Dear Stephen, please see my note after the copy of your post
John Mikes
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Eric Hawthorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "James N Rose"
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and

> Dear Eric,
>     I like your idea! But how do we reconsile your notion with the notion
> expressed by Russell:
> > From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 5:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: not-sets, not-gates, and the universe
> >
> > > There is no problem is saying that all computations exist in
> > > "platonia" (or the plenitude). This is a zero information set, and
> > > requires no further explanation.
> > >
>     One definition of "information" is a "difference that makes a
> difference". If we take the "substrate" to be the "capacity for there to
> difference" as you propose we obviously can not consider Platonia or the
> "Plenitude" do be it. If we take these two ideas seriously, is there any
> that we can have both?
> Kindest regards,
> Stephen
I defined information as "difference acknowledged" (by no specified
acknowledger) because not all information DO make a difference, yet an
unrecognized difference is no information.
With the Plenitude (a version as the basis for my narrative leading to our
universe) I have a question: Is "no information" not an information?
(Or: is "no difference" an information about identicity?)

Reply via email to