Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA00393 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 15 May 2001 13:58:53 +0100 Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 09:14:41 +0100 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Information Message-ID: <20010515091441.B943@ii01.org> References: <3AFC56DE.2154.121A2FA@localhost>; <20010514194552.B534@ii01.org> <3AFFEBB8.292.D60EA@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <3AFFEBB8.292.D60EA@localhost>; from email@example.com on Mon, May 14, 2001 at 02:29:12PM -0500 From: Robin Faichney <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 02:29:12PM -0500, email@example.com wrote:
> On 14 May 2001, at 19:45, Robin Faichney wrote:
> > On Fri, May 11, 2001 at 09:17:18PM -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > > On 9 May 2001, at 10:26, Robin Faichney wrote: > > > Can you explain
> > how, using "the unknowable", Frieden and colleagues > > were able to
> > derive physical laws to the satisfaction of physics > > journal
> > reviewers? > > > > Personally, I suspect that what's critical is
> > *amounts* of > > information, so they only need a single figure for J
> > in any particular > > system, the number of bits. > > > > You have
> > Frieden's book, don't you, Joe? Can you confirm that? > > > friedan
> > does not need to calculate the incalculable in order to > compare it
> > with the calculable; he merely needs to derive the > parameters of the
> > different fuzzinesses, beneath which > heisenbergian constraints will
> > not allow is to fix measurement more > precisely; it is from the
> > specific characters of these fuzzinesses, > and the ruiles governing
> > their mathematical description, that > particular laws emerge. And
> > yes, I own the book.
> > Maybe you need to look at it again, then, in order to answer the
> > simple question: is J the *amount* of "intrinsic" information or not?
> > (Please note the quote marks there, and try not to throw another
> > wobbly.)
> Nope, because since information is a function of an apprehended
> transfer to a subject from the environment (either another
> communicating subject or a perceived object), there is no such
> thing as purely 'intrinsic' information (information not requiring the
> interaction of a subject), for in such an impossib;le case, no one
> would be getting INFORMed. If I say it 1200 times, maybe one of
> those times you'll understand it - and then again, maybe not.
You threw another wobbly, Joe!
-- 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 : Tue May 15 2001 - 14:10:59 BST