Re: presentation

From: Robin Faichney (
Date: Sat 17 Jun 2006 - 08:52:33 GMT

  • Next message: Tonie Putter: "Re: Egotism"

    Friday, June 16, 2006, 5:50:13 PM, Ted wrote:

    >>> It seems the information for the entire pulse is contained in its leading
    >>> edge. This leads me to wonder if information has primacy over tangible
    >>> things such as light and matter, which we might refer to as
    >>> "exformation."
    >> Physical information IS (the structure of) light and matter.

    > According to the article on backward traveling light, the information for
    > the entire pulse of light is contained in its leading edge. Thus we can't
    > simply equate the information for the pulse with its structure. As you
    > yourself pointed out, physics needs a concept of information as much as
    > structure.

    I'd guess what that means is that the information of the entire pulse can be deduced from (ie is encoded in) the leading edge. However, this is really not the forum nor am I qualified to argue about physical information. I've just ordered a book on it (Decoding the Universe, Charles Seife).

    >> You appear to be seeking some form of dualism.

    > It doesn't matter what I'm seeking. The fact is that physics presents us
    > with two things-- information and structure (or exformation).

    I'd suggest you do some more reading too before pontificating on this. By the way, "exformation" is already in use, see

    >>>> > A structure
    >>>> > is simply a structure, no more and no less. Only in the mind of the
    >>>> > interpreter does it encode information.
    >>>> That's true of any en/decoding scenario. The encoded information only
    >>>> exists if the appropriate decoder is available
    >>> The difference is that in the case of physical information, the effect is
    >>> automatic.
    >> Obviously. I'm not saying there's no difference. I'm not a
    >> materialist. My point is that your use of the encoding concept doesn't
    >> help your case.

    > You've conceded my point. So why are you still arguing?

    You appear to be conceding my point...

    >>> That's exactly my point. When you think about it, physical information
    >>> cannot include representation. The problem is that we don't always think
    >>> about it. Since we associate meaning with information, and we now have a
    >>> concept of physical information, we imagine that meaning exists
    >>> physically,
    >>> including in such objects as books, computers and brains.
    >> That's just your fantasy. I'm not sure exactly who it is that imagines
    >> meaning exists physically -- certainly not me, and I don't know that
    >> anyone on this list does

    > An odd statement. It's a core belief of memetics that cultural meaning is
    > contained in artifacts such as books, musical scores, game rules, etc.

    See Tim's new thread.

    As for egotism, and "costly entrapment in losing endeavors", I'm sure you're right, and indeed you should know. :-)

    Best regards,
    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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat 17 Jun 2006 - 09:13:15 GMT