Thermo-dynamic philosophy for kids; was Re: Mail Server a long time ago
From: Jeroen Geilman (not_at_rtpada.ln)
Date: 08/27/04
- Next message: suchodj_at_wanadoo.fr: "help mandrake"
- Previous message: Madhusudan Singh: "A problematic switch from ACPI to APM"
- In reply to: Paul Lutus: "Re: Mail Server"
- Next in thread: Paul Lutus: "Re: Thermo-dynamic philosophy for kids; was Re: Mail Server a long time ago"
- Reply: Paul Lutus: "Re: Thermo-dynamic philosophy for kids; was Re: Mail Server a long time ago"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:09:37 +0200
Paul Lutus wrote:
> Jeroen Geilman wrote:
>>What would you use, then, to describe "an opinion held by a large number
>>of people yet impossible to verify as a generalised fact" ?
>
> Religion. You mean you didn't see that coming? :)
Oh now you said it !
It's only a matter of time before someone mentions Godwin...
>>Consensus does not imply communication, only an agreement on a certain
>>topic.
>
> It clearly implies both, since before any consensus is possible, the matter
> in question must first be communicated. This is because consensus is a
> conscious agreement between people.
Yes, of course - I should read up on my Latin (or Greek, whatever).
Con-sensus = by taking a poll, isn't it something like that ?
>>It's still a consensus, whether they're aware of it or not.
>
> No. Consensus is conscious, willful agreement. It's not like commonly held
> beliefs, which can be held by people otherwise isolated.
Okay, belief - I can live with that.
Should have thought of that by myself...
>>>>That's the whole point about information, isn't it ?
>>>>It only becomes information when it is useful.
>>>
>>>No, not at all. Data qualifies as information even if only in retrospect.
>>
>>True, but it first *becomes* information only if and when it is
>>applicable.
>
> No. Information doesn't have to be applied to be information. This is part
> of information theory (as the term is used by scientists, not philosophers)
> and even something as abstruse as quantum mechanics, where information
> quite literally has mass/energy -- before it is exploited by anyone.
It has nothing to do with exploitation - or "use" in general.
It's a definition - the one I learned, in computer science.
I'm not sure where you'd get the idea that I had any sort of philosphic
background - particularly as I'm so lousy at it ;-)
No formal training of any sort, no - interested, sure.
>>Every fact begins its life as a datum, becoming information
>>only when it has value to somebody.
>>
>>You don't want to argue with my Information Theory teacher ;-)
>
> Honestly. Too bad the academics in the social sciences can't, or won't, talk
> to those in the hard sciences. It appears someone has decided that
> information theory has a different meaning in philosophy than it does in
> the "other" information theory of Shannon et. al..
Shannon I'm familiar with - somewhat.
You mean you've never ever seen it expressed that way ?
What does the purely academic definition of information (Shannon's bits)
have to do with real-world knowledge, anyway ?
If I were to tell you, "I have a red car", this is a factoid - a datum.
It is not information to you /unless/ the fact that I have a red car is
actually useful to you.
Like, say, you need to locate it on a crowded street.
That is the distinction I'm talking about, and it's a very real one as
far as I'm concerned.
>>I'm not acquainted with mr Olber, or his paradox, what did he say ?
>
> Happy to oblige. http://arachnoid.com/sky/index.html
Thanks, I'll check it out.
Okay, checked it.
Hey, I've read that part of your site before - just forgot all about
Olber ;-)
Clicked straight to his paradox, and found this:
The "stars," of course, are sources of energy, so they do not cool
off -- they maintain their temperature even as they deliver energy
to their environment.
I can't agree with this, from what I know of thermodynamics - heat is
dissipated from hot stuff to colder stuff, so of course an energy source
cools - it just doesn't cool as much as something that's not an energy
source.
In fact, didn't I learn somewhere that the concept of heat and energy
only has meaning when it is in motion ?
If there is no heat or energy transfer then there is no "heat" - since
by definition the transfer of energy doesn't stop until everything has
received an amount to balance every thing's energy level - makes them
the same "temperature".
This is from my high school days - admittedly quite a while back.
>>Can you *demand* (socially, or morally) that people have the foresight
>>to prevent dangerous situations ?
>
> I can only do that if they have knowledge of the consequences. This is a
> legal principle as well, although not perfectly or evenly applied.
That's my point - at what stage, and how, would you decide that they
*could have had* that foresight??
Rectify my above then, as: can you demand moral responsibility from
someone if they had no way of knowing ?
Erm several people spring immediately to mind...
-- J All your bits are belong to us - again.
- Next message: suchodj_at_wanadoo.fr: "help mandrake"
- Previous message: Madhusudan Singh: "A problematic switch from ACPI to APM"
- In reply to: Paul Lutus: "Re: Mail Server"
- Next in thread: Paul Lutus: "Re: Thermo-dynamic philosophy for kids; was Re: Mail Server a long time ago"
- Reply: Paul Lutus: "Re: Thermo-dynamic philosophy for kids; was Re: Mail Server a long time ago"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|