RE: virus: Translation

Brett Lane Robertson (
Thu, 16 Oct 1997 14:34:46 -0500

All references are in the mind of the
beholder -- there are none in nature. Reference is subjective. (Robin)

When I was talking about symbolic streams of information being used as a
reference for translation I mentioned that E=MC^2 illustrates how one state
of information can be translated into another state without loss of
information. Again using this formula, I would point out that the speed of
light is held constant in this formula so that it can be used as a reference
for this translation. I don't believe that reference is "subjective"...I
believe that it is "relative".

Further, I DO think that the definition of pattern is excellent, and that if
something is compressed and uncompressed without loss of information then a
pattern is always indicated. I simply believe that we have another
phenomenon here that needs to be explored and that is the "symbol" (which I
see as having a fluidity, a fixed form, and self-reference). These ideas do
not conflict with the definition of pattern but you might have to add a
distinguishing mark to the definition such that a pettern is *not* that
which is self-referential (for example).


At 07:14 PM 10/16/97 +0100, you wrote:
>> From: Brett Lane Robertson[]
>> But
>> symbolic information streams can share references,
>> as well. There are no references in naturally-
>> occurring information. (Robin)
>> This doesn't sound right to me. It would seem that a river-bed is a
>> reference to the water which flowed through the area...
>You are confusing references with chains of events. These are
>not the same thing. The river-bed can function, for us, as a
>reference to the water that flowed over it, because we know of
>the connection between them, and the sight of one makes us
>think of the other. They are indeed connected by an event-
>chain, but that only provides a reference for those who think
>about such things. All references are in the mind of the
>beholder -- there are none in nature. Reference is subjective.
>> Also, if the definition for that which can be compressed and
>> uncompressed
>> without loss of information now refers to "patterned" instead of
>> "pattern"*
>> what is your new definition of "pattern"?
>What I said earlier may be have been unclear, but I haven't
>changed my mind. I never said a pattern could be
>compressed, I said patterns allow compression. Not the
>same thing. I have been perfectly clear, in my own mind
>if not in what I wrote, that what's fundamental here is the
>numerical identity of information, and that more than one
>instance of a given pattern is required for compressability.
>I don't say that "patterns allow compression" is the only, or
>even the best definition of "pattern". In fact, given the
>misunderstanding generated here, I'm now fairly sure that
>a clearer account of all this is required, and I'll be working
>on it over the next few days. But that will be in the context
>of my book chapter "Information and Reality", and not
>aimed in the first instance at presenting to the list.

Rabble Sonnet Retort
Rebellions of the belly are the worst.

Francis Bacon