Can someone obtain for me the email addresses of the authors? Thank you!
Jamie Rose ----- Original Message ---- From: Zen_Ved <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Everything List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2008 4:42:46 AM Subject: Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics Brian Tenneson: > Why is the universe a subset of the set "information" (which I assume is > defined in the article) and why can it not be formalized? > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 1:38 AM, Zen_Ved <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > As to "Algebraic Physics"; as well as to Wei Dai's ``everything'' > > questionnaire: > > > > - possibly that it will be rather useful to read > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0703043 , V5 (and the first couple of > > pages in V1). > > > > Note also briefly: the Universe (Universes ) is/are subsets of a very > > specific set ? of the set "Information"; and this set principally > > can not be formalised - in any "Algebraic Physics". _______________ ***"(which I assume is defined in the article) "*** - if you have read the paper “the Information and the Matter”, PDF, in the link http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0703043 , V5 (and the first couple of pages in V1) -then it is possible, that it would not be this (and others) question in your post. The concept “information” (as well as the set “Information”) is/are utmost common and fundamental thing(s), so it can be defined only through itself – what isn’t correct; or – evidentially not completely – through it’s properties. Among the properties, e.g., there is the property of the information that the information is unique thing which is (can be) “absolutely” exact. At that – very small (in reality – infinitesimal if the all set is considered) change in “Shannon” information can lead to large change in the information. Simple example – for physics the accuracy 10^-7 is rather good accuracy, but if somebody makes a mistake on 1 in a phone number, he can obtain any result outside desired. That's only one property that practically exclude the possibility of formalization of the concept/set Information - it is too bufircative. Besides – it is ultimately infinite to be formalised by using any finite language; etc... So – it would be better to read the paper-? Cheers --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---