Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA04252 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Wed, 9 May 2001 11:14:16 +0100 Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 10:28:26 +0100 To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Information Message-ID: <20010509102826.C480@ii01.org> References: <20010506205005.AAA19122@firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <20010506205005.AAA19122@email@example.com>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Sun, May 06, 2001 at 04:50:05PM -0400 From: Robin Faichney <email@example.com> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 04:50:05PM -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote:
> Hi Robin Faichney -
> >But for me, if its use allows
> >the laws of physics to be derived, then it's significant.
> I don't think I'm any too entrenched here to mention that something has
> to be _used_ (that is, apprehended and understood and engaged) first
> (regardless of when or how anything is derived) to then be significant....
> And, unless I'm horribly mistaken, we're almost over the semantic butte.
> (No, that's a sacred burial mound.)
> (Well, it sure is purty....)
I think we might be "over it" too. See my post in reply to Joe concerning
J as an *amount* of information.
-- 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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 09 2001 - 11:25:59 BST