In a general sense, if we (the observer) are outside of the system,
there is a definition of "closed system" which allows output from the
system, even though there is no input into the system, *if such a
configuration is possible*. If there is no output, I agree with you
that the system is unknowable.
If the observer is inside (part of) the closed system, that's when
things get very mystifying. In this case there are non-trivial limits
to what we can know about the system, even though we are in it, since
our framework of "knowing" is also part of the system. (For instance,
I maintain that in this case we cannot know if information is being
erased.) But I don't think that's what your question was referring to.
Tom
John M wrote:
> Tom: one excerpt I try to address:
>
> "Closed system (Principia Cybernetica): An isolated
> system having no
> interaction with an environment. A system whose
> behavior is entirely
> explainable from within, a system without input..."
> (I skip the rest, including the mathematical closure
> as irrelevant for my reply).
>
> How do you know about such system?
> What I mean is: if NO interaction reaches or leaves
> the 'system', (it includes 'information as well) it
> does
> not even 'exist' for us. It is more than a 'black
> hole' which is said to be receptive. A 'closed
> no-thing'?
>
> John M
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Caylor" <Daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden>
> To: "Everything List"
> <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 6:18 PM
> Subject: Re: why can't we erase information?
>
>
>
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > Le 25-avr.-06, à 17:37, Tom Caylor a écrit :
> >
> > >
> > > In fact, "closed system" and "meta element" seem
> to be contradictory.
> >
> > Not necessarily. It could depend of what you mean
> exactly by "closed".
> > Closure for the diagonalization procedure is the
> key. Diagonalization
> > is the key of the "heart of the matter". I will come
> back on this
> > later.
> >
>
> Closed system (Principia Cybernetica): An isolated
> system having no
> interaction with an environment. A system whose
> behavior is entirely
> explainable from within, a system without input...
>
> Mathematically, a closed system contains its boundary,
> or it contains
> its limit points. In other words, anything
> expressable with the given
> axioms/language is itself a member the system.
> ...SKIP
> Tom
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue May 02 2006 - 11:22:08 PDT