No, I don't think the only alternative is subjectivity...I don't see
subjectivity as an alternative. Subjectivity is a system, it doesn't
imply--to me--that one can therefore go in and arbetrarily define
something...it implies that when one defines one thing one is changing the
definition of everything else. Further, I think that certain patterns will
not allow certain interpretations without seeking balance (one could not
both interpret positive and negative using positive criteria lest the sum of
negativity seek a balance...a peculiar example).
So, like I tried to imply in reference to symbolic streams of information
and a translator symbol...at the core of subjectivity is a pattern which
says everything is related. I think that this "pattern" is not the pattern
you define as it would be a compressed stream of patterns, each pattern a
stream of information which is compressed as much as possible so that it
still represents the information. So, no...the pattern idea comes somewhat
closer to an explanation than subjectivity in it's broadest application
(can I say "pattern" is an objective form of subjectivity?).
Brett
At 08:26 PM 10/18/97 +0100, you wrote:
>> From: Brett Lane Robertson[SMTP:unameit@tctc.com]
>>
>> That equation relates energy to mass. I don't believe information
>> is conserved.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>> Robin,
>>
>> I assumed you were using "information" on a particle level--that is,
>> "energy" and "mass" EXACTLY. Are you limiting "information" to those
>> subjective humans again?
>>
>> Why don't you believe "information is conserved"? Are you saying that
>> there
>> are quantities which are not represented by Einstein's formula?
>>
>> Isn't the idea of "conserving" information what you mean when you say
>> that
>> information can be compressed and uncompressed without "loss"...that
>> it can
>> be conserved?
>>
>Whether it *can* be conserved, and whether it *is* conserved
>in the context above, are very different questions.
>
>However, I think I expressed myself badly, because I did not
>mean the total quantity of information was changed -- I'd
>have to give that much thought before commenting on it.
>What I really mean is that E=MC2 is not translation because
>*meaning* is not conserved. Where matter is transformed
>to energy, the structure of the matter is lost, and that is what
>I had in mind. The total quantity of information may not
>change, but the *particular* information encoded in the
>structure of the matter has gone forever. So, I guess, in
>your terms, I am not using "information" on the level of the
>particle. But do you think the only alternative is subjectivity?
>
>> Is there a "hidden agenda" here--an antithesis which you are trying to
>> UN
>> define? (for example, when I define "meme" I am trying to "UN" define
>> gene.
>> If the definition of meme sounds like it could further the Darwinists
>> and
>> their theory of chance recombination then I toss the idea aside).
>> Because
>> you "don't believe information is conserved" (a strange assumption to
>> be
>> sure), is there a reason such as "this is getting dangerously close to
>> <creationism>"*?
>>
>Ever been accused of paranoia?
>
>Robin
>
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
Everyone must row with the oars he has.
English proverb