John:
> Which does "this" refer to, Jerry?
My response was to the section of your post that I pasted / cited in my post.
Your further assertion that:
> Since the scientists involved are among the top in the respective fields, I
> take that what they are doing with information concepts is re
I wouldn't say the last. New capabilities appear as new laws come into
play.
Someone, a physicist, who takes Wheeler's view very seriously is Lee
Smolin,
Lee
Smolin
- Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAlso, Seth Lloyd,
Seth
Lloyd
- Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaNeither, I am pretty
sure, th
Dear friends, I am glad to hear from you and interested in the topic you
mentioned. However, recently I am busy at preparing a booklet for the academic
exchange in FIS 2013, Moscow, there is not enough time for me to read, think,
and respond. I will do that later and give my response in detail.
John:
On May 17, 2013, at 5:26 AM, fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es wrote:
> The vacuum background is random, and hence contains no information in the
> negentropy sense (see my "kinds" at Kinds of Information in Scientific Use.
> 2011. cognition, communication, co-operation. Vol 9, No 2 ). However
Dear John,
Can you give some more your explorations about "it from bit"? Do you know how
many reflections there from orthodox physicists about the Wheeler's "HELL" (a
saying from a physicist) these years?
If it is true, can we reduce all of our information studies, simulating Søren's
word, fro
