Guy Hoelzer  wrote or quoted:
> in article cgrmco$1rpl$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org, Wirt Atmar at
> > 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.
> 
> Surely you acknowledge that the term "information" is used
by scientists,
> including those deeply involved with information theory, in a variety of
> different ways, and that perceptive information is only one of them.  For
> example, Steven Hawking must mean something inconsistent with your position
> when he talks about black holes consuming information and letting some of it
> back out.

A message-eating machine would destroy information related to the 
messages - for all observers except the ones that already know
everything there is to know about the messages.

In the case of a black hole, there isn't likely to be any such
thing as an observer that knows everything there is to know about
the messages going into the hole.

So: I suggest Hawking's use of the term "information" is quite
consistent with conventional usage in this particular case.

Observers may differ regarding how *much* information the black
hole "destroys" - but they *all* agree that they can no longer
gain access the information in the messages.

Incidentally, Hawking did a U-turn in this area recently:

``Stephen Hawking gave his announcement in the 17th International 
  Conference held in Dublin on 21 July 2004, that he had been wrong for 
  30 years and gave a new explanation that now he believes that black 
  holes may allow information to leak out."

 - http://internationalreporter.net/scripts/headDetails.asp?id=247

Hawking is now saying that black holes are reversible - don't "eat"
information - and that the quantum physicists were right about the
matter all along.
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim{at}tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
---
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 9/3/04 6:11:31 AM