Re: Belief Statements

From: John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:01:08 -0500

Dear Russell, you wrote:
>"This sounds like a terminological difference. To me, "data" refers to
>mere differences. Information has meaning. Observation attaches
>meaning to data, creating informations from that data."
WHAT do you "observe" if you have to create the meaning? I find it a reverse
route, to learn the quantities (data) and then enrich them with meaning to
make it 'information'. Don't forget that there is ample information
(meanings galore) - unquantizable, where the 'bits' don't even come into the
picture. All those are "its" (in my nomenclature).
I wonder if I am alone with this terminology?
Far we are not: in my terminology to 'absorb' (acknowledge, imbibe) a
difference implies the meaning part as well, so the datum gets it when it
becomes information. Of course data can be non-quantitative.
*
Then you wrote:
> "Again this is terminology. By "timelike" I was referring to the
> process of bringing two entities together for comparison. Nothing
> more, not less. Perhaps "pre-timelike" is a more accurate term, but I
> like to egg the pudding!

You probably missed my example anticipating such reply:
>>"... observation can compare e.g. overlapping pictures,
>> atemporarily, in one.... "<<
when WE do not "bring together" comparables one after the other.
I don't deny the time factor, just want to leave open the possibility of an
atemporal worldview (which is still a big problem for me, too).
*
Then again I have a reply to your:
> Not sure how remark to point 4 relates to this one. Does it mean you
> don't believe in QM? Or that QM is not universal within the >plenitude?
(I'd agree with you there) Or that QM is an accidental >feature of our
world? (I'm inclined to disagree with you here)<

First I find it an 'out-of-bounds' argumentative twist to change my term
"human representational way of OUR world model" into your
"accidental feature of our world".
The linear THEORY of QM about the - originally- (nonlinear?) world of
microscopic physics is not a 'feature' of the world. I answered this
differentiation after #4 (cf: Comp-Turing), that's why I referred to it
after #5 (QM) as similarly a limited model based anthropologism. Sorry if a
critical remark on QM hit mores sensitive chords.
*
Small potato: (on the religious discussion-example)
> No ideas can be proven. Surely you know that from Popper. <
Right you are, let's change it to 'justified'/'explained'. That can be
logical, even if Sir Karl did not exclude it from existence. What I meant
is: first the believers should explain what their belief is based on, then I
can argue against it. Not in reverse (time!).
I don't start to argue against something the existence of which I don't see
justified or explained, just because the other side would like to put me
into a more vulnerable position in the argumentation.
*
To your final par:
> Comp & QM aren't part of the belief system here. They are interesting
> afterthoughts. The belief system relates to ideas about what
> information means - I don't really see you disputing this, although I
> do see some misunderstandings; the existence of a plenitude of
> data (which I don't see you disputing either); and the Anthropic
> Principle, which you may well dispute, as its a decidedly dodgy
proposition.>

Information I coined more than 10 years ago (maybe a review is actual, one
reason why I entered this discussion: to get new input ideas) was:
Absorbed (acknowledged) difference. By any contraption capable of doing so
('meaning' implied). Any difference, from an electrical charge to an
economical controversy in S-W Asia. Now I see 'observation' as very close to
this. And: to 'experience' as well.
My plenitude is a feature in my NARRATIVE (not even a hypo-thesis)
needed for a story of Big Bangs (unlimited) to start the multiverse in a way
acceptable for human logic (- without the controversies in the physical
cosmological BB fable.) It lacks data, serves ONE purpose, I refuse to
discuss details of it, it is unobservable and unexplained.
Sorry, I did not read your paper on the AP, maybe you made some sense to it.
So far I see in it only "us, god's real children as the most important
feature in the world".
Merry Xmas! (oops: it is past).

John Mikes

----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Standish" <r.standish.domain.name.hidden>
To: "John M" <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Cc: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: Belief Statements


> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 06:12:28PM -0500, John M wrote:
SNIP, Quotes for reply see above in the text.
Received on Wed Jan 12 2005 - 18:12:40 PST