Arne,
You seem disproportionately bothered by the terms "truth" and
"reality." You wrote to me once about:
"...the incoherence of the notion of truth! You need a God to
speak the truth�since nature cannot do that in its unreachability."
To that I would have to say maybe YOU need a God to speak the truth,
but please don't project your subjective needs on others who may
prefer a different reality. My God might be nature, which I find
reachable enough to be objectively measurable. And on this matter of
"reality," you replied to Karl:
"I guess you here claim you are a realist that has a real (true?)
understanding of information. A bold claim for being a realist to my
mind!"
Are you claiming that YOUR reality, if you have one, trumps that of
another? If so, you are going to have trouble with your so-called
"subject-oriented approach," which claims that not even your own
reality is real enough to qualify as being really real, or true, or
anything accessible by way of objectivity.
If your first principle is that ONLY GODS KNOWS WHAT IS REAL AND
TRUE, then you are a theologian by my measure.
Stan,
Of your three concepts of information:
> >(1) Shannon's information is a reduction in uncertainty or variety of
> >possibilities.
> >(2) In the mathematical sciences, information is any constraint on
> entropy
> >production (which is any event whatever in our universe). It is
> represened
> >in constants in descriptive equations.
> >(3) In semiotics information is Bateson's 'a difference that makes a
> >difference' to some system of interpretance, changing ts behavior.
am I correct in assuming that genetic information is falls under the
third�semiotic info? If so, this concept seems awfully thin to
support something so rich and dynamic as an informed genome.
Best regards, Richard
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Mon Oct 30 21:27:43 2006
