I understand it would be complicated and tedious to describe your information-theoretical argument by yourself, however I'm guessing that others are curious besides Vladimir. I for one would like to understand what your argument entails, and I would be the first one to admit I don't know as much information theory as I would like to.
In this case, I think it would help everyone involved if you provided an avenue for others like me to investigate your argument further. Even a handful of links that focus and clarify would be of great assistance. Since you say this is an established article, I would hope there would be freely available resources to explain what it is. So far, I haven't been able to gather enough of what your argument consists of in order to conduct a successful search myself, which is why I'd appreciate your help. On 11/03/2008, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Please reformulate what you mean by "my approach" independently then > > and sketch how you are going to use information theory... I feel that > > my point failed to be communicated. > You've already accepted my reformulation of "your approach" where I said > "I think that you're asserting that the virtual environment is close enough > to as capable as the physical environment without spending significant > resources that the difference doesn't matter." > > My direct argument to this was that I believe that you ARE going to have > to spend significant resources (a.k.a. resources that matter) in order to > make the virtual environment capable enough for what you want. > > I am *not* arguing the upper bounds of the capability of the virtual > environment. I *AM* arguing the resource of getting to a point where the > capability of the virtual environment is sufficient for your vision. > > The reason why I keep referring to Information Theory is because it is all > about the "cost" of information operations. Without intending to be > insulting, it is clear to me that you are not even conversant enough with > Information Theory to be aware of this fact (i.e. what one of it's major > points is) which makes it tremendously relevant to our debate. Personally, > I can't competently get you up to speed in Information Theory in a > reasonable length of time. You need to do that on your own if we're going > to have any chance of a reasonable debate since, in effect, (and again, > hopefully without being insulting) I'm making an *established* argument > and you're staring blankly at it and just saying "IS NOT!" > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=95818715-a78a9b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
