RE: virus: Nature of Information

Robin Faichney (
Tue, 14 Oct 1997 10:37:09 +0100

> From: Dave K-P[]
> At 03:59 AM 10/14/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:
> >I don't agree. Why do you say translation is no less
> >fundamental? I looks a great deal less so to me. As
> >I already said, definitions are better simple. You do
> >not generally define something by listing all the things
> >you can do with it.
> Perhaps I read you wrong, but didn't you write "'pattern' is that
> which
> allows for compression" ?

> I did not infer that you were attempting to
> define it, so I tacked on translation, too.
In my response to your first mention of translation, I said
'The point was to define "pattern".' and I believe I used the
word "define" or "definition" earlier as well, though I haven't
checked. I've certainly used them several times in this
thread. If you don't believe me, check the archives.

> Sorry for this fruitless
> sidetrack.

> I am curious, though, as to why you perceive translation as
> "less fundamental" than compression?
Translation only really applies to information in the context
of human communications, which is a *very* small subset
of information in general, while any kind of information
whatsoever, if it is not perfectly random, can be

> >If you think that information requires symbols you haven't
> >grasped what's going on here.
> Granted, "symbols" was the completely wrong choice of word. Will
> "things"
> suffice for now? Like I said, this is a theory-in-the-making :-)
You are perfectly free to theorise about anything to your
heart's content, but it is a simple matter of realism to
recognise that some people have given these matters a
great deal more thought than you. By all means, ignore
what others have to say and work it out for yourself -- I
often do that myself -- but then you can't simultaneously
correspond with them about it, unless you pay scant
attention to their responses -- which, come to think of it,
you do seem to be doing to mine...