Re: Information

From: Robin Faichney (
Date: Wed May 09 2001 - 12:59:26 BST

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: Information"

    Received: by id NAA04511 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Wed, 9 May 2001 13:09:05 +0100
    Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 12:59:26 +0100
    Subject: Re: Information
    Message-ID: <>
    References: <3AF2D123.1951.78C244@localhost>; <> <3AF80682.23077.573E30@localhost>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Disposition: inline
    User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i
    In-Reply-To: <3AF80682.23077.573E30@localhost>; from on Tue, May 08, 2001 at 02:45:22PM -0500
    From: Robin Faichney <>
    Precedence: bulk

    On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 02:45:22PM -0500, wrote:
    > On 5 May 2001, at 13:47, Robin Faichney wrote:
    > > Please explain any difference between the meanings of "the information
    > > that one could extract if there were no Heisenbergian constraints"
    > > (what you said) and "the information that exists in any given thing or
    > > system" (quoted from the article).
    > >
    > The difference is that information requires an apprehender to exist
    > (the extractor), and since such an entity is absent in the second
    > quote, the reviewer misspoke.

    It would be obvious to anyone other than you, what I meant was the
    difference between the *intended* meanings. And there is none.

    > > Then, given that there is none, tell us why the "reviewer" (it wasn't
    > > actually a review) was wrong to use that phrase, when physicists treat
    > > the structure of matter as information in the context of the
    > > application of communication theory to thermodynamics.
    > >
    > Well, as I pointed out, there is not only a difference, but a crucial
    > one, the one that makes information possible, i.e. someone it may
    > INFORM.

    The best way to use any word is entirely a matter of opinion.

    > For physicists, their knowledge of the observed structure
    > of matter is indeed information, but they are physicists, not
    > philosophers or phenomenologists or psychologists, and therefore
    > misattrribute information to the object simpliciter when it is actually
    > a function of the observational interaction between subject and
    > object, that is, observationally derived knowledge of the structure,
    > and not the structure itself.

    What information "really" is, is decided by convention, and in this
    context, that's with me and against you.

    Robin Faichney
    Get your Meta-Information from
    (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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 09 2001 - 13:16:41 BST