“It from bit.” Information as the ground of “stuff”. Well I guess you have to have a modicum of understanding of the physics (my original field). To understand what is meant by the slogan it helps to study the writings on the topic of Wheeler, Gell-Mann and Seth Lloyd, and the literature on Hawking radiation helps (I’d stay away from Paul Davies’ work, which is too idealistic for my taste and probably yours). I have been thinking of information as “stuff” since I was an undergraduate, and I have also talked with a number of these people or their students, and was able to match the idea up with my understanding of physics. I suppose these interactions were important to my understanding in the way that Kuhn argues that membership in a research group is required to fully understand how a research program can be carried forward.
I’ve been asked on occasion what entropy is in job interviews and I have to say that you can’t understand it in a few words. You need to work with it, dealing with real problems. Some very smart people I know got it wrong in their undergraduate physics and physical chemistry course. It is not an easy concept. The relationship between entropy and information (as stuff) is at least as difficult, but opens the door to understanding information as stuff. BY the way, one of my students, Scott Muller, took my ideas of intrinsic information and origin of information through symmetry breaking much further than I did in his PhD thesis, published as Asymmetry: The Foundation of Information https://books.google.com.br/books?id=oMFsko4E9FQC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=asymmetry+principle+of+information+muller&source=bl&ots=lO024N84sa&sig=1LDiHZu1Jyet8ABBpTPZ3NJ-UUc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9LsZVdn8C8P3yQS-4YDQAQ&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=asymmetry%20principle%20of%20information%20muller&f=false Scott uses group theory to show that information content is not a relative quantity, as Jaynes thought, but is specific to the asymmetries in a structure. He gives a number of simple examples, but the argument is fairly abstract. But as I was suggesting above, the meat is really in the applications to real cases and the capacity to extend them to other cases. Scott’s background is in physical chemistry (PhD), philosophy (PhD) and programming (his occupation). That said, so far the article I initiated this discussion with is a step too far for me. But it does illustrate, right or wrong, that time needn’t exist prior to the universe, and that there is another, logical, sense of priority. If we accept Rosen’s idea of logic mirroring causal connection, then this latter is a form of causal priority. The problem I see is not the use of the information concept, but the basis of the distinction space and what determines it. The paper gives nothing but existence and non-existence, which is pretty spare. John From: stevenzen...@gmail.com [mailto:stevenzen...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith Sent: March 30, 2015 5:50 PM To: John Collier Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: [biosemiotics:8162] Re: Article on origina of the universe Here's my problem with this. Simply stating that information is "stuff" is insufficient. "It from Bit" is a cute slogan but nowhere (and I mean NOWHERE) near good enough. Steven On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:20 PM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za<mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za>> wrote: Yeh, the sort of information talked about in the article is “stuff”. It from bit. John From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>] Sent: March 30, 2015 5:18 PM To: Biosemiotics; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: [biosemiotics:8156] Re: Article on origina of the universe Steven - I'd agree that information is, as it exists, an action. In my view, matter only exists as 'organized' and thus is in a differentiated form, which is to say, it is 'in-formation'. BUT this organization operates within networked interactions; in other words - there is no such thing as, for example, an isolate 'bit' of matter unconnected to other matter. Everything is interactive, is networked, is in that sense, 'in action' and in interaction. So, I would say that this is an 'active description of information'. Not a passive definition. i don't think that energy or matter exist per se. They exist only as in-formed, as organized into a particular differentiated unit - i.e, as information. As we know, energy exists in our universe only as matter (Einstein)...and I'm agreeing that this matter isn't unorganized but is organized into a differentiation from other matter. However, you and I disagree on the meaning of information. You seem to say that it is 'ideas'; while I am defining information as organized matter. The analytic outline of this organized matter, the conscious sign of this organized matter - is an 'idea'. But that is secondary to the basic ontological reality that is information..i.e., that organized unit of matter. I'm not saying that ideas have a physical basis - for they may not. eg, a unicorn has no physical basis. I'm not talking about ideas at all. Information is not the same as an idea, in my view. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith<mailto:ste...@iase.us> To: Biosemiotics<mailto:biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee> ; Peirce Discussion Forum (PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu)<mailto:PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu)> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 4:05 PM Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8151] Re: Article on origina of the universe I think this brief discussion is most instructive and it may highlight the source of much discontent over the years in the community discussing the Perigean works. Pierce put ideas first. So if we take this position then I begin to understand Edwina's position as Ideal. And in this sense she may be correct - all though I have some dispute with her passive definition of information. In Shannon's terms, information is an act. However, as I pointed out in the recent discussion on Peirce's definition of evolution, no Peirce family member ever dismissed the ontological world, and their long term goal was to build the bridge between pure mathematics, rigorous and impartial ideas, and the physical sciences, the world in which these ideas exist. As Einstein points out, there is no difference between energy and matter - but again, I am puzzled by Edwina's description. However, the hierarchy she describes does make some sense. Energy exists as matter (Einstein) and matter "exists" (and can be spoken of) as information. So energy appears fundamental in her model. I would not disagree with that had it not been for ... ... her confusing assertion that "not energy, nor matter." By asserting that neither matter nor energy exist, the measurable subjects of our experience, and that only ideas (information) exists, the world is vacuous. There is not basis but ideas. Ideas manifestly have a physical basis and to state otherwise, in my mind, is denial. It the inverse argument of those that argue that our feeling of ideas (often called "consciousness") is an illusion. Also, nonsense. Edwina may be happy with such assertions, but it does not satisfy me. Steven On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote: Stan- no, matter does not exist before/prior to information. Matter=information. Since, to be existent as matter, it must be organized. This means, that it is information. Information is fundamental. Not matter or energy - for they do not exist 'per se'. Energy exists as matter and matter exists as information. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Stanley N Salthe<mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu> To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee<mailto:biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 2:59 PM Subject: [biosemiotics:8150] Re: Article on origina of the universe Edwina -- Your information is 'matter-that-is-organized' suggests that matter exists before, or is prior to, information. Is that right? STAN On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote: Ah, so, to you, 'information is a way of speaking about something'. To me, information is 'matter-that-is-organized' such that it is differentiated from other matter. This matter exists because it is in-form-ed, i.e., organized within a particular form. Therefore, I agree with the outline provided by John Collier. To me, information has nothing to do with the secondary level of speaking about something. And of course, no requirement therefore for 'adding to knowledge' and 'identifying cause'. Those are secondary levels. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith<mailto:ste...@iase.us> To: Edwina Taborsky<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca> Cc: Steven Ericsson-Zenith<mailto:ste...@iase.us> ; Biosemiotics<mailto:biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee> ; Peirce Discussion Forum (peirc...@iulist.iupui.edu)<mailto:peirc...@iulist.iupui.edu)> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 1:35 PM 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<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<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 .
