Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA07399 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:50:49 GMT Message-Id: <200101192048.PAA17178@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:53:59 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: DNA Culture .... Trivia? In-reply-to: <20010119200853.D2515@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <200101191445.JAA27762@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 08:50:49AM -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: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:08:53 +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 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
informagtinal uncertainty and entropy in the derivation of laws and
constants, and everything to do with yout insistence that one could
use physics to simplistically educe meaning into an equation with
meaninglessness, and treat them the same.
> --
> 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 : Fri Jan 19 2001 - 20:52:27 GMT