Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 7 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7 years ago  ::  Oct 12, 2011 - 9:12AM #61
Adelphe
Posts: 28,765

Sep 10, 2011 -- 3:46PM, newchurchguy wrote:


mindis1,


I cannot defend, on my own, why I think that the bigger domain is informational (which includes the parent of math - logic), rather than mathematical.  I think this way, because of how I have learned a progression of ideas.


from the first book about Informational Realism, by K. Sayre in 1976:


Von Neumann has been quoted as remarking, in the presence of Carnap and Bar-Hillel, that logic forms a triple indentity with thermodynamics and information theory.  Allowing room for uncertainty about the degree of seriousness in this remark, we see that it has a basis of credibility.  Whereas information and energy are forms of negentropy deriving from and convertible into structure, applied formal reasoning itself increases the structure of a conceptual network by separating the conceptual from the observational component.  But segregation of any sort invovles an expenditure of energy (Chapter III).  Thus logic, like thermodynamics and communication theory, pertains to transformations of negentropy in one of its alternate forms ---energy, structure and information. 



My - maybe quite indiosynscratic - definition of what defines manifest - is key to my humble worldview.  Physical science is about measuring properties that are currently existing in the here and now They exist only there and are actual - as a result of a "wave collapse" or maybe better - after decoherence.  Manifestation is not just before; or just after, anything.  The properties of a material/energetic configuration are manifest when they are local and subject to observation and instrumental measurement.


Data about a prior state is derived as information.  Data about a future state - is likewise - information.  I see a "diffusion" boundary layer before and after manifestation.  Here, in this boundary layer particles can exist in superposition, with the possibility for measurement to structure the information (what is virtual) into a manifest state.


In this way - the reductionism of materialism is valid in the special case of manifest matter/energy systems in this universe.


However, the reality of computation is likewise valid in the "infosphere" where one can structure by reasoning - a good likelyhood of the past - and predict actual probabilities in the future.


Sep 9, 2011 -- 1:07PM, mindis1 wrote:


Sep 8, 2011 -- 1:07PM, newchurchguy wrote:


mindis1,

Great to see your opinions, expressed so clearly.


NCG, it's always a pleasure to talk with you.


Recently, Donald Gillies has published a paper on IR and Floridi. His view is that Floridi is more metaphysical than his tastes. However, out of the box, he grants Floridi that Math Realism is a special case (subset?) of Informational Realism.



Why wouldn’t it be just the other way around--“informational structural realism” is a special case of mathematical realism?


If one were arguing for realism of statistics or probabilities, one would not say that mathematical realism is a subset or special case of “statistical realism.” Rather, the converse would be implied: that “statistical realism” is a subset or special case of mathematical realism.


Indeed, Floridi builds his case for “informational structural realism” on structural realism. In philosophy of mathematics, ante rem structuralism is just a form of mathematical realism.


 


. . . my simple concept that the units of measure in Material Science, are about the manifest domain of activity and that the units of measure and symbols of Shannon Information, entropy, complexity and logical relations are describing another domain - that of the Probable but not manifest.



So, in answer to my question, according to you, Shannon information is not ontologically different than entropy?


Can you define “manifest” in your sentence? What characterizes the difference between something that is “manifest” and something that is “not manifest”?








How about the "bigger domain" being relations?  Does information as a science as you have studied it, ncg, fit under that notion?

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 12, 2011 - 10:05AM #62
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,177

Adelphe


Oct 12, 2011 -- 8:26AM, Adelphe wrote:

Sep 8, 2011 -- 5:05PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

If you find the expression "manifestation of the symmetry" too similar to the "manifestation of objective probability", that I have criticized for its metaphysical character, just replace with the following:


"manifestation consequence of the symmetry"


Perhaps even you can appreciate that while "propensity" is an unverifiable metaphysical notion, symmetry is a merely formal notion, perfectly manageable with simple mathematics.


As already commented ...


“... if the relative frequency over a long run was NOT 50/50, we would consider it revealing that the coin is NOT fair ...”


