I do understand to an extent Carlos, but I have the address of the library down to the book on self-made men that decries this concept as bollox (their own stories and myths about them turn out not to be true). The book is material and full of words which work on me. Even addresses in my documents turn up an equivalent, say of dross I wrote on HRM to make a living once. Of course, in any future there might be, someone might find this address and wonder what strange rituals I was practising. You often have a poetic grasp of words - are we seeking to reduce this to binary? Georges was kind enough to hint at 'dark matter' being an 'address' the other day, though I'm thinking of it in terms of powering rockets (is it the neutralino that is its own anti-particle, thus producing 'endless' gamma to puke out of the back)? I appreciate that he got me thinking on a bit of a different track. Would it be possible to write this all out in binary? I guess so, but will leave others to this 'blessing' and continue with my science fiction. I doubt we could be at odds on any of this. I just wonder what the point of the reduction is outside of certain context.
On a slightly different tack, it may be possible to address points and activity in those universes in our front rooms we never see because light runs underneath them (though inhabitants of such addresses may see us). Detections of such addresses would be done through gravity observations, as this is suspected of leaking through. No doubt some non-commutative geometry will be involved. I don't mind saying it's beyond my grok. I'm still unable to satisfy my own logic with how I can access deleted files with Easyrecover, even though I know it writes the addresses back in. Are hard disks some kind of Hilbert Hotel which can never be full? If so why do we need bigger ones? I feel comfortable telling some cop that these are the deleted emails that some turd accountant was trying to hide, when he did it and so on, but I don't get why the information is still there. I sort of know why a car goes, but feel 'out of water' with virtual space. I've long thought that the kind of relativism used by dorks to justify their point of view implies a realism of facts they won't address. Our legal systems are full on donkey-logic and so on. There is much logic and good sense should be doing in our day-to-day. Away from this, I love speculation that the whole shebang might be the history of an electron travelling through time, or a positron going backwards in it. I think I glimpse something of potential difference in what you are saying and a personal confusion in me as to whether I'm wondering how any of this helps us understand why some people think the likes of Blair, Bush and even Obama offer us any hope. No doubt we should digitally re-master politics to play a different tune, though we'd both baulk at the implications of that! On 1 Dec, 21:34, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Neal > > Then when you look for information you tell your device to look into, > for instance: > Allow me an example within Windows' meaning reference > > C\My Computer\My anything\My stuff\My hidden secrets :-)...\my.doc > > You go down through a nested structure following a strict path until > you finally get "my.doc" > > Then you "open" the thing and continue to read.... what? Why do you > thing that your are now doing any different. > > In fact when you read you continue to travel down through language up > to...? > > Well, up to that which makes senses to you in your language/knowledge > area, that final understanding is what I call information, and it is > certainly an address, a number, within a space which is unique for > you, and which sometimes we try to describe/transfere/conceive to > someone else. > > On 1 dez, 14:57, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Carlos - I never really grok what you mean by information. For > > that matter, I can never really understand how I can recover wads of > > files from PCs even though I understand that all that was removed was > > the 'address'. I can do quite a lot of things others can't without > > training; are you saying this is just because I've collected a lot of > > addresses? > > > On 1 Dec, 15:13, socratus <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > # > > > Electron and Information > > > > Information can transfer, for example, to this thread > > > only by electromagnetic waves. > > > But there isn’t electromagnetic waves without Electron. > > > Electron carries the minimum quantum of Information. > > > Electron itself is a Quantum of Information. > > > ===== . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
