Guy writes:

>IMHO it is searching for observer-dependent information that is the fool's
>errand, because it does not really exist.  Objective information, which I
>take to be essentially synonymous with structure or pattern, does exist and
>can be observed with standardized devices and methods (not dependent on the
>subjectivity of individuals).  Now that is something I think is worthy of a
>search.

I haven't been paying attention to all of the messages in this thread, but let
me respond to this one point.

All known qualities in the universe are measured in some dyadic fashion.
Something interferes or reacts with something else; if it were otherwise, the
quality would be insensible. If there were only one item of mass in the
universe, no matter its size, there would be no way to describe the quality of
mass as a function of its gravity. The same is true if there were only one
charged particle in the universe, no matter the intensity of its charge.

Information is just as much a dyadic quality. Without a perceiver, information
simply doesn't exist. But the definition of information is more complex than
simply that of mass. The perceiver also defines the symbol set that comprises
the "entropy" of the information content, not the sender, and no matter how
much one might want "an objective information measure," it can't
be any other
way.

Wirt Atmar
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 8/29/04 6:07:16 AM