Dear Søren,
Thank you comments on John\'s paper. I use this chance to distinguish my
approach to information reality and John\'s one (there are similarities,
but as I see now, there are also differences),
> Dear John
> I read your first paper. Am I right in that it basically says that>:
>
> 1. Information is form
Yes, it is. Especially good illustration is given by the pilot wave of
Bohmian mechanics. A quantum particle is guided by the information
wave, pilot wave. This wave can be considered as an information field.
David Bohm and Basil Hiley wrote about ACTIVE INFORMATION FIELD. An
interesting feature of this model is that only SHAPE of the wave
function is important, not its amplitude.
> 2. Causality is exchange of form.
Yes.
> 3. Form can be sufficiently described by Complexity theory.
In my approach not at all. I want to consider information spaces,
information geometry. I think that \"reality\" of matter is strongly
motivated by the presence of the well established model of space in
that matter in embedded: continuous real space. I try to find an
adequate model to put information in this space. In my model
information spaces have hierarchic structure, since information for me
is more or less a hierarchic structure. In this way I come to model of
the information space based on p-adic trees and more general ulrametric
spaces.
> 4. This again needs - to fit in the mathematical models -an
> ontological > basis in a random universe.
In my approach information universe is deterministic, randomness is
reduced to randomness of ensembles of information states.
> 5. Further there must be some \'stuff\' in that universe.
> 6. This stuff must have self-interacting probabilities. I guess that
> > means that the unities of this \'stuff\' must be able to interact in
> formal causal ways with each other including building more complex >
structures.
Okey.
> 7. Information is physical information and therefore connected to and
> > based on Thermodynamics.
Not, it would be too restricted view to information. Information is the
most fundamental structure of the universe. There are laws that
describe behavior of hierarchic strings of information. Corresponding
physical laws are just special representations of information laws.
> 8. The view is both deterministic and statistic in that the stuff has
> to > follow rigid universal laws and must in some way also be
constructed
> or > constrained by them to hold its own form. Then we have a perfect
> billiard Ball universe, except for that the balls here can interact
> > through forces and form in what we call chemistry.
> 9. Apart from that there is no underlying overall structure or inborn
> > goal in the universe.
> 10. There are no purposes of a mind-like character in the universe as
> a > whole or in the parts.
My approach: Since information and not matter is fundamental, one can
consider a variety of information fields. Some of them can be of mind-
like character. I cannot exclude that they participate even in physical
processes (which are just special forms of information processes).
> 11. Chance is real unpredictability (Prigogine, Peirce).
Not at all, chance is reducible to ensemble chance. Information states
by forming ensembles produce complex probabilistic structures.
Prigogine -- I never understood him, moreover, I am not sure that was
really something done.
> If this is so, I find it to be a consistent version of the
> information > processing paradigm. As such it has no chance
whatsoever to explain
> life > as the ability to have qualia experiences and some kind of
free will.
As you have seen, from my previous replies your conclusion is not
applicable to my model. Qualia experiences are just special information
fields. The crucial point is that we should not try to incorporate
these fields into the physical model of space. So we should not try to
play with physical-chemical reduction of life.
But I agree that I cannot \"explain\" qualia experiences. In
fact, \"explain\" typically means to make reduction to physical-chemical
processes. But I think that such a reduction is impossible. Therefore,
instead of \"explain\", one should be interested in constructing a new
math. model in that mind-like structures will be not less real than
material structures. Can we explain electromagnetic field? Not. But we
have a nice mathematical model, see
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0003016
Quantum Physics, abstractquant-ph/0003016
\"Classical and quantum mechanics on information spaces with
applications to cognitive, psychological, social and anomalous
phenomena\"
Journal-ref: Foundations of Physics,29, N. 7, 1065-1098 (1999)
\"We use the system of p-adic numbers for the description of information
processes. Basic objects of our models are so called transformers of
information, basic processes are information processes, the statistics
are information statistics (thus we present a model of information
reality). The classical and quantum mechanical formalisms on
information p-adic spaces are developed. It seems that classical and
quantum mechanical models on p-adic information spaces can be applied
for the investigation of flows of information in cognitive and social
systems, since a p-adic metric gives quite natural description of the
ability to form associations.\"
With Best Regards,
Andrei Khrennikov
Director of International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics,
Engineering, Economy and Cognitive Sc.,
University of Vaxjo, Sweden
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Tue Jul 18 10:39:02 2006
