure it helps other than as interesting speculation.
more falsifiable though? Superposition? Decoherence? MWI, String
Theory, Dark energy...to me uninteresting speculation.
Craig
socr...@bezeqint.net
On Mar 26, 1:33 am, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
That seems to be the cosmology of the moment,
and it may make quantum equations work out correctly,
but it has no explanatory power.
What> created the possibility of 'fluctuations' in a vacuum?
>
I think that eventually we will find that the fluctuations
are in the instruments we use to take measurements themselves
and not external to matter.
Quantum is actually rhythmic qualia - lowest level common > sense of
matter.
Space and time are a true void, sense and motive are primordial.
>
> Craig
1
The fluctuations are not external to matter
( as in Newtonian physics ) but depends on own internal
impulse of electron : h*=h/pi ( Quantum physics).
2
Which sense and motive are primordial?
The sense and motive to escape the infinite/eternal
homogeneous and monotony vacuum are primordial.
===.
Craig Weinberg
wrote:
>
> That seems to be the cosmology of the moment,
> and it may make quantum equations work out correctly,
> but it has no explanatory power.
> What> created the possibility of 'fluctuations' in a vacuum?
>
> I think that eventually we will find that the fluctuations
> are in the instruments we use to take measurements themselves
> and not external to matter.
> Quantum is actually rhythmic qualia - lowest level common > sense of
> matter.
> Space and time are a true void, sense and motive are primordial.
>
> > Craig
>
> =======.
> 1
> What created the possibility of 'fluctuations' in a vacuum?
> The explainable power of fluctuation in vacuum is Electron.
have no perfect vacuum.
> The fluctuations are not external to matter
> ( as in Newtonian physics ) but depends on own internal
> impulse of electron : h*=h/pi ( Quantum physics).
primordial, but electron pulse (and its sensorimotive correlate).
> 2
> Which sense and motive are primordial?
> The sense and motive to escape the infinite/eternal
> homogeneous and monotony vacuum are primordial.
break the suffocation of monotony, but that presupposes some kind of
sense - a feeling that the homogeneity of of the vacuum is in some way
undesirable and that there is a way to satisfy this feeling (on close
the opened sensorimotive circuit) through some kind of effort or
motive to transcend the primordial emptiness.
The assumption of primordial vacuum is a natural enough starting point
for Occidental thinking (because of the objective-subjective symmetry
of the cosmos, philosophy of mind has swung from the native (subject
biased) Eastern view to the post-Enlightenment Western (object biased)
reformation. In reality, I think it's an arbitrary starting point for
cosmology, and is more likely to have begun with a singularity of
'everythingness' which has, through self diffraction, maintained an
essential continuity in spite of an existential fragmentation. The
interference pattern of those two sense channels (interiority and
exterioty) give rise to perceptual-relativistic inertial frames which
are nested within each other literally through space and scale, and
figuratively through significance (increasing perceptual depth and
richness indicates increasing reconstitution of primordial
wholeness...it is subtractive and reverse temporal, negentropic).
Craig
> ===.
socr...@bezeqint.net
>
A singularity of your 'everythingness' is electron.
The richness of material world begun from fluctuation -
- polarization of primordial vacuum .
==.
socr...@bezeqint.net
Why electron is responsible for fluctuations in a vacuum?
Because an electron has its own m mass and q charge.
But (according to QED) by interaction with vacuum electron’s
mass and charge becomes infinite ( electron is hidden in vacuum
and we say he is virtual particle – antiparticle - antielectron –
positron)
And when we see the 'fluctuations' of vacuum it means electron
appears from vacuum, electron again acquire its usual mass and charge.
==========.
Craig Weinberg
On Mar 26, 9:59 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" <socra...@bezeqint.net>
wrote:
> A singularity of your 'everythingness' is electron.
entire universe.
> The richness of material world begun from fluctuation -
> - polarization of primordial vacuum .
could it mean for a vacuum to have any properties whatsoever?
> ==.
> Why electron is responsible for fluctuations in a vacuum?
> Because an electron has its own m mass and q charge.
