However, I think I expressed myself badly, because I did not
mean the total quantity of information was changed -- I'd
have to give that much thought before commenting on it.
What I really mean is that E=MC2 is not translation because
*meaning* is not conserved. Where matter is transformed
to energy, the structure of the matter is lost, and that is what
I had in mind. The total quantity of information may not
change, but the *particular* information encoded in the
structure of the matter has gone forever. So, I guess, in
your terms, I am not using "information" on the level of the
particle. But do you think the only alternative is subjectivity?
> Is there a "hidden agenda" here--an antithesis which you are trying to
> UN
> define? (for example, when I define "meme" I am trying to "UN" define
> gene.
> If the definition of meme sounds like it could further the Darwinists
> and
> their theory of chance recombination then I toss the idea aside).
> Because
> you "don't believe information is conserved" (a strange assumption to
> be
> sure), is there a reason such as "this is getting dangerously close to
> <creationism>"*?
>
Ever been accused of paranoia?
Robin