At 14:09 15/06/04 +1200, Brian Scurfield wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruno Marchal [mailto:marchal.domain.name.hidden]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 15 June 2004 02:15
>
> > >Obviously technical information is
> > >physical, but it is not at all clear to me (and others) that everyday
> > >information can be given a purely physical characterization.
> >
> > I understand and agree that it is not obvious that everyday
> > information (in your sense) is physical.
> > Now, I disagree that it is *obvious* that technical information
> > is physical.
> > I doubt there is anything primary "physical".
>
>I do agree that the ultimate explanation of everything is probably not a
>physical explanation. That is, [take note Alan :)] physics is emergent.
>But I was trying to point out that technical and everyday information are
>different kinds of beast and that they live in different realms. You are
>saying that ultimately, going back through the layers of emergence,
>everything belongs to one realm: the epistemological (with lashing of the
>arithmetical). Given that the physical world is real - though emergent -
>it is valid to say that technical information is physical. We can measure
>technical information in a precise way in the physical world, something we
>cannot do with everyday information.
OK. I think we agree completely. I guess you agree that, once we accept
physics is emergent, we need to have some theory about what can be
"everyday information" ,and then we need to explain, starting from such a
theory (or a from some weaker theory), how the notion of technical
information can arise.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Wed Jun 16 2004 - 10:07:59 PDT