Hi Ian
ian glendinning wrote:
> Hi Magnus, I share your concerns ...
>
> You missed my "scare quotes"
Indeed I did. :)
> "life" ... I meant stuff that self-replicates (biological or artificial)
> "genetic information" ... I meant stuff communicated by replication -
> generation to generation (biological or artificial)
It seems we understand each other on this.
> As I said "in my world" quality is kinda equivalent to information ...
> I wasn't suggesting it was the whole story for everyone .... but there
> are some strikng parallels at the bleeding edge of physics.
Are you referring to entangled particles, that are able to convey "spooky
action
at a distance" faster than light? That's what I call *fun*!
They claim it's not possible to use that action to transmit information though,
but I didn't really understood the reasoning behind that. It sounded more like
they used relativistic laws to explain a non-relativistic phenomenon, and
thereby unable to prove anything.
Magnus
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
