Steven - are you saying that information 'is nothing'?
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith
To: Biosemiotics
Cc: Peirce Discussion Forum (peirc...@iulist.iupui.edu)
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 1:22 PM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8138] Article on origina of the
universe relevant to some recent discussions on these lists
Stunningly comical. Energy from information ... an unplausible mathematical
description of something from nothing. It goes to show what you get from an
ungrounded purely mathematical education.
Steven
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 9:47 AM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote:
Dear lists,
The following article is relevant to issues of “What came before the Big
Bang?”, the evolution of laws in the universe and some others. It cites, among
others, David Layzer and myself, and generally follows the approaches that we
have argued for. It also brings together other related material from other
sources related to symmetry breaking (information formation, and, if on a
cosmic scale, law formation). In particular it invokes the “no boundary
conditions” requirement for a satisfactory cosmological theory (favoured by
Hawking, Smolin, Layzer and many other cosmologists). The authors give this
condition as that the universe originated in a singularity that is not
knowable, since it contains no information. Information, here, is of course the
physicists’ notion of “it from bit”, used in cosmology, the study of black
holes and in some branches of Quantum Theory (quantum computation and quantum
field theory in particular), according to which energy and matter are
incidental, and information (distinctness) is fundamental.
The paper is Spontaneous Creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo
Maya Lincoln
Electronic Address: maya.linc...@processgene.com
Affiliation: University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel
Avi Wasser
Electronic Address: awas...@research.haifa.ac.il
Affiliation: University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel
It can be found online with a good search engine.
The paper is a sketch of the theory rather than a theory (as they say “a
first step”). I don’t think it differs all that much from David Layzer’s views,
judging by my discussions with him about twenty years ago. But perhaps it is
more boldly stated. I am not satisfied that it really resolves the issue of why
there is something rather than nothing, but if it does, it makes the existence
of the Universe necessary rather than contingent.
Cheers,
John
John Collier, Philosophy, UKZN, Durban 4041
http://web.ncf.ca/collier
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with
the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
