Excellent idea! "Bracket[ed|ing]" is a great term. I worry a bit about relying too much on jargon, since I think the mapping I'm trying to make (from deep, thinking human to shallow passive circuit element like a copper wire) might get lost in that jargon. For example, talking about the bracketed items being observables _outside_ the bound might be weird if the audience thinks of sets, where the brackets are around things _inside_ some boundary. I'll have to think about it.
No, I am not using any metaphors when talking about the inductor. I mean it in the way an electrician would use it. E.g. why not put a capacitor in there instead of an inductor? Because the capacitor does something totally different from what an inductor does. Behavior is simply the stuff that happens. On 5/13/20 10:06 AM, Jon Zingale wrote: > Maybe we could also use the term *bracketed* for those things which > we wish to keep outside of the Bekenstein bound. Like yourself, I am > not really a stickler for what terms we use. I would and have claimed > that *this is how the inductor behaves in this circuit* while explaining > to family or friends how one of my synthesizers works. What I would > like to glean in the context of this conversation is whether or not this > attribution to the inductor is a metaphor. If it is a metaphor here, then > I would like to understand why. -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
