X-Message-Number: 26110
From: 
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:31:37 EDT
Subject: language & reality

Mike Perry, responding to Richard Riddick, repeated his plausible
contention that an artificial language might be designed allowing  aliens
unambiguously to interpret our messages (or vice versa).
 
But there are several other parts to the problem. As a simple  example, 
suppose we want to describe the location and state of a hydrogen  atom.
Let's say it is known to be stationary at the origin of coordinates and  in
the first excited state. We designate this by writing (0,1), which is  
understood
by sender and receiver. That's fine as far as it goes--but I don't think  
anyone
will claim that that notation (0,1) really IS the hydrogen atom. It is only  a
description of it. (There are still further parts to the problem, but this  is
perhaps the core.)
 
Whether the map "is" the territory depends on the way you use the  map.
If you are trying to locate a city to plan a trip, a map is better than  an
aerial photo and better than the city itself. But if you want to live  there, 
you need the actual city, and neither a map nor a photo will help you
at all.
 
In broader terms, the "information paradigm" is only a  
conjecture--entertained
by some very bright people, but in my opinion pretty low on the  plausibility
scale. After all, it not only fails to answer the ontological  questions, but 
does
not even address them.
 
Robert Ettinger


 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26110