Information before life?

-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: ROEDERER JUAN GUALTERIO <roederer@ictp.trieste.it>
An: Multiple recipients of list FIS <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. Mai 2002 10:56
Betreff: First comment

Dear Juan and Gente FIS,
i would like to comment your comments, from a sociological point of view:

you wrote:
>Concerning the ongoing discussion, let me turn specifically to the issue
of "Does information play any role in purely physical (non-life)
interactions?", or, equivalently, "Was there information before life?". I
try in my paper to justify negative answers to both questions.<
Yes, one may try it and succeed in the attempt. One does not want to enter
the world of information, but is already inside. There are already
interactions ongoing, like in society. Particles "behave", they have virtual
properties like colors, ressonances and zero energy levels (as a
sociologist, my knowledge is of course limited in quantum physics).

Thats why the collegues speak of
>"When interacting with an other object, a physical object will first
'evaluate' the information .... E.g., a charge recognises the Coulomb
field of an other charge and will interact with it......"<

I think, in multidisciplinary work, this has to be at least allowed, althoug
distinction has to be made to esoteric approaches.

But why cant you accept such language in physics, that uses brain function
metaphors.
You ask: >what part of the object (or the particle) does the evaluating
or the recognizing? <
Its not a part, its a function, a reflexive function of the matter itself.

>How long does this process take?>
It takes the time it needs to complete an entire cicle or phase of the
movement.

< The same applies to
the statement "..a given mass, when it 'feels' a force, cannot make
distinction that the source of this effect was an other mass (gravitation)
or an inertia force"? <

Ok, it does not feel, it is "attracted" by gravity. Attraction is a special
kind of feeling isnt it?

You say: One needs a BRAIN to select, seek or decide,
I would say.
One needs just a BRAIN-FUNCTION to do so.

> we should realize that
this is information for us observers--it does not control any of the
natural processes involved unless they pertain to living matter. In a
biological system, indeed, information is an active participant in its own
organization, behavior and multiplication, and information exists and
operates in total independence of any outside observer".<

Do you think that there are no observation-functions in physical states, as
an active participant in its own organization. You may believe it or not.
:-)

>Of course, we cannot forbid ourselves thinking in these terms--we do it
all the time. <

I agree with you in this point. So while we do so, we should look on how we
do it. At this level, the information approach is more than necessary, dont
you think? If there were no information processes in physical acts, nobody
would ever have the ideia of any kind of information possible. Except God,
of course.
But appealing to God in a context
where it is not necessary (while perfectly possible given our cognitive
apparatus which happens to work with it) is like insisting in the use of a
clearly defined, but physically meaningless quantity.

>Please note that in the paper I start my discussion by turning to the
process if "interaction" (between two given systems) as the departing
point, as the most basic concept. <

Juan, thats what we all try to work out. Social action is interaction, you
may believe it or not.

To <avoid several semantic and subjective difficulties< we have to go trough
this discussion.

Gottfried, from Vienna
Received on Thu May 16 12:53:22 2002