Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA10738 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Sat, 12 May 2001 03:04:47 +0100 From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:06:54 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Information Message-ID: <3AFC546E.4071.1181CC6@localhost> In-reply-to: <20010509125926.C11502@ii01.org> References: <3AF80682.23077.573E30@localhost>; from firstname.lastname@example.org on Tue, May 08, 2001 at 02:45:22PM -0500 X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On 9 May 2001, at 12:59, Robin Faichney wrote:
> 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
> It would be obvious to anyone other than you, what I meant was the
> difference between the *intended* meanings. And there is none.
Sure there is. One statement mistakenly assumes the
apprehender-absent existence of that which cannot exist
independent of an apprehender that is, information, while the other
> > > 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.
Hokay, call frogs by the name 'buffalo' and see how many people
wanna wear their pelts for coats.
> > 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.
No it isn't and hasn't been, since it has been understood that to
inform is to communicate knowledge to, which means that
information is that pattern which communicates such knowledge
(by means of meaning) to a receiver who is thereby INFORMed.
> 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 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 : Sat May 12 2001 - 03:08:29 BST