... OIOH NOT perfectly symmetric.


Voila!


... You've again restated the fact of propensity just now in a second set of different words--that its due to its symmetry.


There is certain nothing "unverifiably" "metaphysical" about propensity--as you keep demonstrating while trying to prove otherwise.


That "propensity" is a "fact" is the comment that only someone rather ... er ... epistemologically challenged could make.


"Propensity" certainly IS an unverifiable metaphysical notion, bebbe schnebbes, both for the very simple case of the "fair coin" and for the very complex case of the radioactive decay, the latter of which you very prudently — and very wisely — stayed away from ...


... however much you try and insist otherwise ...


[Adelphe] btw, is this label on the side of a carton [image: FRAGILE] "an unverifiable metaphysical notion"?


NO, it corresponds to an empirically verifiable situation ...


Oct 12, 2011 -- 8:43AM, Adelphe wrote:

Sep 9, 2011 -- 6:46AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

Sep 7, 2011 -- 8:39PM, Adelphe wrote:

Sep 2, 2011 -- 10:37AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

[post #26]


Is this post for real?


I've honestly never seen anyone so epistemologically and ontologically challenged in my life.


Interesting (read: pathetic) way to mask your laziness/incapacity to reply.


It's simply a total waste of time until you educate yourself in ontology.


Do help me ... er ... "educate [my]self in ontology": which is the latest fashion?


Perhaps ... "relational ontology"? SurprisedWinkYellCool


MdS

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Forever, O LORD, Your word [dabar] stands in heaven.” (Psalm 119:89)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 12, 2011 - 11:49AM #63
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,687

Oct 12, 2011 -- 9:12AM, Adelphe wrote:


How about the "bigger domain" being relations?  Does information as a science as you have studied it, ncg, fit under that notion?




Adelphe,


Relations can be seeen to be interconnectedness.  Hence in the MTC - the importance of mutual information, as a measured quantity.  Relations as to internal organization are seen as structure and - relations with the environment are seen as organization, as structures  quantified by an external propensity to interact.  Mario seems "out of sorts" trying to deal with propensity theory.  The idea of a catalyst - leads one down the path of what propensity is - and how it is modeled so well by stochastic math tools.

There are measurable relations through all aspects of science and information has something very fundamental to do with these relationships. I would see information theory as a science process, which documents; logical relations, organization in systems, and structured sequences in space and time.


If math realism is a part of informational realism - all 4 items identified by mindis1 from the website about math -- are also part and parcel of information processing - space, structure, change and quantity. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 12, 2011 - 12:45PM #64
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,687

Oct 12, 2011 -- 10:05AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


"Propensity" certainly IS an unverifiable metaphysical notion, bebbe schnebbes, both for the very simple case of the "fair coin" and for the very complex case of the radioactive decay, the latter of which you very prudently — and very wisely — stayed away from ...


MdS




Mario,


I have refered you to modern literature on this subject - that propensity is growing in importance in Phil of Sci. (Ian Thompson)


www.generativescience.org/ph-papers/prag...


here is the Wiki article and you seem to miss the connection to probabilty.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propensity_probabi...


The propensity theory of probability is one interpretation of the concept of probability....


In addition to explaining the emergence of stable relative frequencies, the idea of propensity is motivated by the desire to make sense of single-case probability attributions in quantum mechanics, such as the probability of decay of a particular atom at a particular time.


The main challenge facing propensity theories is to say exactly what propensity means.




The mathematical theory of communication (MTC) - is based on information as a function of probability.  Propensity in material and energetic patterns of data - work well when analyzed as models, simulations and formulas.


