That is not the source of my criticism. My criticism is toward the mathematics, that make not sense what so ever.
Steven On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:03 AM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote: > 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> > wrote: > > Steven - are you saying that information 'is nothing'? > > > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@iase.us> > > *To:* Biosemiotics <biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee> > > *Cc:* Peirce Discussion Forum (peirc...@iulist.iupui.edu) > <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 .
