>You can do all kinds of things with patterns, sure. The
>point was to define "pattern". Definitions, like theories,
>are better if simpler, other things being equal. I
>believe the simplest fundamental thing you can say
>about patterns is that they allow the compression of
>information. Translation is considerably more
>complicated.
... but no less fundamental. There are other fundamentals to patterns,
too, that must be taken into consideration for any definition.
>> >To make the analogy
>> >with the case of sound, those of us who say
>> >patterns are "out there" are thinking of them as
>> >being like airborne vibrations, while those who
>> >say they are only "in here", see them as like
>> >subjective sensations. Both, of course, being
>> >correct within their own terms of reference.
>> >No?
>>
>> Of course, its all relative! ;-)
>>
>Umm, not sure that helps, actually. ;-)
"Yes, they are both correct within their own frame of reference."
>
>> P.S. Thought I'd toss in my defintion (slightly technical) of
>> information:
>> anything that goes from A to B. Open to discussion.
>>
>I think what you're getting at here is: an information *flow*
>is equivalent to an energy flow, which is in turn equivalent
>to causation. Static information is something else. Matter,
>actually. (We're talking naturally-occuring info here.)
Hrm, no, that isn't exactly what I was getting at. What I was getting at,
though, requires more thinking on my part to explain fully... it has less
to do with flow and more to do with distinct symbols.
~kp