Re: [Fis] : Reality of Information World?!!!

Re: [Fis] : Reality of Information World?!!!

From: Arne Kjellman <[email protected]>
Date: Thu 13 Jul 2006 - 11:57:36 CEST

Dear John and Andrei

 As usual you hit the head of the nail - but I think there is something
missing:

Andrei said:
>> Fields are not less real than particles.

John said:
>> I am really advocating an information world, in which reality can be
>> understood as (am inclined
>> to say are) information structures. On this account, our internal
>> information space and the rest of the world are of the same basic kind,

You are dicussing the possibility to classify fields and information as
REAL - and "existing" on an equal level as of REALITY - as opposed to
something else...experience I guess.
Does this means you both both think it is consistently possible to
classifying phenomena of science into the dichomoty REAL/UNREAL (or
eventually MATERIAL/UNMATERIAL)?
I mean do you think is it possible to come to such a distinction of
phenomena on grounds of an obsevation science??
In in this case on what criteria could such a distinction possibly be
uphold?
Do you expect a possible experimental "proof"? Like the way physicists
strive for an experiemental "proof" of Bell's inequality for instance?
Or can such a "proof" only be established by a social convention -
consensus? In this case a matter of consesual belief. And how do we then
proceed from this very point?

The SOA's line of arguing is that real/unreal distinction can only be
grounded on social convention - i.e., a definition that is generally
accepted but cannot be (ap)proved in a science based on experimental
evidence. (The realist's dilemma is an attempt to show that human's capacity
of perception is the cause that make this outcome a necessity.)
However a decision in consensus can only be achieved in the case each
individual participating in this act of consesual decision has made up his
mind, ie made a private decision in the matter under consideration. This is
why science has to take off form the individual subject's point of view -
the subject-oriented approach (SOA) - and accordingly make a strict use of
the first person's view.

I sincerely wait for an answer in these crucial questions
Arne

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrei Khrennikov" <Andrei.Khrennikov@vxu.se>
To: <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 10:53 PM
Subject: [Fis] Question to John Collier : Reality of Information World?!!!

>> > Dear John!
> I do not send this Email directly to the list, because I am not an
> sure... But it would be interesting your opinion. Why we cannot
> conside information world as realistic as material? Why is only matter
> material? In physics we consider not only particles, but also
> fields. Fields are not less real than particles. Moreover, since
> Quantum Field Theory is considered as more fundamnetal than QM, fields
> and not particles are fundamental objects. Fields are not local, they
> are distributed in space and time. But there is no reason to think
> that the whole reality is related just to one special model of space-
> time, that we call physical space time. WE can consider information
> spaces (which could have a very different mathematical structure) and
> information fields. They are not less real than physical fields.
> It would be natural to suppose that there are information laws of
> nature which are not less real than physical laws. Our role is
> minimal - interaction with information fields and the latter are real.
>> > With Best REgards, Andrei Khrennikov
>
> Reply of John:
>> > That is basically the position that I advocate. I go a step
> further, however, and argue that physical causation (dynamics) can be
> understood in information terms. Since I also believe that only what
> is dynamical can be of any consequence, then I am really advocating an
> information world, in which reality can be understood as (am inclined
> to say are) information structures. On this account, our internal
> information space and the rest of the world are of the same basic
> kind, and are continuous with each other. There is more to the story,
> complications like meaning,
> emergence, function, and so on, but I have been working on these.
> There is a paper on my web site,
> http://www.nu.ac.za/undphil/collier/papers/causinf.pdf
> Causation is the Transfer of Information (1999)
> that lays out the basic ideas. More is in
> http://www.newcastle.edu.au/centre/casrg/publications/Cods.pdf
> Complexly Organised Dynamical Systems with C.A. Hooker (1999)
> and other papers. The approach is very radical, so it needs a lot of
> justification.
>> > We are currently working on two books on the topic.
>> > John
>> Dear John,
>>Can I now send our discussion to the list? It seems that my view is
> not so crazy. I also published a few papers and book on this:
> Khrennikov A.Yu., Information dynamics in cognitive,
>>psychological, social, and anomalous phenomena. Kluwer, Dordreht,2004
> Khrennikov A.Yu., Classical and quantum mechanics on information spaces
> with applications to cognitive, psychological,
> social and anomalous phenomena. Found. of Physics, 29, N. 7, 1065-
> 1098, 1999.
>
>>All the best, Andrei
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu Jul 13 11:59:24 2006


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 on Thu 13 Jul 2006 - 11:59:25 CEST