> But (according to QED) by interaction with vacuum electron’s
> mass and charge becomes infinite ( electron is hidden in vacuum
> and we say he is virtual particle – antiparticle - antielectron –
> positron)
equations. The equations don't take sense into account so they are
probably wrongly interpreted and we have to make up all kinds of
science fiction to save the model.
If an electron is responsible for fluctuations in a vacuum then the
fluctuations are in the electron, not in the vacuum. The vacuum is
empty. There's nothing there to fluctuate. Virtual particle is just a
name for the fact that we don't understand what is going on and wish
for a deus ex particulus to save ourselves from the reality of having
to start over from scratch and reinterpret all of physics. It's just
stubborn sentimentality but now it it metastasizing into fanciful
delusions.
> And when we see the 'fluctuations' of vacuum it means electron
> appears from vacuum, electron again acquire its usual mass and charge.
relationships within matter and across space. The electron itself may
not even be real. As far as I know electrons have only been studied
using instruments made of matter, so electrons, photons, the whole
Standard Model could be nothing more than shared atomic moods and
motives (which look like particles, waves, images, rays, twinkles,
signs and symbols, depending on what perceptual inertial frame the
observation is grounded in).
I think that it is extremely likely that at present, our worldview is
in the last gasp of post Enlightenment modeling - a Dark Ages for
understanding awareness which has pathologized our science and
culture. As long as we look for emptiness and absence to find our
origins, we will only be able to find evidence of meaningless
mechanism and convince ourselves of our own non-existence.
Craig
archytas
white rabbit gods Craig - but you are right that much more is
speculative than we credit and we are missing something.
einseele
I'll take your final statement... we are missing something
May be the missing something is part of the structure itself and it is
the leif motive of science.
She looks for the missing something
IMO I agree with the "missing" part of the idea, but I certainly doubt
about the "thing".
The vacuum idea has its fundamentals, somewhere must be a vacuum, but
also in that same instance there is a "missing" idea which contradicts
the vacuum itself.
Should not be bad to install a concept which is at the same time empty
and missing .... ?
carlos
archytas
as ;special to human consciousness' (short article here -
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120327215704.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29&utm_content=Google+UK).
It's not that long since we were completely unaware of this
'world' (revealed through the 'magic' of glass). One view of vacuum
is that it is full yet statistically empty in our addressing of it.
We have problems in our use of words like 'things' and 'stuff'
Carlos. I once seemed stuck in endless consideration of social
construction and the reification of social facts - god knows
sociologists can be very boring! We label our accounting devices as
quarks, strings or whatever - such only having meaning in language and
that language has the chance to be right or dumb. Information strikes
me as a thing in some circumstances - like clues in a detective
investigation - or even if I raise a glass in salute to you Carlos and
you never know. But neither of these has to be a thing in the sense
my dog (Maxwell) is - and of course he has a rather different place in
my affections than a rock in the garden. Maxwell's nose-based
information world is very different from ours - he will have read 30
or so 'dog newspapers' before I get him to his favourite field in half
an hour's time. Yet we walk the same path. I would love to know as
he knows, but the odd glance of joy from him is enough. He is now
strutting about the house in apparent huff as I'm running late this
morning. Fuck knows what our various bacteria are 'thinking'.
One can end up in phenomenology and the separation of ideas and
thought and Heidegger's need to find clearing in which trees in bloom
have to be grounded in real experience for us to remember they have
'backs'. Not much use if you can't work out Nazis are evil. I
sometimes call Max 'Clerk' but he doesn't get it. He's just wandered
past flashing his dog smile, has a Platonic affair with our female
cat, both more real than the grin of the Cheshire Cat - yet again this
is labelling the real. Even the mythical Cheshire Cat is "real" in
what we mean by it, but if I start stroking one I've gone mad.
And so the vacuum is a Cheshire Cat and yet it makes more sense to be
going looking for the vacuum than the myth because of our suspicions
on its reality being realer than that of the mythical. A glass isn't
empty until we drain it of air. At that point it's emptier than it
was before in our shorthand language, but is only emptier of air. So
is what's left a thing? Or full of them? Smarter cookies than us
play in this void to us and find Casimir effects we then label as real
because we can do the trick again (or at least someone with the
special knowledge can).
