Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA19864 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Wed, 2 May 2001 18:32:17 +0100 Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 17:54:17 +0100 To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Information Message-ID: <20010502175417.B629@ii01.org> References: <20010502143829.AAA614@firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <20010502143829.AAA614@email@example.com>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Wed, May 02, 2001 at 10:38:18AM -0400 From: Robin Faichney <email@example.com> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 10:38:18AM -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote:
> On 05/02/01 10:05, Robin Faichney said this-
> >>It's not information, to me, until someone can use it.
> >Isn't the information in every physical thing just waiting to be used?
> I'm not, at the moment, wanting to make that semantic gap irrelevant.
> Information about something is hardly relevant _until_ it _can_ be used,
> and for all purposes and intent, has no existence until it _is_ used.
So you agree with Joe that unapprehended things cannot be said to exist?
This is more like philosophical idealism than scientific rationalism.
> >it is our attempt to minimise these differences that
> >generates the laws of physics
> I have not seen one law of physics that we have generated.
I guess you think they're "out there". But if that were so, they'd
be immune to refutation, wouldn't they? Or maybe you think they are?
> >I'm not making this up, you know! :-)
> If someone does generate laws of physics, they are making them up.
You really need to read http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19990130/iisthelaw.html
before you say any more about this.
-- Robin Faichney Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 02 2001 - 18:39:49 BST