Tom, yhou are right: my remark was not aiming AT YOUR
implied situation of 'from inside' of the system.
The outside case YOU DID ACCEPT AS OK, but you play
with words.
If < n o > interaction can leave the system (you are
outside) then it cannot "allow output" whatsoever.
None. If there aint, there aint. No bargain in favor
of one's opinion to hold nevertheless.
I left open the 'game' to 'measure' along where the
system "is" and find a hiatus in the contenue, it is
not feasible, because in "our" space measurement the
closed system (-I equate it with singularity - no
relaxed or 2nd rate one) the hypothetic 'volume' does
not show, so it won't be missed in our measurement.
No 'buts'.
I wonder why don't we think about the "mind" as in a
relaxed self referential (=inside view) system, like:
mindcontent, knowledgebase, ideation, mentality etc.
which, however indirectly receives info from outside
its (closed) system? {{that would give some new
meaning of a "CLOSED MIND" ha ha)
Does that entire topic really make sense? Or is it
just a straw-man debate to get it right? Sometimes I
wonder.
John M
--- Tom Caylor <Daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
> 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 - 16:18:08 PDT