We structure reality. Some of the ways we do this are intelligent,
others, like economics and politics, unbearably stupid. In terms of
the empty at the same time missing, we have spent most of our time as
a species making myths on the concept (the absent yet all encompassing
god etc.). God isn't real and yet might be -as might be the time we
see the vacuum rather than detect what travels in it - what hidden
information effects may spur us to search? Even they may be 'real'.
Craig Weinberg
working on - Multisense Realism. To paraphrase Robert Anton Wilson,
everything is real in some sense, unreal in some sense, both real and
unreal in some sense, and neither real nor unreal in some sense. By
mapping out the broadest categories and seeing the symmetries between
them, I think we can actually get a much more accurate and inclusive
model of consciousness and cosmos than we are currently working with.
In doing this, I see that all of the weirdness that we see in quantum
mechanics suggest that what we are looking at is a Cheshire Cat and
not a meat and fur cat. They are the signs and signals matter uses to
perceive itself, not matter itself. We are using objects in the world
of our body as our only trusted instruments and then mistaking their
feelings and meanings for other, smaller objects.
Once we change our interpretation of the lowest level (which doesn't
require any adjustment to the math) of the exterior realism of the
cosmos so that it is a most common sense realism of the interior of
the cosmos, then we can begin to build a model of how our own rich
interiority arises. In my understanding, interior realism is very much
the opposite of exterior realism in every way, so that as matter seems
to build assemblies of fragments from the bottom up, pscyhe seems to
divide multiplicities of wholeness (gestalts) from the top down as
well. It is subtractive rather than additive, making sense connections
by cutting through obstructions and revealing an underlying wholeness
which was 'there' already (discovered as well as invented).
Exterior realism is half as multiplexed as interior realism, with an
unambiguous arrow of time (which looks like 'collapsed wave functions'
at the 'classical limit). It is a black and white sense of the
universe which reflects only the most common bands of sense from the
shared inner states of all phenomena which our body interacts with.
Interior realism, in keeping with the metaphor, is a full spectrum
color sense of the universe which has deeper, and more subtle
awareness, but the deeper it is, the more private and ineffable it
becomes as it reaches for indivisible wholeness itself. To recover
externally viable sense from the innermost esoteric layers requires
figurative encapsulation - archetypes, metaphors, symbols, words,
formulas, math...loose ranges along the continuum from most subjective
and ambiguous to most objective and empirical.
Craig
On Mar 28, 4:42 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We know bacteria engage in a lot of activity we often regard
archytas
>
> read more »
awori achoka
The phrase, the 'universe is expanding'...is commonly thrown around in every day texts on cosmology, but no one seems to explain where 'it' is expanding to?
Is there an unbounded, timeless,...event free zone out there, that 'our'universe is expanding to? Are outer boundaries of the universe, the beginning or the end of time/information.
Any intelligent answers to a non physicist like me?
AA
archytas
There's something called 2,0 Theory in which our world is the shadow
world of one of a greater number of dimensions including more than one
dimension of time - but even if the physicists play with the numbers
of modern science in this it has shades of Plato. We are not much
better off in terms of origin than the tale of the world held up by a
turtle. We ask what holds the turtle up and are told it's another
turtle and after that turtles all the way down. Currently, even red
shift is under question owing to stars that still seem too old - and
so on.
On Mar 31, 5:56 pm, awori achoka <awori.ach...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The phrase, the 'universe is expanding'...is commonly thrown around in
> every day texts on cosmology, but no one seems to explain where 'it' is
> expanding to?
>
> Is there an unbounded, timeless,...event free zone out there, that
> 'our'universe is expanding to? Are outer boundaries of the universe, the
> beginning or the end of time/information.
>
> Any intelligent answers to a non physicist like me?
>
> AA
>
> read more »
socr...@bezeqint.net
On Mar 31, 10:10 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think we know Awori - but then I was confined to chemistry.