 




Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 13, 2011 - 5:16AM #65
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,177

NCG


Oct 12, 2011 -- 12:45PM, newchurchguy wrote:

I have referred you to modern literature on this subject - that propensity is growing in importance in Phil of Sci. (Ian Thompson) [Pragmatic Ontology I: Identifying Propensity as Substance, by Ian Thompson, Department of Physics, University of Surrey, Aug 2005, @ generativescience.org]


Forgive the brutality, but I consider the linked article extensive metaphysical baloney. The sort of "Aristotelian" self-referencing stuff that, already several centuries ago, René Descartes found unbearable and (so he hoped) thought he had freed philosophy from, once and for all ...


... nor does the fact that "The ideas of this paper have been now rewritten completely in a later paper", Power and Substance, Ian Thompson, 7 Dec 2009 (@ generativescience.org) improve the situation at all.


BTW, I find it rather paradoxical that that you give so much importance to all this "neo-Aristotelian" baloney, and, at the same time, give so much importance to mathematics, when it is evident to (nearly) everybody that it was precisely the persistence of Aristotelianism that, until Galileo Galilei, made the recourse of mathematics in Natural Sciences virtually impossible.


And, sorry to break it to you, yes, Descartes destroyed Aristotelian philosophy (or rather the compatibility of Aristotelian metaphysics with Natural Science) once and for all (for an essential account, see Philosopher of the Month, René Descartes, by Jonathan Walmsley, August 2001, @ philosophers.co.uk)


[NCG] here is the Wiki article and you seem to miss the connection to probabilty.


The propensity theory of probability is one interpretation of the concept of probability....


In addition to explaining the emergence of stable relative frequencies, the idea of propensity is motivated by the desire to make sense of single-case probability attributions in quantum mechanics, such as the probability of decay of a particular atom at a particular time.


The main challenge facing propensity theories is to say exactly what propensity means.


[Wikipedia > Propensity probability]



I had already quoted from the above wiki-article back at MdS' post #28, in reply to NCG's post #27. Pity that you missed quoting the last paragraph in its entirety, as I had done ...


“The main challenge facing propensity theories is to say exactly what propensity means.   (And then, of course, to show that propensity thus defined has the   required properties.) At present, unfortunately, none of the   well-recognised accounts of propensity comes close to meeting this challenge.”
-- Wikipedia > Propensity probability [bolding by MdS]


... obviously you have some sort of block against any objection to "propensity" ...


[NCG] The mathematical theory of communication (MTC) - is based on information as a function of probability.  Propensity in material and energetic patterns of data - work well when analyzed as models, simulations and formulas.


While MTC is certainly "based on information as a function of probability", the obscure and metaphysical notion of "propensity" adds absolutely NOTHING, when probabilistic processes are "analyzed as models, simulations and formulas".


MdS

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Forever, O LORD, Your word [dabar] stands in heaven.” (Psalm 119:89)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Oct 14, 2011 - 2:20PM #66
mindis1
Posts: 9,330

Oct 12, 2011 -- 9:06AM, Adelphe wrote:


Sep 9, 2011 -- 12:59PM, mindis1 wrote:


I am not sure I understand your question. My first inclination is to answer: Energy, which is not matter. Mass, which is not matter. Angular momentum, which is not matter. Etc., etc. None of these are objects or forces, of course.



You had said earlier that "Matter is not a conserved quantity under Noether’s theorem (or any other theorem). Matter is not in any sense fundamental to the universe. There are no fundamental equations of physics that include “matter” as a quantity.


One can only assume that the anxiety over these and other unavoidable facts--such as that, according to the theories and discoveries of modern physics, matter certainly isn’t all that exists, and that matter certainly isn’t fundamental or primary, from which all other phenomena are derived--is what inspires some people to claim that “matter” has other definitions or is undefinable."


So are you saying pretty much that the notion of "matter" is too vague to be of any use in science?  And, by extension, any notion of "material-ism" as well?


If so, I agree.  I still don't see on this thread a good enough definition of "matter" such as it can say anything truly meaningful about reality.



