On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > I just explained
3 days after learning that the subject even existed here we sit at your feet while you explain all about it to us. > > that Shannon information has nothing to do with anything except data > compression. Except for data compression? Except for identifying the core, must have, part of any message. Except for telling us exactly what's important and what is not. Except for showing how to build things like the internet. Except for that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play? Shannon can tell you how many books can be sent over a noisy wire in a given amout of time without error, and if you're willing to tolerate a few errors Shannon can tell you how to send even more. If the contents of books is not information what do you call the contents of books? > Nothing can become a 'file' without irreversible loss. > Ah, well, that explains why I can't make heads or tails out of your ideas, all I've seen is your mail files, now if I'd seen your original glorious Email just as it was as you typed it on your computer screen with no irreversible loss I would have long ago become convinced you were right and were in fact the second coming of Issac Newton. So when you respond to this post please don't send me a file full of irreversible loss, send me your ORIGINAL, send me the real deal. > > The terms signal and noise refer to information (signal) and entropy > (noise). Get it straight. One man's signal is another man's noise, to a fan of hisses and clicks and pops the music is the noise. First you decide what you want to call the signal and then Shannon can tell you what the signal to noise ratio is and he can show you ways to improve it. >> And your way of dealing with it is to say it (bits electrons information >> logic etc) does not exist. I would never have guessed that coming up with a >> theory of everything could be so easy. >> > > If you understand my hypothesis then you will see there is no reason to > think they exist. Then I dearly hope my mind never goes so soft that I understand your hypothesis. > Just as you think free will has no reason to exist. > No no a thousand times no! Free will would have to improve dramatically before it could have the lofty property of "nonexistence"; free will is a idea so bad its not even wrong. > > I thought Foucault's Discipline and Punish was one of the most > interesting books I've ever read. > I don't consider social criticism a part of philosophy even if I agree with it because it always includes matters of taste. Professional philosophers might write interesting books about history or about what society should or should not do, but none of them have contributed to our understanding of the nature of reality in centuries. That's not to say philosophy hasn't made progress, it just wasn't made by philosophers. > Feynman I think would have been intrigued by my ideas > Delusions of grandeur. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.