Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.optics    |    Discussion relating to the science of op    |    12,750 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 11,740 of 12,750    |
|    haiticare2011@gmail.com to All    |
|    Re: Simple lock-in design for Oz-type me    |
|    28 Feb 14 14:08:21    |
      > > > Isn't that the point, information is entropy.       >              Thanks for the thoughts, but this discussion helped me to realize that there       is no decent scientific definition of "information." This physicist Leo Szilard       tried to equate entropy and information in a 1936 paper. He posited a Maxwell       Demon that "knows" the trajectory of an incoming gas molecule, and if he has       that       'knowledge,' then he can effectively make a perpetual motion machine based on       that information.       I have no doubt Shannon is correct in what he is describing, but to call it an       "information theory" is a crazy thing, imo. It's just psychologically       off-kilter.       Ha Ha. But any psychologist knows that some types crave "certain certainties."       You know, it's a classic ego neurosis.              But even playing scientific hop-scotch the way some want, you come eventually       to this failure of info theory, and you then have a choice to acknowledge the       mystery or to ignore it. It's ridiculous to say information is entropy, even       though having information could lead to a decrease in entropy, as Szilard       speculated.              But that's bad logic. If I know where to get horse manure, and I use that       information to get it, (As I have done for a garden.) - then does that mean       that horse manure is the source of information? Like the Maxwell Demon, I       accumulated something based on information I had, but does that equate them?              I am skeptical that Shannon's law about communication channels is a very useful       heuristic in science or engineering. Even if it is useful, it does not seem to       have any generality. If I throw a rotten tomato at a Thespian, then Newton's       Law applies. This gemische entropy theory does not offer any such solace.              Is this a bad thing? Heck no! I think there is a pony in that mess! Max Planck       was obsessed with this very problem. (It's engraved on his grave stone.)              jb              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca