On Sunday, February 2, 2014 8:25:48 AM UTC-5, Jeroen wrote:   
   > On 2014-02-02 05:23, haiticare9011@gmail.com wrote:   
   >    
   > >    
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>>>          "BW*log_2(1+SNR) ?"     
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>>> It's Shannon's Theorem.  Entirely disprovable, novel, interesting,    
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > >>>   
   >    
   > >>   
   >    
   > > What is that equal to? The channel capacity?    
   >    
   > > And what is that algebra saying?   
   >    
   > > jb   
   >    
   > >    
   >    
   > > The gods must be crazy   
   >    
   > >    
   >    
   >    
   >    
   > It says that the number of bits you can push through a channel   
   >    
   > depends on its bandwidth and on the log base 2 of the number of   
   >    
   > signal levels you can distinguish through the noise. Makes   
   >    
   > sense, no?   
   >    
   >    
   >    
   > Jeroen Belleman   
      
   Yes. The log base 2 is the bits and the bandwidth is the signal "width." I am   
   familiar with this, and I have heard that a radio transmission will "broaden"   
   as you send more stuff through.    
   But I was also posing a bigger question "Is this science?" with an emphasis on   
   science being universal. And I suggested an operational definition, "Can you   
   explain it to a pre-scientific man?" I suggested Aristotle or a bush man from   
   nature.    
   I posed this question, like hitting a giant resonant thing with a hammer. And   
   what do I hear back? Well, I see Phil off in another sand box trying to direct   
   some sense into several children throwing sand at each other. :) Like a large   
   hologram, or    
   pinging a giant net, the universe is answering the question: "How would you   
   explain this to a primitive man?"    
   And it is saying: The Truth about Life involves harmony with the universe, and   
   like a giant channel, you can obscure this ontological message with the   
   "noise" of your mind. If you look at the other sand box, it is full of chaos   
   and noise.   
   There is a saying that that the truth will make you laugh, and this may be no   
   exception.    
   But this is an attempt to "decode" an answer to a question which is answered   
   non-verbally in a universal language.   
   The idea of noise competing with information, then, if we want to generalize   
   it, might be that the universe is a large channel, and we are the receivers,   
   if we can eliminate the 'noise.' There seem to be two competing processes in   
   this Law: A large    
   amount of information requires a large band width, but that high BW will let   
   in a lot of 'noise.'    
   In human terms, you can be very open-minded, but you risk being a 'space   
   case.' ie your receiver is letting in a lot of noise. Or you can be   
   narrow-minded, but then you will not receive the message of life.    
   In both cases, the error is identifying with the source of the noise, the   
   mind. If your awareness can stand off to one side and say, "My receiver full   
   of noise." (eg mind is distracted.) or, "My receiver narrowly tuned and I am   
   being obsessional." Then    
   that contextual awareness can allow the receiver to reject the noise yet have   
   high BW.   
   You must realize this manner of speaking is existential and ontological. In   
   that domain of knowledge, the words and concepts are not to be confused with   
   the "thing."    
   I have tried to cast Shannon as a universal Law of Life - That is where   
   science should go at this point, because we are like the Flintstones in   
   existential awareness.   
   jb   
   jb   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)