[Fis] "no new and doubtful physical concepts need to be introduced"

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

This is a response to both Stan and John, but especially Stan since John wanders to the non-physical.

Shannon’s perspective is not one of “choice,”  this suggests some proactive and there is no physical proactive in Shannon. Mathematical randomness is not logical choice. There is no force tending toward one thing or another.Indeed, I believe that to suggest information has physical action is contradictory in Joseph’s model.

However, I would accept such a proactive if you can define it well enough (as I believe I have in Flexible Closed Structure and as Benjamin Peirce hinted at when he referred to “will” or covariant “spirit”). But let me be clear that such a physical proactive would necessarily be covariant with other physical forces, and necessarily lead to life and sensation, and hence not, in fact, be a “dual aspect."

Regards,
Steven



> On Jul 18, 2016, at 7:41 AM, Stanley N Salthe <ssalthe at binghamton.edu> wrote:
> 
> Steven, Joseph --
> 
> This depends upon what are the “dual aspects” of information.  Very generally, on the basic Shannonian perspective,  information is a selection from among possibilities.  Matter does this physically, and at small scale is never at rest, always choosing. Then there are the consequences of these choices -- interpretation.  Interpretation has a basic physical meaning as the consequences of the choices.
> 
> STAN
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <steven at iase.us <mailto:steven at iase.us>> wrote:
> Dear List,
> 
> A few days ago Joseph Brenner wrote the following :
> 
>> … I conclude that no new and doubtful physical concepts need to be introduced to address the essential aspects of life, mind, and information. That information has dual aspects has been more or less explicit in everything I have tried to write in the last eight years.
> 
> This has bothered me from a number of perspectives, it sounds reasonable but is in fact deeply flawed. I worry that others may take it seriously and so I step from the shadows. The argument seems to be an advocacy of dualism and information mysterianism, but I doubt that Joe sees it this way.
> 
> For example, consider the biophysical motions necessarily involved in sensation, thought, and consideration when going to the store and the selective motions when reaching the store. Joe suggests that the dual aspects of information in a conventional physics is sufficient to explain these actions or motions, I simply cannot accept this. It is rather like saying that gravitation and electromagnetism are dual aspects of matter - and even though we have two clear and mathematical theories of each no physicist believes that this is the case.
> 
> I am especially concerned with the introduction here of the dismissive idea of “doubtful physical concepts” that seem to me to open the door of judgementalism.
> 
> As a reminder, Relativity was once considered a “doubtful physical concept.”
> 
> Can anyone defend Joe’s position?
> 
> Regards,
> Steven
> 
> --
>     Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith, Los Gatos, California. +1-650-308-8611 <tel:%2B1-650-308-8611>
>     http://iase.info <http://iase.info/>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160718/d7882c88/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160718/d7882c88/attachment.sig>