Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA04511 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Wed, 9 May 2001 13:09:05 +0100 Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 12:59:26 +0100 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Information Message-ID: <20010509125926.C11502@ii01.org> References: <3AF2D123.1951.78C244@localhost>; <20010505134707.C1058@ii01.org> <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 email@example.com on Tue, May 08, 2001 at 02:45:22PM -0500 From: Robin Faichney <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 02:45:22PM -0500, email@example.com 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
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 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 - 13:16:41 BST