> There's something called 2,0 Theory in which our world is the shadow
> world of one of a greater number of dimensions including more than one
> dimension of time - but even if the physicists play with the numbers
> of modern science in this it has shades of Plato. We are not much
> better off in terms of origin than the tale of the world held up by a
> turtle. We ask what holds the turtle up and are told it's another
> turtle and after that turtles all the way down. Currently, even red
> shift is under question owing to stars that still seem too old - and
> so on.
>
>
is the shadow of the Vacuum’s world.
1.
The most fundamental question facing 21st century physics will be:
What is the vacuum? As quantum mechanics teaches us, with
its zero point energy this vacuum is not empty and the word
vacuum is a gross misnomer!
/ Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg /
2
‘ Somehow, the energy is extracted from the vacuum and turned
into particles....’
/ Book: Stephen Hawking. Pages 147-148.
By Michael White and John Gribbin. /
3
Although we are used to thinking of empty space as containing
nothing at all, and therefore having zero energy, the quantum
rules say that there is some uncertainty about this. Perhaps each
tiny bit of the vacuum actually contains rather a lot of energy.
If the vacuum contained enough energy, it could convert this
into particles, in line with E-Mc^2.
/ Book: Stephen Hawking. Pages 147-148.
By Michael White and John Gribbin. /
4
‘ All kinds of electromagnetic waves ( including light’s)
spread in vacuum . . . . thanks to the vacuum, to the specific
ability of empty space these electromagnetic waves can exist.’
/ Book : To what physics was come, page 32. R. K. Utiyama. /
5.
Vacuum -- the very name suggests emptiness and nothingness –
is actually a realm rife with potentiality, courtesy of the laws
of quantum electrodynamics (QED). According to QED,
additional, albeit virtual, particles can be created in the vacuum,
allowing light-light interactions.
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2006/768.html
6.
When the next revolution rocks physics,
chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum,
that endless infinite void.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything
#
. . . .etc.
==..
archytas
fluctuation here - http://www.casimir-network.net/IMG/pdf/Casimir_20effect.pdf
- maybe we're missing the information that is informing us on vacuum
nothingness much as one might forget the white expanse behind a black
dot when looking for black dots?
On Apr 1, 3:54 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" <socra...@bezeqint.net>
wrote:
> When the next revolution rocks physics,
> chances are it will be about nothing—the vacuum,
archytas
larger tales in response (they also react this way to the weedkiller
Roundup). What 'knows' what in information exchange here and how does
it develop? Our standard answer is chance over great time.
On Apr 2, 4:48 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There's a really good explanation of Casimir effects and vacuum
socr...@bezeqint.net
Where did the information go? ’
Page 195-196. /
1.
Modern biologists speak of information – in genetics.
( a set of chromosomes contains in its genes the information )
The information content in the nucleus of a single human cell
is comparable to that of a library containing a thousand volumes.
Question:
How many cells – volumes can a single man have and
how they can create a child during 9 months if according
to the probability theory it is impossible?
Question:
Does DNA Know Geometry ?
2.
When a radium atom decays, old electro - information is lost,
and the new information is not equivalent to the old.
It seems as if the elementary event in physics presupposes
not the conservation of information but its change.
Question:
What does law of transformation mean according to
the single quanta of information- electron?
3.
Black hole information paradox . . .
It suggests that physical information could permanently
disappear in a black hole, . . . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox
=========== . .
awori achoka
If information is preserved in Black Hole, then it rhetorically implies that, we live in world of multi universes...do not ask me for proof...am not a physicist.
awori achoka
> If information is preserved in a "Black Hole", then it rhetorically implies that, we live in a world of multi universes...do not ask me for proof.
socr...@bezeqint.net
ask Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker in his book:
The unity of Nature. Page 282.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_von_Weizs%C3%A4cker
And on the page 290 – 291 he wrote:
‘ Mass is information.’
And on the page 292 he wrote:
‘ Energy is information.’
=========.
My opinion.
What is information from Quantum’s Theory point of view ?
