Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA11913 (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 11:22:09 GMT Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:16:58 +0000 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: DNA Culture .... Trivia? Message-ID: <20010121111658.A1261@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <200101191445.JAA27762@mail2.lig.bellsouth.net>; <20010119200853.D2515@reborntechnology.co.uk> <200101192048.PAA17178@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i In-Reply-To: <200101192048.PAA17178@mail6.lig.bellsouth.net>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 02:53:59PM -0600 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk 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
> 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.
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 educe 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.
-- 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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 21 2001 - 11:26:01 GMT