On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 6:30 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
*>> Me: I would say that the best definition of "physical" that I know of >> is that something is physical if and only if it is capable, at least in >> theory, of encoding information.* >> > > *> Sounds a bit tautological to me: Something is "physical" if it is > capable of encoding information physically.* > *NO! I define "physical" as anything that is capable of encoding information PERIOD. And if it can't encode information then it's not physical. * > * > It does not follow that information is physical.* > *It does if you use my definition of the word "physical", and I can't think of a better one. Can you? * > *> There is probably an infinite amount of information around that is not > encoded, physically or in any other way: the number of ants in my backyard; > the number of bees in that swarm; the average BMI of my friends;* > *Ants, bees and the number of fat molecules that your friend's have are all physical objects that can encode information, and they can be counted. However you can't count the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin because angels are not physical and thus they cannot encode information. You could of course count the number of angels that you are imagining about, but only if you use your brain, and that also is a physical object. * * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* e4a -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3xnC0RpeQLrDnJfaWaDOqr5ivCoBWcB69fvWTv000zKA%40mail.gmail.com.
