Well, I spent my lunch hour dipping into a few books on realist approaches to information and was quickly impressed enough to slope off for a couple of pints. I generally prefer the realist hypothesis (much modified) because alternatives are much more difficult and don't seem to resolve anything. We have many conservation laws in physics and chemistry and lots of fantasy on mirror-worlds and multiple universes to cope with them breaking down. Economics and banking are dumb enough to assume risk is not conserved if you wave enough maths at it. Come exam time I'm not sure much information is conserved or when looking a a fried hard disk. But then it is obvious the term means many different things. Trying to define data is tough enough.
On Mar 23, 1:24 pm, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > Nowhere, because we exist in its realm...natural phenomena are it. > On Mar 23, 2012 4:18 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 21, 5:39 pm, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > > > So, information is an end? > > ===========.. > > > Book ‘ The big questions’ by Michael Brooks. > > Page 195-196. > > ‘The laws of physics dictate that information, like energy, > > cannot be destroyed, which means it must go somewhere. > > Where did the information go? ’ > > ========================… > > > -- > > 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. -- 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.
