Steven, You can use words however you want, but to criticize a view because it uses words differently than you do and to put your own interpretation on it is just silly, and should be dismissed and disregarded.
There is certain information in the paper. Like all information it requires interpretation to be meaningful. You seem not to understand this. I think there are severe problems with the paper, but the ones you find laughable are very much beside the point. Irrelevant. To be dismissed as pointless. Misconceived. John From: stevenzen...@gmail.com [mailto:stevenzen...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith Sent: March 30, 2015 2:35 PM To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Steven Ericsson-Zenith; Biosemiotics; Peirce Discussion Forum (peirc...@iulist.iupui.edu) Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8138] Article on origina of the universe relevant to some recent discussions on these lists Information is a way of speaking about that which adds to knowledge and identifies cause. Where I use the term "knowledge" in the general Liberal Physicalist sense to refer to that which determines subsequent action. Steven On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote: Steven - are you saying that information 'is nothing'? Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith<mailto:ste...@iase.us> To: Biosemiotics<mailto:biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee> Cc: Peirce Discussion Forum (peirc...@iulist.iupui.edu)<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:maya.linc...@processgene.com> Affiliation: University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel Avi Wasser Electronic Address: awas...@research.haifa.ac.il<mailto: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<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto: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 .
