>
> Then say we start with a quantum of energy? It produces, it consumes...ok,
> it can't produce MORE than it consumes (there is a quantum of it). So, how
> does it consume more than it is?
It's not that is "consumes". It doesn't produce or consume. it loses
energy in the form of EM radiation when it combines with another. I wish
I knew more about the math of it. If you read that book by Paul Davies
"God and the New Physics" that I mentioned earlier, it will help. I gave
my copy to my brother or I would be using it here. It's easy reading
too, as the writing style is easy to follow and fun to read.
>
> Yes, the law of conservation of information is a "real" law...I just made it
> up. You won't find references for it for another 200 years. (It's really a
> theory...a translation of the theory of relativity and as such CAN'T be a
> "law" which is Newtonian--unless some one makes it into a law and all lawful
> scientists agree to reference it.)
Ahhh, I see.
> See Robin's post and my response. I think we were just trying to talk about
> a phenomenon from different levels. I can see how information in a
> self-referential system (new idea, "self-referential", I mean a system with
> laws and translations that must speak to those laws...like email--with the
> dynamics it works within, text, display, transmission, reception, whatever:
> Email information which is encoded is no longer subject to the laws of my
> email reader and any information which is no longer in the form of text is
> lost from the system)...in a self-referential system, information might
> loose energy and become less organized so that it cannot be referenced by
> that system.
>
> Brett
>
> Returning,
> rBERTS%n
> Rabble Sonnet Retort
> Everyone must row with the oars he has.
>
> English proverb
>
I'm trying to understand this, but am failing miserably. I;ll read
Robin's post and be back.
Sodom
Some people make motors and chuck the oars