Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA12053 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:47:22 GMT Message-Id: <200101211145.GAA29317@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 05:50:33 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: DNA Culture .... Trivia? In-reply-to: <20010121111658.A1261@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <200101192048.PAA17178@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:53:59PM -0600 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Date sent: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:16:58 +0000
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: DNA Culture .... Trivia?
From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:53:59PM -0600, Joe E. Dees wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 08:50:49AM -0600, Joe E. Dees wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It's nice to know you have an interest in the pyramids, Joe. But how
> > > > > does the foregoing prove (or disprove) "that some concept of _information_
> > > > > could serve eventually to unify mind, matter, and meaning in a single
> > > > > theory?"
> > > > >
> > > > Well, if you're interested in the informational relation to physics, I
> > > > recommend PHYSICS FROM FISHER INFORMATION: A
> > > > UNIFICATION by B. Roy Friedan (Cambridge U Pr 1999).
> > >
> > > I'm quite astounded by your nerve, Joe. We had several exchanges about
> > > information in physics, both here and on the virus list. I argued
> > > that information did have a valid place in physics, and you denied it.
> > > In particular, I posted a short series of articles outlining my views,
> > > and citing that book. I posted that series twice, first on virus and
> > > then here, and you took great exception to it. I told you that I had
> > > initiated a discussion on the issue in the sci.physics newsgroup, and told
> > > you how to access it, and you still denied that information could have a
> > > place in physics, implying that those physicists who thought it did were
> > > stupid. These exchanges are in the archives. That you now presume to
> > > tell me about information in physics is... well, I can't think of a better
> > > word than "astounding". But a word of warning: if you do this kind of
> > > thing in your professional life, you will be widely disliked at best,
> > > and quite possibly be sidelined altogether, as lacking the intellectual
> > > honesty required to make any worthwhile contribution to your discipline.
> > >
> > The use of Fisher information is to derive physical constants and
> > laws; it is a generalization of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle,
> > and proceeds on the basis of the difference between what can be
> > observed and what must be the case for the observed to be as it is.
> > Do a search on newscientist.com for fisher information and you'll
> > see it. My objections had nothing to do with how he utilizes
> > informational uncertainty and entropy in the derivation of laws and
> > constants, and everything to do with yout insistence that one could
> > use physics to simplistically deduce meaning into an equation with
> > meaninglessness, and treat them the same.
>
> Your disparagement of the notion that information has any part to play
> in physics is on record, in the list archives, while my "insistence that
> one could use physics to simplistically deduce meaning into an equation
> with meaninglessness, and treat them the same" is a figment of your
> imagination.
>
> Actually, these pieces fit together very neatly, if you previously took
> the view that Vincent recently expressed, that information is necessarily
> meaningful. So when I wrote of information in physics, you took that to
> imply that physics could deal with meaning. It seems reasonable to
> assume that it was largely as a result of that dispute between us that
> you later changed your mind, and accepted that information need not be
> meaningful, and does have a valid part to play in physics.
>
> But you need to get clear on all this, and accept not only that
> information has a place in physics, but that on the basis of what
> I've said about it, I knew then and know now what that place is.
> You have no evidence that my ideas about the relationship between that
> "physical information" and the meaningful sort reduce the latter to
> the former or confuse them in any way. You read too carelessly and
> assume too much. You develop prejudices against particular individuals,
> decide they're "on the other side", and thereafter insist these people
> do nothing but make the most egregious errors. Meanwhile you make the
> most strenuous efforts to avoid reconsidering anything they have said.
> You'd be a more effective philosopher if you were more "philosophical":
> "...characterizing a philosopher; rational; wise; temperate; calm; cool"
> (Websters). At the moment, your emotional reactions are preventing you
> from learning more about areas that you obviously find fascinating.
>
> Think about it, Joe.
>
I maintained that information could not be the basis of the structure
of our universe; of course it mediates the way we investigate that
structure. I repeatedly made the distinction between ontology and
epistemology, a distinction it seems that you repeatedly missed.
>
Think about the fact that your religion colors your philosophy. We
have a principle in the US known as separation of church and
state. It should equally apply to philosophy and religion. It does
no good to protest that Buddhism is not a religion but a way of and
perspective upon life. Your garden-variety fundamentalist or
pentacostal will stridently assert that their sectarian beliefs are not
a religion, but a faith. You mightily labor to philosophically ratify
your closely held convictions on this list, but it cannot be done. As
I stated before (and it is in the archives), there is the realm of
being, and the realm of meaning, and you continue to insist that
your sectarian imposition of meaning upon being is being itself.
Try to separate the physical and the metaphysical (the latter being
philosophically illegitimate, and only religiously employable), and
attempt to realize that ontology has replaced metaphysics in
serious philosophical circles, and current investigations are
directed at foundations, or what is beneath experience, rather than
what is believed to be beyond it.
> --
> Robin Faichney
> robin@reborntechnology.co.uk
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 21 2001 - 11:49:04 GMT