Hello everyone
Peter Lennox wrote:
>
> Thanks for posting that.
> It seems at first glance to fit rather well with a theory I use when trying
> to investigate "perception"; namely that (as a methodological convenience) I
> hypothesise that the basic 'stuff' of the universe is not matter, energy or
> space/time, but rather "information", and that those other terms we use
> refer to 'properties' of this basic stuff, rather than the other way round.
Hi Peter
Thanks for your comments. I suppose any metaphysics must start with a
"basic stuff of the universe" and here is what Robert Pirsig has to say
in a letter to Anthony McWatt:
“What Northrop says is correct but I wouldn’t call it a Dynamic aspect.
It’s important to keep all
‘concepts’ out of Dynamic Quality. Concepts are always static. Once they
get into Dynamic Quality
they’ll overrun it and try to present it as some kind of a concept
itself. I think it’s better to say that time
is a static intellectual concept that is one of the very first to emerge
from Dynamic Quality. That keeps
Dynamic Quality concept free.
“The MOQ really has no problem with time. The MOQ starts with the source
of undifferentiated
perception itself as the ultimate reality. The very first
differentiation is probably ‘change.’ The second
one may be ‘before and after.’ From this sense of ‘before and after’
emerge more complex concepts
of time.
“Time is only a problem for the SOM people because if time has none of
the properties of an object
then it must be subjective. And if time is subjective that means
Newton’s laws of acceleration and
many other laws of physics are subjective. Nobody in the scientific
world wants to allow that.
“All this points to a huge fundamental metaphysical difference between
the MOQ and classical
science: The MOQ is truly empirical. Science is not. Classical science
starts with a concept of the
objective world, atoms and molecules, as the ultimate reality. This
concept is certainly supported by
empirical observation but it is not the empirical observation itself.
“Poincare’s paradox occurs because concepts are the most ephemeral
static patterns of all. If you
mistakenly call one of these concepts ‘ultimate reality,’ then ultimate
reality becomes ephemeral too.
Thus classical scientific reality keeps changing all the time as
scientists keep discovering new
conceptual explanations.” (From Robert Pirsig’s letter to Ant.)
http://members.tripod.com/~Glove_r/Child7.htm#Pirsig on Space and
Notice Pirsig begins with "the source of undifferentiated perception
itself" as
ultimate reality. He doesn't name that source, nor can he. Information
would seem to be a manifestation of the
intellect, on the other hand, is it not also value? Are the terms
"information" and "value" interchangeable? Do we have to extract
information to gain value? In efforts to define quantum relationships
this is a real problem. In every day life, we have causality, however,
when it comes to an electron going through two slits we are unable to
say whether it goes through one, or the other, or even both or neither.
"Something" happens, that much seems clear. If information is the basic
stuff of reality, should we be able to define it, or not?
> So, 'matter' is a particularly 'lumpy' form of information, which can of
> course be converted into 'energy', which is much more fleet of foot. In this
> way, one could entertain the notion that a) information can survive the
> transition from one form to another quite easily, and
> b) one could imagine information without energy, but not energy without
> information.
First, matter would seem to be an interpretation of "something", and as
such, a concept. As Pirsig says in the above quote: "If you mistakenly
call one of these concepts ‘ultimate reality,’ then ultimate reality
becomes ephemeral too." This is the danger of looking for any "ultimate
reality". Try and find "the source of undifferentiated perception
itself" and you will find no information. Nothing can be said without
disturbing the undifferentiated.
Second, a comment on b): I am having a difficult time imagining
information without energy... is that synonymous with death? Is there
information without interpretation of information?
> This is handy because perceptual theorists have long had to wrestle with the
> notion of how the brain 'makes up' information when signal energies are
> interrupted; i.e. if a thing passes behind another thing (for instance), how
> is it that the human brain 'knows' that the thing continues to exist, and is
> merely hidden from view. Studies of pre-linguistic infants confirm quite
> readily that 'intuitive physics' of this sort is established very early in
> development, too early to be universally explained by theories of 'learning
> by association'. There seems to be an innate propensity to believe in the
> information that objects tend to continue to exist, even when the signal
> flows do not, at least for as long as 'memory' allows.
We seem to innately seek out higher value. Whether this is the same as a
propensity to believe in information... perhaps.
> Postulating "information" as the basic 'stuff' actually gets round an awful
> lot of philosophical dilemmas, such as the 'mind / matter dualism' inherent
> in Descartes' thinking (and of course before), and whilst it seems to offend
> traditional notions of causality (long regarded as fundamental to scientific
> thinking, though see [Popper, Karl] on that subject), it doesn't actually
> contradict the basic principle of causality, if that principle is re-framed
> around the 'information-as-fundamental principle of the universe'; in fact
> perhaps one could actually have a 'law of conservation of information'
> rather more easily than one could have a law of conservation of energy,
> though it might be rather less useful! For that matter, the notion would
> seem to bolster the theoretical position of the idea of a deterministic
> universe, yet within which 'free will' might happily exist!
> I should say that I haven't really explored the metaphysical implications to
> any great extent, so there may be gaping holes in my reasoning in some of
> these areas; but it certainly simplifies thinking about models of
> perception, in the spirit of Occam's (Ockham's) razor.
> regards,
> peter
Perhaps it comes down this: is the earth going round the sun or the sun
going round the earth? Can we ever really know?
Thanks for your comments.
Dan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:45 BST