RE: virus: Nature of Information
Robin Faichney (r.j.faichney@stir.ac.uk)
Tue, 14 Oct 1997 03:59:27 +0100
> From: Dave K-P[SMTP:k.p@snet.net]
>
> At 11:36 AM 10/13/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:
>
> >You can do all kinds of things with patterns, sure. The
> >point was to define "pattern". Definitions, like theories,
> >are better if simpler, other things being equal. I
> >believe the simplest fundamental thing you can say
> >about patterns is that they allow the compression of
> >information. Translation is considerably more
> >complicated.
>
> ... but no less fundamental. There are other fundamentals to
> patterns,
> too, that must be taken into consideration for any definition.
>
I don't agree. Why do you say translation is no less
fundamental? I looks a great deal less so to me. As
I already said, definitions are better simple. You do
not generally define something by listing all the things
you can do with it.
> >> Of course, its all relative! ;-)
> >>
> >Umm, not sure that helps, actually. ;-)
>
> "Yes, they are both correct within their own frame of reference."
>
Yes, I said that, and yes, it expresses a certain sort
of relativity, but so what? What are you trying to
say here?
> >... an information *flow*
> >is equivalent to an energy flow, which is in turn equivalent
> >to causation. Static information is something else. Matter,
> >actually. (We're talking naturally-occuring info here.)
>
> Hrm, no, that isn't exactly what I was getting at. What I was getting
> at,
> though, requires more thinking on my part to explain fully... it has
> less
> to do with flow and more to do with distinct symbols.
>
If you think that information requires symbols you haven't
grasped what's going on here.
Robin