----- Original Message -----
From: skutvik@online.no
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: MD Quality and information theory
Ross, Roger and Group.
For Roger:
You beat me in the information=value suggestion, but I swear that the below
was written before I saw your message :-).
For Ross:
Roger and I and a few other are from the beginning of this discussion and
the map problem is a "worm" from a can that we seem unable to close.
ROSS
Are Zeilinger and the SOM really contradictory? If so, how > obvious is the
contradiction?
--------
SKUTVIK:
He could have been had he pursued his own insight. By postulating that the
binary information "bit" is all there is he is an anti-som, but - phew - no
sooner has he said that before he manages to present the spin of the atom
and the polarization of light as some reality beyond information and he is
back in the SOM fold.
ROSS:
Aha, that crossed my mind as I as re-reading the article. I wonder if
there's any discernable pattern to the way these "elementary systems"
combine. There does seem to be some framework within which information is
propagated. Hold on tho, we only know what that is because of previous
observations - that is via previous transfers of information.
SKUTVIK:
The article started by saying:
> In the beginning was the bit And after that came the rest of the >weird
world, says Hans Christian von Baeyer
...EVERY LAST BIT OF IT ....would have been the true conclusion, but of
course even Bayer don't dare take that leap and the "physical world" is all
he speaks about.
John Wheeler is cited:
> What we call reality, he thinks, arises from the questions we ask about it
and the responses we receive. "Tomorrow, we will have learned to understand
and express all of physics in the language of information," he said.
"What we call reality arises from the question we ask ..." Outrageous
statements like that are made, but people just shrug. The worst is
academical philosophers who go on as if this and the weirdness of Quantum
Mech. don't mean a thing.
ROSS:
A lot of these "philosophers" consider themselves to be physicists. I
suspect there's still a bit of a head in the sand attitude amongst
physicists about philosophy.
> I'll let Roger speak for himself. For my part, however, I'm not
> saying we should change the MoQ. What I'm talking about really is
> taking some of Pirsig's examples, and maybe inventing a few more,
> and examining them in terms of information, and defining information
> in the terms of the MoQ. I'd specifically like to see if Zeilingers
> definition is consistent with ours. I have a suspicion that the two
> may fit together quite elegantly. I don't really see information
> deposing value as the basic groundstuff.
I agree. Information may well be seen as the basic reality - we have had
other candidates for something "better" than value - but what matters is
that Zeilinger doesn't introduce an "information metaphysics" to replace the
subject/object one. Again: Z. says that information is the basic reality,
yet his utterance is interpreted (by himself) as information about something
...and SOM rules.
Now, Zeilinger hardly recognizes any SOM or care about metaphysical
questions, but at this site I can't see why - after making a big show of
rejecting the subject/object (mind/matter) divide - introduce it by calling
the MoQ a map of a reality. Naming that reality QUALITY does no good.
> Surely the MoQ as we discuss it here can only be a "map". As we
> experience it, it's base reality, but the concepts we're tossing
> around here are just words. What was it Phaedrus said about a
> restaurant with a 3000 page menu and no food? But I digress! (and
> although I'm new here I have to wonder if this is opening up an old
> can of worms)
Can such a "as we discuss it here different from the real thing" distinction
be made? This is the position of Denis, but if all is words then LANGUAGE is
the "Urprizip", or, if maps, then MAPS are the groundstuff and the
respective metaphysics are due.
You know Quantum Physics, that there is no bridge between it and "classic"
physics, but that modern physicists don't fret about that (any more) they
know that it always delivers. Some people's insistence on viewing the MoQ as
just another theory/map about some ultimate reality (and believing that this
is "dynamic"!) instead of declaring it to be a new greater reality is
similar to Einstein's insistence re. Quantum Physics. He worked out the
famous thought experiment that would reveal the quantum trickery, but when
the equipment (and theory) was available it proved the Quantum case. I
believe that nowadays "classic reality" is viewed as a sub-case of Quantum
Reality. Likewise SOM is best seen as a static level of the MOQ.
> Nevertheless, this seems like a productive discussion so I'll keep
> digging, reading and thinking it over and I'll post anything else I
> come up with that's interesting.
Sorry for coming so strongly on about this Ross, I have run myself into a
rut here. Your information input is very interesting and I look forward to
see examples of Quality-Information parallels.
> I haven't read it in detail yet, I was interested to see
> http://www.moq.org/forum/emmpaper.html
> Subjects, Objects and Data Values by Pirsig. In it, he describes
> the application of MoQ to Bohr's principal of complementarity.
> Meantime, anyone got any suggestions for a definition of
> information?
My take is "another variety of Value". Remember the argument at the
beginning of LILA that leads to the conclusion: "A thing that has no value
does not exist". This may just as easily be rewritten to say that a thing
that carries no information does not exist. VALUE is best, yet "information"
may be useful in bringing the message across.
Bo.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:43 BST