Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA17059 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 14 May 2001 20:27:04 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 14:29:12 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Information Message-ID: <3AFFEBB8.292.D60EA@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010514194552.B534@ii01.org> References: <3AFC56DE.2154.121A2FA@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Fri, May 11, 2001 at 09:17:18PM -0500 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 14 May 2001, at 19:45, Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 09:17:18PM -0500, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > On 9 May 2001, at 10:26, Robin Faichney wrote: > > > Can you explain
> how, using "the unknowable", Frieden and colleagues > > were able to
> derive physical laws to the satisfaction of physics > > journal
> reviewers? > > > > Personally, I suspect that what's critical is
> *amounts* of > > information, so they only need a single figure for J
> in any particular > > system, the number of bits. > > > > You have
> Frieden's book, don't you, Joe? Can you confirm that? > > > friedan
> does not need to calculate the incalculable in order to > compare it
> with the calculable; he merely needs to derive the > parameters of the
> different fuzzinesses, beneath which > heisenbergian constraints will
> not allow is to fix measurement more > precisely; it is from the
> specific characters of these fuzzinesses, > and the ruiles governing
> their mathematical description, that > particular laws emerge. And
> yes, I own the book.
>
> Maybe you need to look at it again, then, in order to answer the
> simple question: is J the *amount* of "intrinsic" information or not?
>
Nope, because since information is a function of an apprehended
transfer to a subject from the environment (either another
communicating subject or a perceived object), there is no such
thing as purely 'intrinsic' information (information not requiring the
interaction of a subject), for in such an impossib;le case, no one
would be getting INFORMed. If I say it 1200 times, maybe one of
those times you'll understand it - and then again, maybe not.
>
> (Please note the quote marks there, and try not to throw another
> wobbly.)
>
> --
> Robin Faichney
> Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org
> (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Mon May 14 2001 - 20:30:52 BST