Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Re: meta-physics
Message-ID: <320@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 30-Jul-85 17:30:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.320
Posted: Tue Jul 30 17:30:43 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Aug-85 05:12:43 EDT
References: <455@busch.UUCP> <9161@ucbvax.ARPA> <408@spar.UUCP> <155@prometheus.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 29

> ...   But we logically know that three space implies a two and a one
> dimensional space.  If information exists there it can't be (or interact with)
> "matter", simply because it doesn't have volume.

Koloc, could you either explain what the hell you're talking about or
shut up?  It is trivial to take a projective subspace of three-space,
but no new physics results (just projections of 3-space physics).  And
in any case, what is this about "information" (whatever you mean by
that) having or not having volume?  Not to mention needing space-time
in a fundamental theory rather than just space.

> Not only does the "LATER Physics" encompass a wider universe it can even
> apply a wider viewpoint. Why not apply information theory to physics.

Fine, why not.  Various people have done so.

> Because,  it to strange a thing to do.  But in meta physics it's not
> strange at all.

It certainly isn't strange for people to come up with meaningless
mystical mumbo-jumbo when they talk metaphysics.

Theoretical physicists of the caliber of Einstein, Dirac, Feynman et
al. often proposed "strange" ideas in an attempt to better explain the
workings of the universe.  But in those cases, they had "crisp"
theories that could be accurately applied by others to derive specific
(predictive) results.  Words are symbols for concepts, and their
concepts were abstracted from specific referents.  How about telling
us what YOUR words/concepts mean, if anything?