Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA25223 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Fri, 4 May 2001 21:59:37 +0100 From: <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 16:02:08 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Information Message-ID: <3AF2D280.1640.7E145E@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010503183340.A1419@ii01.org> References: <3AF06BF1.14540.6C1D26@localhost>; from email@example.com on Wed, May 02, 2001 at 08:20:01PM -0500 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On 3 May 2001, at 18:33, Robin Faichney wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 08:20:01PM -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > On 2 May 2001, at 9:49, Robin Faichney wrote: > > > According to Roy
> Frieden, the laws of physics are generated by the > > attempt to
> minimize the difference between an entity or system's own, > >
> physical information, and the information that physicists can obtain >
> > about it. This account does not get awfully technical, at least as
> > > regards physics---we've just gone as deep into Frieden's work as
> we're > > going to go---but this distinction he draws is vital:
> between physical > > information, which exists for its own sake, and
> the more usual sort, > > information that's about something. (From > >
> http://www.ii01.org/physics.html) > > > The Fisher Information
> distinction is between what information can > be drawn from an object
> considering Heisenbergian constraints and > the information that would
> be available in an observationally perfect > world, where observation
> interactions did not affect the state of the > observed object.
> Actually, it's broader than that, encompassing any and all contraints,
> not just Heisenbergian ones.
> > In either case, we are talking about observation,
> > either actual or hypothetical.
> As far as I can see, your distinction between "the information that
> would be available in an observationally perfect world" and an
> entity's intrinsic information is of no significance. And if it does
> have any significance, then it means that Frieden and the New
> Scientist journalist who wrote about his work are wrong, because they
> both talk about intrinsic information.
> More generally, in thermodynamics, material structure is considered as
> information, and is inversely proportional to entropy. If you want to
> argue with that, I suggest you seek out an appropriate forum -- but I
> doubt you'll convince many physicists to adopt your view.
Except the physicist John A. Wheeler, who is quoted approvingly
at both the beginning and the end of Friedan's book. I repeat the
quote for your benefit:
All things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is
a participatory universe...Observer participation gives rise to
information, and information gives rise to physics.
Apparently, Friedan, Wheeler and Heisenberg, as physicists, all
understood the phenomenological lesson you, as a wannabe
philosopher, have yet to learn.
> Robin Faichney
> Get your Meta-Information from http://www.ii01.org
> (CAUTION: contains philosophy, may cause heads to spin)(especially Robin's)
> 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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 04 2001 - 22:03:11 BST