Reacting to Igor R's posting (and keeping in mind Pedro's call for some way
to at least formally mark a distinction between the animate from the
inaninmate): As a not unimportant side issue, I submit that 'physical' and
'material' are NOT the same. 'Material', following loosely the Marxist
perspective, refers to the sticky world embodied in baryonic matter, while
'physical' includes much more than that -- dark matter, dark energy, QM
forces, etc. In the history of the Big Bang, there were physical phenomena
before there was baryonic matter. This could be represented as the
specification hierarchy:
{physical dynamics {material connections {biological forms {socioeconomic
traditions {personal stories}}}}}. with each bracket (from set theory)
marking an emergence of a new realm by way of refinement of the previous
one. Note that, following Igor, there could be placed an even more general
bracket outside of these, labelled 'information', or following Charles
Perce, it could be labelled 'universal mind'. Thus,
{information {physics (chemistry {biology {human culture {individual
mentality}}}}}}.
As a footnote to Steven, I call this structure 'Intensional
Complexity'.
STAN
> Dear Pedro,
>
> Somehow my post on the definition of information did not find its way
>into the FIS group. I am repeating it here in hope that you find it
>interesting enough to include. A little presentation on this subject,
>merely a joke, may be found at
><http://www.patronov.net/research/topics/diec.ppt>
>http://www.patronov.net/research/topics/diec.ppt
.
>
> A definition of a concept is expression of its meaning through other
> concepts. When we set up a logical system, some concepts have to be
defined
> axiomatically, and other are expressed throug them. Typically we all
> (especially when we try to construct definitions) remain within the old
> Marxist-Berkelian paradigm of material and ideal. For example the phrase
> "information is physical" relates information to the matter, as
physical and
> material are, in fact synonims.
>
> What if we try to build on the axiomatic definition of information
> instead?Then
>
> Information is the primary entity of the world.
> All the entities in the world are information entities. All the processes
> are information processes.
> Physical is the aspect of information perceptible sensually (i.e. through
> vision, hearing, etc).
> Ideal is the aspect of information that is perceived rationally.
> The material world is the totality of physical aspects of all information
>entities,
> the material projection of information.
> The ideal world is the world of ideas, the totality of ideal aspects of
all
> information entities.
> Interaction never exists without conveying information (say, about the
>interacting objects)
> Information is never transmitted without interaction.
>
> Example. A book is information entity. The paper and ink color, the feel
of
> the cover, etc are perceived directly via senses and are material aspects
of
> the book. The contents of the text, the ideas conveyed by the book, the
> publisher's data are ideal aspects.
>
> It looks much more economic this way, as it turns out that matter is much
> simpler to define through information than the other way around. Same
with
> ideal. And what is the "Principle Question of Philosophy" (of
what is
> primary - material or ideal) becomes perfectly dialectically eliminated
in
> the goegelian sense.
>
>
> If the answer is difficult then the question is wrong. Those who work
with
> physics know the problem of expanding a plane wave into spherical
harmonics
> as an example of converting a simple and clear object into a very complex
> and obscure structure because of wrong choice of basis.
>
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Igor Rojdestvenski
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:marijuan@unizar.es>Pedro Marijuan
>
>To:
> <mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>fis@listas.unizar.es
>Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 4:27 PM
>Subject: Re: [Fis] Re: What is the definition of information ?
> (fis teamworkship!)
>
>Dear Hans and colleagues,
>
>I quite agree with the suggestion. Actually it dovetails with
> previous comments by Michel's, Soeren's and other parties. Maybe this
>advocacy on dedicated teamworkship is a sign of maturity in our common
>enterprise...
>
>In practical matters, let me suggest that you three (and a few
> others) could have some private exchanges on how to organize the task, at
>least during some initial steps. Also, given that during the Paris
>conference there were informal conversations among some parties on
>launching a "natural computer science" team (and some other
party was
>trying to promote a "sustainable development" team too), there
seems to be
>the need to create a new platform, sort of a web log, to collectively
>lodge these potential projects. In a few weeks, the institute I am
>currently working in (I3A), will offer us one log platform for housing
>these tentative teams (at no cost). So, the present discussion list and
>the existing web pages, could have a nice and scholarly complement.
>
>Starting dedicated teamworkship, in whatever areas, may bring
> substantial advantages, if properly organized. Recently I have read about
>the need of three kinds of scientists: explorers, organizers, and
>administrators (institutionalists). Definitely, our band of "lonely
>explorers" has now crossed some threshold and needs some starting
into
>those organization and institutionalization dimensions.
>
>all the best
>
>Pedro
>
>
>
>At 10:26 06/09/2005, you wrote:
>
>
>
>...or should we aspire to elaborate a clearer vision of the whole
> problem?
>
>Dear Pedro -- wouldn't it be exciting if a
> useful definition, or a program of definitions, could come out of this
>collective, open process? It would be something new in science, and very
>appropriate in the computer age.
>
>
>Around 1850 there were at least twelve
> people who proposed something resembling the law of conservation of
>energy, but of course they didn't communicate much. But they were zeroing
>in on the same goal. Maybe now is the time for that to happen with the
>concept of information.
>
>
>Cheers,
>Hans
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Tue Sep 13 22:08:32 2005