From Quantum’s Theory point of view ‘information’ must be
some smallest bit / quantum of information. But physicists
in our world ( according to QED ) use only one particle –
electron to transfer information. They don’t use any another
particles ( quark, muon, meson, tau, . . . etc )
Therefore I say: ‘ The smallest bit / quantum of information
is electron with energy: E=h*f. ‘
===.
socr...@bezeqint.net
There is a school of thought in modern physics that information
is never truly destroyed. Actually, it is more than a school
of thought because it is the primary school of thought and
all firmly accepted fundamental physics theory is founded
on information preserving principles. There are of course
practical issues in trying to recover information,
but this is a different issue entirely.
It must be remembered that we often use black box models
and statistical techniques to deal with very hard problems,
and hence much practical theory seems to show that information
is destroyed. However, this is an illusion,
and if more fundamental theory is used, this fact can be shown.
This concept was brought to the forefront in the famous long term
debate/battle between Hawking and Susskind about black holes.
The present view is that Susskind has won and information is
not even destroyed by a black hole, which was previously thought
to be true by Hawking. Hawking claimed to have proved that
Black holes are the the one thing that can and do destroy
information.
After the long battle, Hawking conceded he was wrong.
Speaking out against Hawking's statement that he proved that
black holes destroy information, Prof. Leonard Susskind commented,
"It violates one of the fundamental principles of physics, which says
nothing is ever lost completely. You may say, "How can you say
information isn't lost? I can erase information on my computer."
But every time a bit of information is erased, we know it doesn't
disappear. It goes out into the environment. It may be horribly
scrambled and confused, but it never really gets lost.
It's just converted into a different form."
The following reference says, "During this discussion Stephen Hawking
stated that the information inside a black hole is lost forever as the
black
hole evaporates. It took 28 years for Leonard Susskind to formulate
his theory that would prove Hawking wrong."
from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind
/ steveb /
__________________
Craig Weinberg
> There are of course
> practical issues in trying to recover information,
> but this is a different issue entirely.
> scrambled and confused, but it never really gets lost.
> It's just converted into a different form.
In a sense we can consider information the potential to be informed,
but that potential I think may be a theoretical abstraction. Something
only becomes information when it is recovered - when it informs
something else. To say that information is only converted to a
different form is misleading because in-form-ation is nothing but the
consequences of interpreted form.
Consider an event like stepping in a puddle. The actual event is over
in an instant, but records of the splash, in the form of mud stains on
your shoes, footprints in the mud, memories in the mind, vibrations of
the sound through the eardrum of a nearby squirrel...these could all
be used to forensically reconstruct a model of some aspects of the
event. The more access you have to examine everything in the
environment and the more knowledge you have about how to read those
details as a historical text, the better your model would ostensibly
be.
What if a scientist on a distant planet with a powerful telescope
takes a photo of you stepping in the puddle - now there is information
there too. What if the scientist mentions the photo on a radio show to
millions of aliens who are listening? Even though the Earth is
swallowed up by a black hole, the kids of the aliens on planet Uhaul
will still know about it, so we could say that the information has not
disappeared.
But if we can't recover the 'information' we can't really say that it
'exists' in the same sense. Once a sand castle washes into the ocean,
the form that the castle had is no longer present. We can have
cognitive or photographic representations that remind us of its
presentation, we can have measurements and coordinates which allow us
to build a mold to crank out copies of the castle, but each one of
these instances is its own presentation. It takes an interpreter to
equate one presentation with another as related in some way. Something
to see through the literal forms of matter-energy-spacetime to
internalize an semantic pattern which is figurative and orthogonal to
spacetime.
Once we see how deeply orthogonal and symmetrical pattern recognition
is to the idea of objects-in-space, we can begin to see that
understanding sense-making requires an equally contrary idea of
physics. Rather than stringing memories together in a linear group
like beads, I propose that memory is like the sensitivity of the
string itself. It is what holds the beads together. I don't think that
there are Platonic forms which act as index, rather it is more like
figurative grooves within our perception which we inherit through
nature and nurture and then add to and deepen individually through our
experience. It is subtractive rather than additive - and this is
important. Our perceptions fall into place. The 'ring of truth' refers
to this kind of meta-signalling of integrity. It fits with the rest of
the patterns in the inertial frame. It completes a puzzle that was
already there, and when the final piece is placed, there is closure of
an open circuit. Two different things/experiences/meanings are
figuratively elided as one and there is understanding.
