RE: virus: Translation

Robin Faichney (
Sat, 18 Oct 1997 20:26:20 +0100

> From: Brett Lane Robertson[]
> That equation relates energy to mass. I don't believe information
> is conserved.
> Robin
> Robin,
> I assumed you were using "information" on a particle level--that is,
> "energy" and "mass" EXACTLY. Are you limiting "information" to those
> subjective humans again?
> Why don't you believe "information is conserved"? Are you saying that
> there
> are quantities which are not represented by Einstein's formula?
> Isn't the idea of "conserving" information what you mean when you say
> that
> information can be compressed and uncompressed without "loss"...that
> it can
> be conserved?
Whether it *can* be conserved, and whether it *is* conserved
in the context above, are very different questions.

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?