When did code ever 'order the world'? Not even the Dewey Decimal System does that.
I'll have to differ on this.. the words themselves are the stumbling blocks, but it seems to me like your overdetermining the concept of 'order', and yet there can also be a sense where the overdtermination is also valid..(ie, the clock) there is |order| which includes all notions of purposive 'arrangement' but within that absolute value we encode also all the non purposive orderings which would be something called disorder.. these are pretty antique terms.. something hipper and more up-to date might be 'state of affairs' or 'vector-state' When did code ever order the world? The 'world' when apprehended through a human body is always already encoded. Take seeing. There is a discrete encoding process which turns visual information which is itself a form of encoding by which electron spin states and other atomic phenomena pass a discrete quality through the substrate of the environment, which is in effect the channel, though this is quite reductive, but in effect a 'coding'. Scientists have just within the last few weeks made some major breakthroughs in this area if you were reading your Kurzweil. They soon will be able to translate with a prosthesis visual information from the world directly into the brain.. You can say that man's mind is encoded in his body, although more and more man's 'mind' is outside his body.. at any rate with man, you can generally say, that the human mind has changed the world.. that's the simplest way to restate one way in which an instantiation of coding has indeed |ordered| the world.. another way is to consider plants, Plants use a genetic code and they have completely altered the physical envirnoment of the world.. here again is another instantiation of a code operating in a global fashion.. i don't see what the problem with this is.. Every single idea you possess or are able to express has to be encoded in some fashion for it to even be said to have an existence.. just because a theorist explicitly addresses 'code' as 'code' or doesnt doesnt mean that their work has nothing to do with code or coding.. Youve got Frege, Russell, Tarski, Carnap, Wittgenstein, Austin, Grice, Quine, Davidson, Donnellan, Kripke, Putnam, Evans, Marcus, Chomsky, Dummett, Burge, Millikan, Pierce, and thousands more Uexkull etc.. All of these people are thinking through coding in one sense or another.. I have Jack Sarfatti''s email addr. I wonder what his take on 'code' is.. Maybe I could get his sense of 'code' from a physicist's point of view..
