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
Oh, I think they make sense. The question is whether the mathematics can do
what the authors claim. This requires a bit deeper analysis than you have
shown, so I retain my belief that you are considering what they say as having
interpretation that fits your usages, and probably not theirs. Of
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
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
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
Not enough detail to understand what your beef with it is, Steven. They refer
to some plausible work that argues that information is logically prior to
matter and energy (not temporally on most accounts) and time (or at least
temporal direction). What I have trouble with is the idea that the
Again, referring to my previous posting, arguments that place information
first appear to be arguing from the position of strict idealism and
dismissing the ontological world.
Apart from this, we appear to not disagree.
My particular concerns are very much the same. Beginning with bits is a
I understand what you say but that really is not it. I do try to interpret
mathematical physics in non-philosophical ways. The base assumptions have
no justification and the mathematical leaps are simply not credible.
Steven
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:08 AM, John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za
