Brad McCormick wrote, >The above sentence should arouse every sleeping Hegelian/Marxist.... >For the dialectic says that A becomes other than A (even perhaps >while remaining itself) in the course of history. For A to become other than A there has to be *history*, which is not an empirical kind of knowledge and thus not admissible as evidence in Jay's scientific universe. This is not an off hand remark. Brad will no doubt recognize an oblique reference to Augustine, Ricouer and the "aporias" of time in lieu of an extended (and probably mystifying to most subscribers) discussion. Speaking of history, it's striking how historyless are the threads on futurework. A month and a half ago Charles Brass wrote (re: a quieter list), >However, the real dilemma for me is that people who have "formed a view" are >apparently blind to the fact that many others (on this list for example) do >not share their view . . . In response to Charles I wrote, >Here's the surprise: we're not as far apart in our thinking as we imagine >and sometimes pretend. A simple machine for "de-hubrification" can be >described as a figure of two lines intersecting at right angles. Call the >lines "A" and "B". Opposing points of view occupy points at the positive end >of each line: point +A and point +B. Each point of view projects an >antagonist at the opposite pole of their own line. Point of view +A projects >its antagonist at -A and point of view +B projects its antagonist at -B. In >truth, however, "-A" and "-B" are empty places. Diagrammatically, this is >how it looks: > > +A > * > | > | > | > +B *------------------- -B > | > | > | > > -A > >A dialogue is possible within the entire quadrant +A+B, while "debate" along >either line A or line B will inevitably prove futile and misleading. >Sometimes it can feel almost as futile trying to initiate a dialogue, >because any "non+A" statement can be taken by A as a -A statement. Perhaps instead of +A's, -A's and other than A's, the dialectic (and the dialogue) would be clearer if we spoke in terms of +<G>'s, -<G>'s and other than <G>'s? The above diagram could also be a pretext for introducing an important distinction between entropy as it defined in thermodynamic theory and as it is defined in information theory. In thermodynamics, entropy is energy that is not available for work. In information theory, entropy is a measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message. It's tempting to see the former as an analogy for the later. The analogy only holds, however, for information in the strictly statistical sense. That is to say, for information about the state of a system (e.g., digitally speaking: 0 or 1). Information that is meaningful to people breaks the mold. John Clerk Maxwell used his counter-factual demon to illustrate the second law of thermodynamics. In the bizarre, non-statistical world of information that is meaningful to people, there actually are such demons. Each of us has one (perhaps more than one?). Unlike Maxwell's demons, our little fellows often busy themselves with accelerating the loss of information in the system -- opening doors that allow +B messages to flow into -A rooms and then slamming them shut. This is why I invented the de-hubrificator illustrated above. Try it, you might like it. Think of what fun if we could train our demons to perform like fleas in a circus! Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Vancouver, B.C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
