[Fis] Thinking Out Loud – a “meaning (-ful/less) continuum”

[Marcus Abundis]

As I reflect on the prior postings I wonder if I have taken the notion of
“meaning versus meaningless” information and created a false dichotomy. I
now have an alternative that I would appreciate some thoughtful “push back”
on, from those inclined.

The problem of meaningful versus meaningless information also shows in
Searle’s notion of “observer dependent” versus “observer independent”
events (in discussing consciousness). So I don’t think the confusion we
(some?) wrestle with here is unique to our conversation. The “solution”
lies in seeing that to give an observer special status commits an
“anthropic error,” instead of simply seeing an observer as but another
element within the larger events of a recombinant cosmos. I have a hard
time thinking that this is an original idea, so better-read members of this
list can point me to the correct reference. Still, I explain this (new to
me) “alternative continuum” as follows:

Case #1: Imagine a cosmos of three element types (X, Y, and Z) where all
possible recombinant roles are minimal and highly regular (e.g., protons,
neutrons, electrons?). Any time they encounter each other, elements come
together in a regular manner with few (random) variants – due to elemental
simplicity. This seems like a meaningless, purely mechanical cosmos – in
fact, there is no need for complex notions of “variable meanings” as there
is no place/need for an “observer.” Things just happen (recombine) the way
they always happen, regardless of what anyone may or may not observe or
think.

Case #2: Imagine a cosmos of six element types (U, V, W, X, Y, and Z) where
all possible recombinant roles are more numerous and less regular.
Elemental encounters now have much more probabilistic outcomes, with
certain regular effects and a few “surprising” effects (e.g. molecules?).
The surprises (randomness) leave room for subsequent novelty – even if
novel occurrences are rather minimal and later diminishing. Still, this
“novelty" indicates a special case, perhaps “meaningful” in that NEW
regular events may arise. This novelty can occur mechanically, but the role
of a trial-and-error “observer” can expedite things, with an observer
attributing variable meanings to different states, to develop its
trial-and-error conduct.

Case #3: Imagine a cosmos of 26 element types (A – Z) where the possible
recombinant roles are now vast and often irregular – due to elemental
variety. The regularity of Case #1 and Case #2 is still evident (as part of
that variety), but the “randomness” and novelty that can now occur is
greatly increased. As such, the need for “observed” differences (with
“variable meanings”) grows tremendously in order to expand the prior
trial-and-error conduct. This expansion now entails an anticipatory quality
of the “fantastic” (scientific expectation, mystery, the tao, etc.?).

As I reread these notes, they feel rather raw (sophomoric?) – but as this
“thinking” seemed germane to what is presently on the table . . . I thought
I would at least “throw it against the wall” and see what sticks. Of
course, this may involve Terry’s notion of morphodynamics (and others re
“human thermodynamics”) and points to the nature of emergence, which at
some point must be covered if a full discussion of “information” within
four domains is ever to be realized.

As before, my thoughts for what they are worth – yours are appreciated in
return.

[image: --]
Marcus Abundis
[image: http://]about.me/marcus.abundis
<http://about.me/marcus.abundis?promo=email_sig>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20150701/4e60e4de/attachment.html>