Hello,
May I add a comment, Arne?
AAAA: Quite right - but the reality is not an actor engaged in acts of
information
exchange.
Not an actor. But a huge network of actors engaged in information exchange.
Best regards,
Gordana
Arne Kjellman wrote:
Thank you for you reply Andrei:
So I would not like to consider fields as material structures, but as
information structures.
AAAA: To me a structure (regardless what is the essence of it) is a
model - something imposed on human experience by a mind.
The dichomoty REAL/UNREAL -- yes!
AAAA: If I read you right I think we then are agreed then that "real"
depends on a consensual definition - and that it is NOT up to
experimental physics to decide in this matter. But then is also
"reality" an outcome of a set of social decisions - a pure belief? In
case it then doesn't make sense to say that "reality" (or any object
at all) is pre-given to man in his acts of observation. That is to
say to proceed from the assumption that there is a "unary world given
to man" is highly misleading. To my mind it would be nicer be able to
show that the individual knower refers to his personal experience
(priverse) when he says "universe" - and he has by years of training
learnt to speak about (model) his priverse in a way that actually
refers to some common behind-lying stability - even if we cannot know
anything else but the feeling of this stability (i.e., cannot
explicate this experience by the use of concepts). In that view no
"information" is passed over from reality but simply rises in the mind
(by his acts of conceptualisation) of the thinker. THE BIT RISES IN
THE MIND OF THE THINKER by means of his acts of conceptualisation and
can be used in communication by other thinkers trained in a similar
way of conceptualisation.
I also agree with Igor - but to my mind something is missing here:.
Please allow me to exercise my formal "Marxist" education.
The world out there does not know the word "matter". Matter is a primary
philosophical concept, our axiome that we introduce to deal (to
model) the
real world. The concepts of "field", "particle" are derivatives of this
axiom, and space and time are also axioms. Therefore if we go down to
the
basics, (deviating from the applied science which deals with matter
casually), we should always keep in mind that we may change the
axioms if
necessary. The world will not change, only its description.
AAAA: I fully agree - but you forget to tell that the axioms in use must
indubitably defined. And they are not - neither "matter" nor "real" or
"information". This is so because uncertainty of definition causes
uncertainty of meaning and language. The point of my asking the
question was
to show that the eventual definitions (that we are lacking of today)
must be
based on scientific consensus, which these FIS-discussions clearly shows.
The world out there does not know the word "matter".
The world will not change, only its description.
AAAA: See how easy a slip of the tounge can accidentally set the stage
of the
discussion - use of the conception of a "unary world" at the same time
proposes the use of a
realist language. In the subject-oriented approach there are as many
worlds
(priverses) as there are living beings - so confusion easily occurs..
One of the ways to do so is to introduce information as a primary
category, which therefore needs no explanation or proof.
AAAA: Of course even a primary category needs of an explanation - we
need an
explanation how of how we should use the term so introduced.(its doesn't
explain the "reality" but on the other hand the model terms we use.)
In order to answer a
question like "Is X an real?" we need an explicit definition of real
--- or when asking "Is
Q information?" we need an explicit definition of information - otherwise
these questions are clearly undecidable - and unscientific - and can
be the
subject of debate for ever.
If we think a bit, any interaction is in fact exchange of information.
AAAA: Quite right - but the reality is not an actor engaged in acts of
information
exchange. See my reply to Andrei above
Best wishes
Arne
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
