Hello,
May I add a comment, Arne?
AAAA: Quite right - but the reality is not an actor engaged in acts of
information
exchange.
Not an actor. But a huge network of actors engaged in information exchange.
Best regards,
Gordana
Arne Kjellman wrote:
> Thank you for you reply Andrei:
>
>> So I would not like to consider fields as material structures, but as
>> information structures.
>
> AAAA: To me a structure (regardless what is the essence of it) is a
> model - something imposed on human experience by a mind.
>
>> The dichomoty REAL/UNREAL -- yes!
>
> AAAA: If I read you right I think we then are agreed then that
"real"
> depends on a consensual definition - and that it is NOT up to
> experimental physics to decide in this matter. But then is also
> "reality" an outcome of a set of social decisions - a pure
belief? In
> case it then doesn't make sense to say that "reality" (or any
object
> at all) is pre-given to man in his acts of observation. That is to
> say to proceed from the assumption that there is a "unary world
given
> to man" is highly misleading. To my mind it would be nicer be able
to
> show that the individual knower refers to his personal experience
> (priverse) when he says "universe" - and he has by years of
training
> learnt to speak about (model) his priverse in a way that actually
> refers to some common behind-lying stability - even if we cannot know
> anything else but the feeling of this stability (i.e., cannot
> explicate this experience by the use of concepts). In that view no
> "information" is passed over from reality but simply rises in
the mind
> (by his acts of conceptualisation) of the thinker. THE BIT RISES IN
> THE MIND OF THE THINKER by means of his acts of conceptualisation and
> can be used in communication by other thinkers trained in a similar
> way of conceptualisation.
>
> I also agree with Igor - but to my mind something is missing here:.
>
>> Please allow me to exercise my formal "Marxist" education.
>>
>> The world out there does not know the word "matter". Matter
is a primary
>> philosophical concept, our axiome that we introduce to deal (to
>> model) the
>> real world. The concepts of "field", "particle"
are derivatives of this
>> axiom, and space and time are also axioms. Therefore if we go down to
>> the
>> basics, (deviating from the applied science which deals with matter
>> casually), we should always keep in mind that we may change the
>> axioms if
>> necessary. The world will not change, only its description.
> AAAA: I fully agree - but you forget to tell that the axioms in use must
> indubitably defined. And they are not - neither "matter" nor
"real" or
> "information". This is so because uncertainty of definition
causes
> uncertainty of meaning and language. The point of my asking the
> question was
> to show that the eventual definitions (that we are lacking of today)
> must be
> based on scientific consensus, which these FIS-discussions clearly shows.
>
>> The world out there does not know the word "matter".
>> The world will not change, only its description.
> AAAA: See how easy a slip of the tounge can accidentally set the stage
> of the
> discussion - use of the conception of a "unary world" at the
same time
> proposes the use of a
> realist language. In the subject-oriented approach there are as many
> worlds
> (priverses) as there are living beings - so confusion easily occurs..
>
>> One of the ways to do so is to introduce information as a primary
>> category, which therefore needs no explanation or proof.
> AAAA: Of course even a primary category needs of an explanation - we
> need an
> explanation how of how we should use the term so introduced.(its doesn't
> explain the "reality" but on the other hand the model terms we
use.)
> In order to answer a
> question like "Is X an real?" we need an explicit definition of
real
> --- or when asking "Is
> Q information?" we need an explicit definition of information -
otherwise
> these questions are clearly undecidable - and unscientific - and can
> be the
> subject of debate for ever.
>
>> If we think a bit, any interaction is in fact exchange of
information.
> AAAA: Quite right - but the reality is not an actor engaged in acts of
> information
> exchange. See my reply to Andrei above
>
> Best wishes
> Arne
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Mon Jul 17 19:29:36 2006
