Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA01378 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 15 May 2001 19:28:58 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:30:52 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Information Message-ID: <3B012F8C.28371.210541@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010515091441.B943@ii01.org> References: <3AFFEBB8.292.D60EA@localhost>; from joedees@bellsouth.net on Mon, May 14, 2001 at 02:29:12PM -0500 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 15 May 2001, at 9:14, Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 02:29:12PM -0500, joedees@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > 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? > > > > (Please note the quote marks there, and
> try not to throw another > > wobbly.) > > > 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.
>
> You threw another wobbly, Joe!
>
Nope, it's clear, explicit and straightforward; you just have your own
self-constructed memetic filters on which do not allow you to grasp
any concepts that might contradict your equaaly self-constricted
dogma.
> --
> 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 : Tue May 15 2001 - 19:32:41 BST