Re: info & physics

From: heiner benking <[email protected]>
Date: Tue 21 May 2002 - 10:22:14 CEST

Dear Rafael
how about <informs - creates AND "co-creates" > ?
as this "heureka" thing is something where in a group something often is
"triggered" and then explored and elaborated by a creative/ingenius "mind".

ANYWAY we have been trying to fiddle with this at the lastest IFSR - FUSCHL
2002 meeting a few weeks ago: maybe you want o have a look?:
http://open-forum.de/AGORA-Fuschl2002-lenser-benking.htm

It also goes well with my discussion piece I think and our fumblings with
the BERLIN-BRANDENBURG Academy of sciences about SCIENCE POLICY STUDIES. More
on request.

best

Heiner

> Karl,
>
> what we are discussing now (concerning
> the physical/biological/psychical...) status
> of information are less theological and
> more ontological or metaphysical questions.
> The question of being underlies this
> discussion, for better for worse.
> Of course it is possible to say: everything
> that is, is information (as we can say:
> everything that is, is matter or whatever).
> This can be understood in several ways:
> 1) things (or: what is) are information (similar
> to Pythagoras: things are numbers)
> 2) there are some things that are informational
> (particularly: that exist as 'digital' information)
> 3) we can look at things (including nature)
> >from the point of view of information (i.e. of
> informational processes) but this does not
> imply that they are only information.
> The first thesis is a metaphysical one, the
> second should be considered within a broader
> ontology, the third implies that we may
> project reality within the horizon of information
> abut also within the horizon of matter etc.
> If we understand by information a process
> of selection out of a message (which is indeed
> also the terminology used by Shannon) then
> we can say that we are already involved in a
> natural information process (the theological
> question being then how it is possible to
> send a message to 'nothing' i.e. a message
> that 'creates' and not simply 'informs' the
> receiver...). Of course the concept of message
> (implying a sender, a receiver, a structure to
> be 'interpreted'/selected and... an address!)
> is basic. The complexity of human messages
> is indeed of different kind (but not simply
> opposed or even contradictory...) to the complexity
> of, say, a DNA-messenger or of a quantum state.
> What I am trying to say is that the (modern)
> paradigm of message communication (underlying
> in different ways the concept(s) of information)
> is (seems to me) basic for our scientific view
> of nature and society and... it seems to be
> highly productive too, independently of the
> ontological/metaphysical (and theological)
> discussion...
>
> Is this somehow acceptable for further discussion?
>
> Rafael
>
> Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro, FH Stuttgart, Hochschule der Medien (HdM)
> University of Applied Sciences, Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart,
> Germany
> E-Mail: capurro@hdm-stuttgart.de; rafael@capurro.de
> Tel. : +49 - 711 - 25 706 - 182
> Universit�t Stuttgart, Institut f�r Philosophie, Dillmannstr. 15,
> 70049 Stuttgart, Germany
> Private: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany. Tel.: +49 - 721
> - 98 22 9 -22 (fax: -21)
> Homepage in German/English/Spanish/French: www.capurro.de
> ICIE (International Center for Information Ethics): http://icie.zkm.de
>

-- 
please enjoy my updated: 
http://open-forum.de
and the "ongoing debate" this week: 
http://www.mdpi.net/fis2002/index.php
http://www.mdpi.net/ec/papers/fis2002/141/index.htm
or some events in July which are dear to me:
REALITY and VIRTUALITY of MONTAINS (UN Year of Mountains)
http://www.inst.at/termine/ramsau2002_e.htm
Ethics in knowledge representation and organization
www.ugr.es/%7Eisko/isko2002/program.htm
***************************************
GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet.
http://www.gmx.net
Received on Tue May 21 13:02:50 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon 07 Mar 2005 - 10:24:45 CET