Robin
Robin,
I assumed you were using "information" on a particle level--that is,
"energy" and "mass" EXACTLY. Are you limiting "information" to those
subjective humans again?
Why don't you believe "information is conserved"? Are you saying that there
are quantities which are not represented by Einstein's formula?
Isn't the idea of "conserving" information what you mean when you say that
information can be compressed and uncompressed without "loss"...that it can
be conserved?
Is there a "hidden agenda" here--an antithesis which you are trying to UN
define? (for example, when I define "meme" I am trying to "UN" define gene.
If the definition of meme sounds like it could further the Darwinists and
their theory of chance recombination then I toss the idea aside). Because
you "don't believe information is conserved" (a strange assumption to be
sure), is there a reason such as "this is getting dangerously close to
<creationism>"*?
*i think it is interesting that I use the meme for creationism,
<creationism>, to represent (perhaps) any "danger" meme which is toxic to
the purpose of defining pattern sans translation...am wondering if this is a
quality of meme that without the content, the meme would exist anyway...how
does this suggest that a meme is recognized? In response to
"avoidance"...basic "drives"...??? (well, of course I favor the idea of a
meme representing a basic drive...I have a new version of the "Meme Chain"
up. It lists 13 memes and I am assuming that these are all that there
are...showing a basic drive with all of the influences that keep it in check
so that it can replicate context instead of content. This version is very
readable...comments? http://www.tctc.com/~unameit/chainjpg2.jpg
Brett
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
Magpie, n.:
A bird whose theivish disposition suggested to someone that
it might be taught to talk.
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
