Bucky
Member
Oh wait... I subconsciously quoted this:Very meta... like searching "Google" in Google :D:D
:)
Last edited:
Oh wait... I subconsciously quoted this:Very meta... like searching "Google" in Google :D:D
I don't think information science is "expanding" physics. I think physics kept measuring reality and found that there is another aspect of reality that must be probed in a similar math manner, but is not based on physical measurements. I see physics and information science as two, basically asymptotic, fields of study. I "steal" thermodynamics, from the category of physics - because it is measuring entropy - a non-physical abstraction. Of course, Shannon, Von Neuman and Wiener all understood the fundamental math relationship (hence ontological) between Boltzmann's formula and Shannon's Mathematical Theory of Communication. Both thermodynamics and the MTC generate units of measure that are not material - but, in essence are informational and at a separate level of abstraction from physical models!!Do you think there is a boundary to knowledge (pattern/logic/rationality/structure/Logos)? It seems to me that there is no grounding of the structural aspect of reality and that all efforts to find a foundation lead to either circularity or infinity - this invokes the image of a bubble of structure floating on chaos or a boundary around all that is knowable... and stepping up to that boundary brings us face to face with the numinous.
If the structural aspect of reality is grounded on a deeper structure, what is it? And what is that grounded on? Turtles all the way down? How do you avoid circularity or infinity when attempting to discover the foundation of existence?
Rupert is amazing that way!I have had a number of interesting email exchanges with him that began exactly like that!
Question - who was your interviewer on this show?
David
I don't think information science is "expanding" physics. I think physics kept measuring reality and found that there is another aspect of reality that must be probed in a similar math manner, but is not based on physical measurements. I see physics and information science as two, basically asymptotic, fields of study. I "steal" thermodynamics, from the category of physics - because it is measuring entropy - a non-physical abstraction.
Of course, Shannon, Von Neuman and Wiener all understood the fundamental math relationship (hence ontological) between Boltzmann's formula and Shannon's Mathematical Theory of Communication. Both thermodynamics and the MTC generate units of measure that are not material - but, in essence are informational and at a separate level of abstraction from physical models!!
Physical activity is from force. Organized activity is from communicated instructions.
This rant is about keeping instructions, planning, purpose and deeply felt meaning -- in one category AND to keep forces and molecular structure on another.
Physical and Informational activity are apples and oranges, as to the process's computational methods.
The grounding of the structural aspects of reality (in my humble opinion) land right on top of the bits and bits measured by Shannon's transfer of information.
I don't understand what makes entropy (in the thermodynamic sense) a non-physical abstraction? Any value with units attached is not abstract.
In what way do these abstract bits exist? And how do the abstract bits support the physical structure if we wall them off as two separate categories? Seems like we're just recreating the old problems of dualism? And information requires the sender and a message... who's the sender? And what is the message?
Entropy exists at the level of abstraction of systems of particles. The measure is not on a physical property of matter -- but on the level of organization in groups. Likewise a binary digit (bit) is an abstraction. Just like a "naked" 2 is an abstraction and 2 bits related to a system is a measure of its structural capability to "carry" communication.Entropy a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
Entropy exists at the level of abstraction of systems of particles. The measure is not on a physical property of matter -- but on the level of organization in groups.
Hmm... ad hominem much?Also, it is disingenious to describe Doctors Long and Van Lommel as non-religious, as Alex did in this interview.
For the reason Alex stressed it I guess.Hmm... ad hominem much?
How is this relevant or important?
Can you elaborate?For the reason Alex stressed it I guess.
how so?Having listened. Re Randi and the telephone calls:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/skeptic2/rand013.htm
Also, it is disingenious to describe Doctors Long and Van Lommel as non-religious, as Alex did in this interview.
money and fear, eh? 'bout sums it up :)Asking why the powers-that-be would have a vested interest in defending materialism is something I hadn't actually thought of! Interesting....
One answer could be consumerism, nothing keeps the tills ringing like a gnawing hole in the culture. But this alone seems like an unlikely candidate.
Much more likely, I reckon, is fear. It's an old and very useful political tool and we're drowning in the stuff currently. Personally, I believe that an expanded view of reality greatly reduces the ability fear (even rational fear) has to shove us into convenient and compromising postures.
It's just a thought.
Long is not a religious person. I've asked on a couple of occasions. He grew up in Iowa so he may have been raised Christian and may still be a nominal Christian (I'm not sure one way or another), but it's not a worldview kinda thing.Hmm... ad hominem much?
How is this relevant or important?
Why did Alex mention that they weren't religious people?Can you elaborate?
Relisten to PVL's skeptiko interview. He goes way beyond any conclusions one could draw from his Lancet study. These further speculations appeared to be informed by his religion.Long is not a religious person. I've asked on a couple of occasions. He grew up in Iowa so he may have been raised Christian and may still be a nominal Christian (I'm not sure one way or another), but it's not a worldview kinda thing.
Can't remember re Van Lommel... but it done's seem to factor into his original interest in NDEs, or his conclusions.
Again, both of these guys conclude that the "primacy of Christianity" thing is bullshit... i.e. contradicted by their findings.
What's wrong with speculation?Relisten to PVL's skeptiko interview. He goes way beyond any conclusions one could draw from his Lancet study. These further speculations appeared to be informed by his religion.
But I asked you why do you think it's relevant or important?Why did Alex mention that they weren't religious people?
Nothing.What's wrong with speculation?
Ask Alex, he brought it up in the interview. I think he made an error is all.But I asked you why do you think it's relevant or important?
Here's the thing. I don't think it's that important.Long is not a religious person. I've asked on a couple of occasions. He grew up in Iowa so he may have been raised Christian and may still be a nominal Christian (I'm not sure one way or another), but it's not a worldview kinda thing.
Can't remember re Van Lommel... but it done's seem to factor into his original interest in NDEs, or his conclusions.
Again, both of these guys conclude that the "primacy of Christianity" thing is bullshit... i.e. contradicted by their findings.
But it's you that have claimed this is disingenuous.Nothing.
Ask Alex, he brought it up in the interview. I think he made an error is all.