Well, this is what I would say on the matter (now that I made that pun). It seems to me that “matter,” as objects that have mass and volume, is adequately defined. The concept of matter is important in chemistry, but in physics to single out objects that have mass and volume is a mostly superfluous endeavor. There seems to be no role for objects having mass and volume to play in the fundamental theories of physics; certainly whatever role objects having mass and volume may play in physics is not comparable to the importance of those fundamental quantities that are conserved in isolated systems, such as energy, momentum, angular momentum and (the quantity) mass.


As for the metaphysical thesis of materialism, the only important issue, as far as I’m concerned, is the fact that the only falsifiable definition of this thesis was empirically falsified long ago.  RIP materialism.


 


I find the issue of causation in physics very sticky. I am not sure that there exists a causal structure to empirical reality; at least, physicists don’t seem to discover causes.


Is entropy causal? Does entropy cause the “arrow of time”?



I totally agree causation is sticky--and there doesn't seem to be any real consensus on it, either.  We just all take it for granted in some sense.


For our purposes here, though, I think ncg and I are saying that information can impact or change events/the course of events and in that respect it is causal.



I quoted a definition of Shannon information on NCG's thread "Is information causal?".  I thought it was a good definition:


Shannon information is “a measure of the decrease of uncertainty at a receiver (or molecular machine).” www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/information.i...


And I really shouldn't sound like such a negative Nellie about the issue of information and causation, as I think I do see a possibility for an argument that Shannon information is causal.


However, it seems that it is other (usually unstated) definitions of information that are most often referred to in arguing for information's causation.  I wouldn't care for an argument for information's causation that merely depends on a non-rigorous definition of information. 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 05, 2011 - 3:39PM #67
stardustpilgrim
Posts: 5,664

Matter is mostly empty space. If you removed all the empty space from the Empire State Building, leaving only protons, neutrons and electrons, it would be the size of one grain of rice.


sdp

Roses always come with thorns. Sometimes, thorns first, sometimes roses first, and, sometimes, thorns outside, roses inside, sometimes roses outside, thorns inside.

Someone who dreams of drinking wine at a cheerful banquet may wake up crying the next morning. Someone who dreams of crying may go off the next morning to enjoy the sport of the hunt. When we are in the midst of a dream, we do not know it's a dream. Sometimes we may even try to interpret our dreams while we are dreaming, but then we awake and realize it was a dream. Only after one is greatly awakened does one realize that it was all a great dream, while the fool thinks that he is awake and presumptuously aware. Chuang Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 05, 2011 - 7:22PM #68
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,177

... and all the Universe was contained in a minute Black Spot before the Big Bang ...


MdS

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Forever, O LORD, Your word [dabar] stands in heaven.” (Psalm 119:89)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Nov 05, 2011 - 8:02PM #69
stardustpilgrim
Posts: 5,664

Nov 5, 2011 -- 7:22PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


... and all the Universe was contained in a minute Black Spot before the Big Bang ...


MdS




Yes, and did the Zohar (13th century) just make a lucky guess on this, seeing that even Einstein didn't believe this came out of his own equations until years later.


"At the outset the decision of the King made a tracing in the supernatural effulgence...and there issued within the impenetrable recesses...a shapeless nucleus enclosed in a ring...[not] of any color at all. The most mysterious Power...clave, as it were, without cleaving its void...until from the force of the strokes there shone forth a supernal and mysterious point". London, Soncino Press, 1931-1934, p. 63  (my emphasis)


And some centuries later (16th century) The Ari, Rabbi Isaac Luria, spoke quite specifically on this.........


sdp

Roses always come with thorns. Sometimes, thorns first, sometimes roses first, and, sometimes, thorns outside, roses inside, sometimes roses outside, thorns inside.

Someone who dreams of drinking wine at a cheerful banquet may wake up crying the next morning. Someone who dreams of crying may go off the next morning to enjoy the sport of the hunt. When we are in the midst of a dream, we do not know it's a dream. Sometimes we may even try to interpret our dreams while we are dreaming, but then we awake and realize it was a dream. Only after one is greatly awakened does one realize that it was all a great dream, while the fool thinks that he is awake and presumptuously aware. Chuang Tzu
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 7 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook