> > Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 14:16:40 -0400
> > From: Sodom <sodom@ma.ultranet.com>
> > Organization: Hedonism Unlimited
> > To: virus@lucifer.com
> > Subject: Re: virus: Nature of Information
> > Reply-to: virus@lucifer.com
>
> > Dave K-P wrote:
> >
> > > At 11:32 AM 10/12/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:
> > >
> > > >An information stream contains a pattern if and only if
> > > >it can be compressed and reexpanded without loss,
> > > >otherwise it is random. (See Dennett's "Real Patterns"
> > > >in the Journal of Philosophy 1991, though he gets it
> > > >from someone else, whose details I don't recall right
> > > >now, but can get if required.)
> > >
> > > Hrm, this calls for a re-reading of Chaos. As far as I can
> > > recall, however, there is no such thing as "completely random".
> > > That what we call chaotic, is really so complexly ordered that
> > > there is no _perceptable_
> > >
> > > pattern by the observer. I'm not sure what this means for the
> > > discussion, coming in at the tail end, but it is something to
> > > think about.
> > >
> > > >I guess maybe what we're really arguing about is the
> > > >nature of information: does it exist "out there",
> > > >independently of us, or is it only in our minds. I go
> > > >along with the information theorists, physicists, etc,
> > > >and say it's out there, though, of course, the
> > > >argument is at least partly about definitions, as
> > > >seemingly always.
> > >
> > > Perhaps it was someone on this list, perhaps not, who said that if
>
> > > a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, it
> > > makes a compression of air waves... that it is out there, but it
> > > takes two to tango.
> > >
> > > ~kp
> >
> > kp,
> > There is such a thing as true random, in fact, random is the
> > ruler.
> > You are aware of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, right? A good
>
> > example is: as space expands, sub atomic particles are created (pop
> > into existence); however, it is impossible to predict exactly where
> > and when this will happen. It is a random event. On the other hand,
> > it is impossible for humans or computers to generate a random
> > number. SO Random events do happen, but WE have not figured how to
> > directly cause a random event.
> >
> > Sodom
> > Bill Roh
> > LIGHT? WHAT LIGHT?
>
> While Heisenberg did say that the particles "pop" into existence in a
> way that can't be predicted, isn't it possible that there is a
> pattern, it is just that we don't have enough information to
> understand where the next "pop" is going to be? Isn't that the same
> as the "random number" routine--where we "think" we have a random
> number but in reality we just don't have a big enough piece to see
> the whole picture? Chardin
> >
Yes, I do suppose it is possible, but without a mathematical or
observable reasoning, there is no reason to assume it. The math is what
makes it a paradoxical.
I do hope that in the end, Heisenberg is wrong, that we just lack the
current understanding.
Sodom