A signal without an interpreter is noise, but sensitivity can allow an
interpreter to turn noise into signals. Probably no two interpreters
can recover the same signals in the same way but neither are any
interpreters of the same signals completely free to interpret the
signal in a way that cannot also be approximated by some combination
of other interpreters. The problem with information-as-physics is that
it conflates all forms of interpretation and takes them for granted.
This assumption of 'is'-ness fails to ring true. There is no
information, only sense experience which informs sense experience.
Craig
On Apr 6, 2:05 pm, "socra...@bezeqint.net" <socra...@bezeqint.net>
wrote:
socr...@bezeqint.net
F. ALEXANDER BAIS AND J. DOYNE FARMER
The notion of information as used by Shannon is a generalization of
the notion
of entropy, which _rst appeared in thermodynamics.
In thermodynamics entropy is an abstract quantity depending on heat
and
temperature whose interpretation is not obvious.
. . . .
It turns out that the concept of entropy or equivalently information
is useful
in many applications that have nothing to do with physics
.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2837v2.pdf
=====.
#
The mathematician John von Neumann said to
"the father of information theory" Claude Shannon:
" Name it "entropy" then in discussions
you will receive solid advantage, because
nobody knows, what "entropy" basically is ".
==========..
archytas
The debate on blackholes not destroying information hinges on space
travelling faster than light - so light in it can't escape. Some of
our equations (Neil Turok) have it that only quantum fluctuations
survive the big crunch. I am not sure the laws of ohysics prove
information is not destroyed.
On Apr 7, 5:57 am, "socra...@bezeqint.net" <socra...@bezeqint.net>
wrote:
> F. ALEXANDER BAIS AND J. DOYNE FARMER
>
> The notion of information as used by Shannon is a generalization of
> the notion
> of entropy, which _rst appeared in thermodynamics.
> In thermodynamics entropy is an abstract quantity depending on heat
> and
> temperature whose interpretation is not obvious.
> . . . .
> It turns out that the concept of entropy or equivalently information
> is useful
> in many applications that have nothing to do with physics
socr...@bezeqint.net
Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker in his book:
between information and DNA. He wrote:
‘ Organisms control their own growth by means of the genetic
information stored in the DNA molecules, . . . ‘ / page 281 /
‘ . . . the amount of information contained in the DNA . . . . is
the information corresponding to the concept ‘ genetic constitution’.
/ page 281 /
DNA is indeed the carrier of the genetic constitution.
/ page 282 /
#
My question.
How does DNA "draw" the shape of a human?
To draw the shape of a child from zygote DNA must know physics,
mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
How is possible to understand that DNA knows all these subjects?
If the child was born intelligent then it means that DNA knows
physics,
mathematics, geometry and . . . etc.
#
My question.
Where does DNA fit into the evolution debate?
DNA information is not static information.
DNA information is dealing with ‘ flow of information.’
DNA information is dealing with ‘progressive information.’
DNA information can evolve.
DNA information evolves from zygote to the intelligent child.
#
Our body is a multi-cellular organism made up
of perhaps 100 trillion different cells.
‘ The information content in the nucleus of a single human cell
is comparable to that of a library containing a thousand volumes.’
/ The unity of Nature, page 40. /
Question:
How can 100 trillion different cells (100 trillion libraries with a
thousand volumes in each) create a child ( by the chance )
it is impossible?
Today scientists think that everything begins from ‘Big Bang’.
And according to ‘big bang’ our Universe exist 13 (+) billion years.
My question :
Is it possible to create a child from cell [ zygote] only in 280 days
according to Probability theory?
If " yes "it will be take time not 280 days but it will be take
time
more than our Universe exist and then ,maybe, the pregnancy
woman was before the ‘ big bang’.
If ‘ no’ then the process must have aim.
It means somebody /something must manage this process.
===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
========.
socr...@bezeqint.net
If DNA contains code - instructions - bits, it means that
DNA knows physics, chemistry, mathematics, geometry . . . etc.
2
If the reason of evolution is ' by chance ' ( by the DNA chance )
then before was a pregnant woman who gave life to a child
who created the ‘ big bang’ theory.
===.