Lev

Hmm, I rather took Edwin's comment to be: 'there is an aversion, but there should not be, and you think there should not be'. Apart from which my supplementary enquired what 'mental' refers to. My point being that consciousness, etc, etc, is irrelevant. Sensing involves the receipt of physical input. That is where the physics stops. The subsequent processing of that is not physics, it involves the formulation of a perception of what was received. The subsequent processing can have no affect on the physical circumstance, because 1) that has already occurred, 2) that interaction does not involve what occurred anyway, but a physically existent representation of it (aka light in the case of the sense of sight). So any physical theory that involves the subsequent processing is wrong.

Re 2. That comment goes along with my response to your question on my essay blog. Precisely what is the point of designating organisation/structure as information? It is, if identified correctly(!) physically existent fact. Even if it is generic, it is still so, generically. Labelling it as information, which therefore invokes the concept of not-information (ie one presumes real, or what?) seems unnecessary, and leaves me wondering why this differentiation is made.

Then in relation to section 3/4, again this concept of information appears. The processes are physical processes, there is bound to be degree of similarity with these, which means one could invoke a classification system. And if one differentiates the events to the existential level, then one is going to reveal cause/effect. This appears to be an important caveat: "because it is addressing the formative, rather than any apparent, structure". But one would hope(!) everybody is addressing what actually occurs, not what appears to be so, or certainly they should be. The whole issue here is that any chosen representational device must accord with how physical existence occurs.

Paul

"This appears to be an important caveat: "because it is addressing the formative, rather than any apparent, structure". But one would hope(!) everybody is addressing what actually occurs, not what appears to be so, or certainly they should be."

Paul, what I meant by that phrase--and it is clear in the context of the essay-- is that so far mathematics and physics have been dealing with the "apparent", or spatial, structure, while ETS is designed to address the formative structure.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #23

Lev

There is nothing apparent about size/distance/space. Neither are people trying to explain physical existence solely in those terms. As with information, there is some way in which you are differentiating, which is not substantiated by reality.

Paul

Paul, I meant the "apparent features" from a pattern recognition, or common-sense view: e.g the shape of a stone, of a galaxy, or of a tree.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #25

Lev

Fine, but they are not apparent. Which implies that existence is something else. They are physically existent features, and may well have similarities, as physical features. I have a feeling that this runs parallel with another false concept of emergent/fundamental which I came across when commenting on the first few essays published. I can't quite put my finger on it at the moment, but there seems to be a trend to differentiate reality into two types under the guise of information. This being yet another attempt to rationalise the inherent contradiction which stems from the false start point as to how existence occurs.

As I said in my response to your comment on my essay, the ony meaningful definition of information is that which is a representation of something else. Knowing of anything inherently conveys information.

Paul

Paul,

"the ony meaningful definition of information is that which is a representation of something else."

As you can see from my essay, I am a great believer in the importance of representation: I spent almost all my professional life developing one. I also believe in the idea of "information" as contained in the representation.

But the central question of representation can only be approached scientifically via a representational *formalism*.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #27

Lev

"But the central question of representation can only be approached scientifically via a representational *formalism*."

Not so. A representation is a represenation of something else. In discerning that something is a representation in the first place, and then determining whether it is a valid representation, one needs the something else which it is representing. As with information, you are applying this concept to everything, which is not the case, as I have just said in Vladimirs blog. Something is either existent or it is not. If it is, that is not inherently information. It may inform us, but that is irrelevant. We may construct a model to represent it, but that is irrelevant too, because it is a model, noit reality. It is whatever it is. The only correct application of the notion of information is in the context of light, etc. Because whilst that is physically existent, it is also a representation of something else that is physically existent.

Paul

Paul,

I'm quite curious about your view on the following.

Are you comfortable with the radically new way you propose to do science by "talking" rather than relying on some kind of formal language (as has been practiced for millennia now)? As you know, English or any other spoken language are very imprecise 'tools'.

Lev

No. In terms of representational devices narrative is a real problem. One can have a certain set of agreed terms etc, but after that I think only maths can cope with the complexity and precision necessary. In terms of methodology, calssification systems/models are fine, so long as they correspond with physical existence as it occurs.

What I am drawing attention to is what physical existence is, and how it must occur, which then means certain rules must be adhered to in a science which examines it. In simple language, what is now, somewhat derogatorilly referred to as 'classical' has not been properly understood and taken to its logical conclusion (ie sequence of disrete definitive physically existent states). It has been left at the ontologically incorrect everyday usage mode (ie it changes). This has resulted, along with the apparent outcomes of experimentation, even though experimentation could never differentiate such states, in the development of an alternative view (relativity, QM, spacetime). Which presumes some form of indefiniteness in physical existence. That is impossible. The contradiction is then 'resolved' by such mechanisms as observer intervention, and ever increasingly bizarre concepts, even that physical existence can occur out of sequence order, for example.

I have no doubt that despite this, much of the content of what has been discovered is valid. What needs to happen is that that must be re-ordered into a context of a physical existence where these false notions that it involves relativity, indefiniteness, time, have been eradicated.

Will that happen? Doubt it. Even I have been stunned by the inertia created by the status quo. People will engage in differences of detail, presuming the status quo, but not the status quo itself. However, it givesme something to do in the early hours as I do not sleep well.

Paul

Lev, first my sincere condolences.

Now to your essay, you rightly point out the ambiguity in the word information. A "information overload" is nothing more than an observation overload, nature cannot be overloaded with information.

Your section 1 and 2, I can follow and can agree with but then I get lost in trying to understand your ETS concept, the beers and wine I had this Sunday lunch do not make it easier, so I will have to come back

    Thanks, Anton!

    And the occasional "beers and wine" help to keep us sane in this, still quite 'primitive', society. ;-))

    Update on the essay's community scores received so far:

    3, 1, 10, 2, 6, 5, 5

    Paul,

    In view of your interests, I want to recommend an excellent book (that I have)-- "The Nature of Physical Existence" by Ivor Leclerc. You can buy it from one of the online bookstores (Amazon or AbeBooks).

    An interesting development: for 'obvious' (?) reasons, FQXi community page (http://fqxi.org/community) already for quite some time now has stopped displaying the accepted essays (from this contest), as it did for the first several weeks.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #35

      Lev

      OK, but I expect some proper two way dialogue once I have read this and presumably comment on it. Which is another way of saying I am not sure why you cannot address the content of what I am saying now, rather than suggesting I read a book first.

      Paul

      • [deleted]

      • Post #36

      Lev

      Given your comments in the thread which announced this essay competition, I could hazard a guess at what you are alluding to, but do you want to spell it out? I think those of us who took the time to write something, and those who then make an effort to generate proper debate need an 'insider's' view, and if necessary a change to the rules. I made a comment in response to your post, ie that very little in the way of debate would ensue, mostly 'nice essay, by the way in my essay...'. There is another fascinating correlation you can follow, which is ratio of posts to ratings.

      Paul

      • [deleted]

      • Post #37

      Lev

      Hmmm, this is estimated to take a month to ship.

      Paul

      Paul, I didn't mean this book as necessarily related to our discussion.

      My dear ladies and gentlemen, the circus, or the show, must go on :-)) :

      3, 1, 10, 2, 6, 5, 5, 1

      • [deleted]

      • Post #40

      Lev

      I guessed that from the title, I thought commenting on it might illuminate what I am saying. Frankly I do not expect it to enable any improvement on what I already know, but I thought it was disrespectful to ignore your suggestion (the last one was Ray Munroe & Whitehead). The point is that I have developed a generic statement on the logic of physical reality (somewhat obviously, given my posts). It is easy, especially without 'baggage'. It can be expressed succinctly in a page and certainly does not take more than 15 to encompass all the angles.

      I must stress the word generic, ie a logical statement of the physical circumstance. I am not interested in philosophy. And obviously what actually manifests is physics.

      Paul