[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It's odd that you don't catch my intent to help others understand a > very non ad hoc and efficient method, not yet in general use, for > doing just that. To understand my technique you do need to > distinguish between information and the physical prosesses from which > we get it.. That can be a hangup.
Sorry. I'm a bit of a literal person and, since we were talking in the context of Rosen, I keep trying to tie the conversation to what I understand of Rosen's work. And in that context, we're (or should be) assuming a very clear delineation between causal and inferential entailment, a.k.a. "physical processes" and "information", respectively. So, at least in the context of Rosen, that distinction is not the problem. It's foundational. > Once you distinguish between > those, what works to let your information signal you where to look in > physical processes for better information about how they work is the > transitions between continuities. That indicates transitions in how > they are working, giving you focused questions and a subject to > closely examine for more. I guess I'm lost. It's not clear to me how this relates to Rosen and "Life Itself". Perhaps you'd be willing to clarify that for me? Thanks. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
