"That’s not what is being stated- it is beign stated that info exists independent of outside determinations- it exists without being acted upon"
As I said, reality can't be defined out of reality. Also, "being acted upon" is irrelevant. An underlying physical reality is required in order for any and every instance of information to exist. If any information exists, it exists as an instance of configuraiton in an underlying physics.
"the containment doesn’t act upon the information- it simply contains it- it takes outside infromaiton acting upon contained info to activate that info- Nature can not explain how either info can arise however, and htis is the cenrtral issue- not whether there needs to be a containment or not."
Information is not contained in the underlying physics. The underlying physics give rise to it as a real instance of information. THe underlying physics is not simply a box that contains info; the info is properties of the physical configuration.
Re: All that’s needed to know and understand Biology is contained in the underlying physics.
" That’s a fien and noble undertaking, but it doesn’t explain how info can arise- especially hte metainfo being discussed.
Information is the configuration of some underlying physics. Reality has no need for anything contained in the concept of meta-info. The concept of meta -info is purely a creation of mind which is an instance of circular logic. It says that the properties of an assembly, or configuration in an underlying physics must require more physics than what's contained in the physics it arises from. Science has never found that more physics is required to know and understand any assembly, or configuration than the physics required to know and understand any of the constituent parts, or configurations.
[[As I said, reality can’t be defined out of reality. Also, “being acted upon” is irrelevant. An underlying physical reality is required in order for any and every instance of information to exist. If any information exists, it exists as an instance of configuraiton in an underlying physics.]]
You’re talking points irrelevent to the idea that BB was talking about info being able to exist indepenedent of outside physical actions acting upon it.
[[THe underlying physics is not simply a box that contains info; the info is properties of the physical configuration.]]
Well yeah in a sense it is simply because the container isn’t responsible for the action of the information when triggered by outside forces- The coexistence of the container and the info has no bearing on the fact that info can and does exist indepenedent of outside forces acting upon it in hte direct manner specific to that information as it was intended to react as per the instructions contained withion hte info
[[Information is the configuration of some underlying physics.]]
That is is-
[[Reality has no need for anything contained in the concept of meta-info. The concept of meta -info is purely a creation of mind which is an instance of circular logic.]]
Talk about circular reasoning- Reality absolutely does rely on higher instructions- Metainfo is NOT a ‘mind concept- but a biological reality as evidenced by the fact that systems of metainfo are intelligently constructed and display higher function by controlling the reactions that occure when lower instructions are affected for whatever reason- this isn’t a ‘concept’- htis is biological fact- reality- it’s not opinion, it’s not an assumption, it’s a verifiable reality.
The rest of your post is an excersize in confusion I’m afraid- Knowing somethign about parts and assemblies of physical structures is a much different issue than is the interconnected woprkings, controllings and directions of the actual information systems. You are assignign hte value of metainfo to the scientists by claiming htey don’t ‘need more physics’ in order to understand any asembly- Of course they don’t- they are mimicking hte end product of metainfo when they understand the mechanics and assemblies. your arguemt does nothign to rebuttal the need for metainfo- it only goes to strenthen it I’m afraid.
Hubert Yockey apparently thinks otherwise:
The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be deduced from the laws of physics and chemistry lies not in some esoteric philosophy but simply in the mathematical fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of those laws. Chaitin has examined the complexity of the laws of physics by actually programming them. He finds the complexity amazingly small. [i.e., Chaitin estimates it at 103 bits.]"
Quoted in #55
Cordially,