Dear Stepen, I did not say
">information is only information to a "recognizer" of such. <..."
but can you imagine an "unrecognized" information, just floating around?
it would take a special definition of information (maybe even weirder than
Shannon's bit, the meaningless dot/sign if not assigned into context. )
You also missed my explanatory remark in parentheses
>>..."(by no specified acknowledger)" meaning person, particle, universe
whatever absorbing a "difference" (which btw I equated with existence).
I included the process (not the noun) information only up to its generation.
Communiaction of informational stuff is a subsequent phase. Your question
(how do we define such?) is valid, maybe someone smarter than me could help
About the "counterfactual "no information": right on, "no info" is*a*
counterfactual (or 'is counterfactual') but to detect (establish) that a
system is "no-informational" is a factual process, a characteristic
established about the system. Lack of something assumable can be a positive
addition to a description.
I would love to read Hal's supposed opinion on the counterfactual.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and
> Dear John,
> It seems that you are saying that information is only information to a
> "recognizer" of such. If this is so, how do we define such? As to the
> of "no information" as information, this seems to fall under the
> of "counterfactuals". (Hal Ruhl might have a thought to add to this.)
> I remember reading somewhere that the fact that no detection event
> occurring in a QM situation is still an informative event. I believe that
> the so-called "non-demolition" measurements are related. Any thoughts?
> Kindest regards,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Eric Hawthorne"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "James N Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 11:40 AM
> Subject: Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and
> > Dear Stephen, please see my note after the copy of your post
> > 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
> > universe) I have a question: Is "no information" not an information?
> > (Or: is "no difference" an information about identicity?)
> > JM