Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA27052 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Sat, 5 May 2001 23:47:08 +0100 Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 14:07:51 +0100 To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Information Message-ID: <20010505140751.E1058@ii01.org> References: <20010504125306.AAA6281@firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <20010504125306.AAA6281@email@example.com>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Fri, May 04, 2001 at 08:52:53AM -0400 From: Robin Faichney <email@example.com> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 08:52:53AM -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote:
> On 05/04/01 05:30, Robin Faichney said this-
> >I'm talking about the information that's
> >intrinsic to every physical system, that Frieden and colleagues have used
> >*successfully* to derive the laws of physics.
> And, sure, I can understand that. But, if this intrinsic (is this
> Fisher?) information is _not_ derived, and the law of physics issued
> therefrom, of what significance is it, or could it possibly have?
> Significance- 2. A meaning that is expressed.
I'm no physicist, and I don't know exactly how intrinsic information
is handled by Frieden. (It's not Fisher information -- that's the sort
that *can* be extracted from the system.) But for me, if its use allows
the laws of physics to be derived, then it's significant.
Significance: 3. Importance; moment; weight; consequence.
-- 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 : Sun May 06 2001 - 00:02:54 BST