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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 8:34 PM Subject: Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?
> Dear Eric, > > I like your idea! But how do we reconsile your notion with the notion > expressed by Russell: > > > From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[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 be > 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 way > 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?) JM