[Fis] Reply to John & Jerry (7 July Posts)

[Marcus Abundis]

JOHN (re 7 July post):
• Your abruptness is understandable. I have seen your “battle to take a
view of information [as including] physical properties that has a dynamics
of its own.” First, I opposed this “minority view”(?), so I was an
opponent. But after investing time (stirred by your posts!) to better grasp
subtleties in modeling quantum information, and more, I saw an acute gap in
my thinking. I *now* see it as an important issue to “nail down.” The
extent of my thinking now is covered in paper #2. Also, I sense your view
remains a minority view within FIS, so frustration is expected. Still, even
if we disagree on how to address the matter, I hope you now see that you
are not a ”lone voice” here!

> My belief is that a unified approach to information is <
> possible that ties together the various ways it has been<
> used in science.<
• At the least we can do better than we have done so far!

>In the black hole case, the issue is boundary dynamics.<
• Yes, a sense of boundary dynamics tracks Terry Deacon’s (and others?)
view of constraint. My view differs some in that I emphasize “operative
levels” and “referent locales” – which I see as a useful of *further
analyzing* boundary dynamics/constraints, ACROSS domains. I see other
points in your post, some of which I agree and others I may quibble over,
but nothing material – so, issues for another day.

> Laws governing energy just aren’t sufficient to analyze <
> some basic physical processes, <
• Amen brother! This, is a much bigger topic and could last years in
discussion. So, as Feynman did, I will just “point that out” and quickly
run in the other direction!
(Pedro: I do likewise with the origin of Life).

> I don’t think that information has meaning [in] itself.<
• I would be interested in your thoughts after paper #2.


JERRY (re 7 July post):

Thanks for this note . . .
> I find the term “a priori” to be rather mis-leading <
> *relative to other usages*. < [emphasis added]
• Your reservation is reasonable – in fact this can be said of any attempt
at *any* “ontological modeling.” But, I am unsure of how much of this post
is meant for *me* versus the Biomathics folks. For my part, I use a priori
in a very narrow way (initial: “what comes before information” – focused on
“meaning”) so I cannot address “relative to other uses,” as I intend no
other uses. I try to cover this issue early in the introductory text by
differentiating analytic philosophy and phenomenology (okay, too briefly
noted!).

>“a priori” does not encompass the deep practical problems<
• Assuredly true! I can go further and say this is a typical (chronic?)
risk in using analytic philosophy (e.g., thought experiments); I target a
middle ground of pragmatism.

> one may say your artificial terminology *only concerns* <
> the punctuation of Shannon-informed sentences.<  [emphasis added]
• If I understand you correctly (nice phrasing!), I would say *builds upon*
rather than “only concerns.” As noted in other posts, I use Shannon,
Bateson, Darwin (accepted universal aspects?) as structural fundaments. So,
of course, Shannon is there, but not to the exclusion to other “meaningful”
aspects.

> align with certain of Pedro’s views . . . except the <
> dynamics are more perplex than he implies.<
• I too agree, especially the later. Pedro seems to hold a view that he and
I disagree, but I have difficulty seeing much to oppose. MAYBE our
disagreement is in whether one preferences a biological view over a
physical view (per note to John above). In some respects, this also seems
to be Loet’s argument with Pedro(?). My sense is that a *bio-physical
account* is needed – which I think aligns with Steven Ericsson-Zenith’s
thoughts, and which I think Terry Deacon targets as well.

> a comment about the “Integral Biomathics” hypothesis. In<
> my opinion, it is deeply flawed . . .ignore the role of <
>electric fields in creating, from sub-atomic physics . . <
> The physical “a priori” is missing <
• I agree, the session was frustrating for me especially as my few mild
inquiries, attempting to explore this, were met with defeating silence
(insert sad face). Also, here you point to an “energetic aspect” that John
also notes (above) and which is especially problematic.

> . . . the failure to envision logical paths between the <
> inanimate and the animate. <
• So you ALSO look for a bio-physical account!? (insert happy face)

Sincere thanks to you, John and Jerry, for your thoughts.

Marcus

MarcusM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160709/8a310edb/attachment.html>