George Levy wrote:
> Is the world fundamentally physical or can it be reduced to ideas? This
> is an interesting issue. If a TOE exists then it would have to explain
> the physics and the objects.
> This reminds me of the Ether controversy. Is there a need for the Ether
> for waves to propagate? The most up-to-date answer is that waves carry
> their own "physical substrate." They can be waves and/or particles.
> Similarly there should be equivalence between information and
> matter/energy. Thus a process or algorithm should have inherently within
> itself its own physical substrate.
> Since information is observer-dependent (Shannon)
Inasmuch as it is, it isn't somethign that can be equated
with physical properties. Inasmuch as it is something that can be
with physical properties, it isn't observer-dependent.
> this issue brings us
> back to the observer. I think that eventually all observables will have
> to be traced back to the observer who is in fact at the nexus of the
> mind-body problem.
> If I say something to you in Sanskrit you will likely not understand it.
> It will carry zero information. However If I say it in English you will
> be much more likely to understand it.
> If I say to you that your name is Lee Corbin, it will not add any
> information to what you already know. Again, it will carry zero
> This is what Shannon calls Mutual Information. In the first case *you*
> don't have the decoder to translate Sanskrit to English. In the second
> case you have the decoder but for *you*, the information is not new: you
> already know that your name is Lee Corbin. Old information is no
> information at all.
> Received mutual information is dependent on the information that already
> exists in the mind of the receiver (or observer). In this sense
> Shannon's information theory is a relativity theory of information just
> like Galileo's dynamics and Einstein's relativity are relativity
> theories of physics and just like Everett's interpretation is a
> relativity theory of quantum events.
That's "mutual" information as opposed to other kinds...like
the kind that can be equated with the non-observer-dependent quantity
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at