25.08.2015 Views

In the Beginning was Information

6KezkB

6KezkB

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

These examples confirm that laws of nature do not necessarilyhave to be quantifiable. If preferred reactions, rotary directionsor o<strong>the</strong>r general principles are being described <strong>the</strong>n ma<strong>the</strong>maticalformulas are not always effective. <strong>In</strong> some cases <strong>the</strong> observationsof <strong>the</strong> laws of nature can be deduced from more generallaws. Thus, for example, <strong>the</strong> law of induction is already containedin <strong>the</strong> Maxwell equations.All <strong>the</strong> aspects of <strong>the</strong> laws of nature discussed here are equallyvalid in relation to <strong>the</strong>orems about information. According to<strong>the</strong>ir nature, <strong>the</strong> generally valid facts about information can beobserved but <strong>the</strong>y are not quantifiable. Thus <strong>the</strong> statements aredescribed verbally. This type of description is no criterion as towhe<strong>the</strong>r a fact is a law of nature or not.Q21: Can <strong>the</strong> laws of nature change in time?A21: The laws of nature are valid everywhere in <strong>the</strong> universe andat all times without exception. There can be absolutely no exceptions.It would be tragic if <strong>the</strong> laws of nature did change as timewent on. Every technical construction and measuring apparatus is apractical application of <strong>the</strong> laws of nature. If <strong>the</strong> laws of naturechanged, bridges and tower blocks, calculated correctly taking <strong>the</strong>laws of nature into account, could collapse. As all physiologicalprocesses are also dependent on <strong>the</strong> laws of nature, <strong>the</strong>n a changein <strong>the</strong>se laws would have catastrophic consequences.Q22: Is <strong>the</strong> sender already included in your definition of information?If a sender is already included in <strong>the</strong> definition <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> conclusionthat <strong>the</strong>re must be a sender is self-evident.A22: Of course <strong>the</strong> sender is included in nei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> definition nor<strong>the</strong> prerequisite. That would be a circular argument. The laws ofnature are deduced completely from experience. Thus <strong>the</strong> existenceof a sender when <strong>the</strong>re is a code, has been observed a million timesover. <strong>In</strong> <strong>the</strong> work in hand <strong>the</strong> difference between <strong>the</strong>orems and definitionsis clearly made. Theorems should be viewed as laws ofnature. They are observed. <strong>In</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>orems 1, 9 and 11 we talkedabout a sender. I would like to stress that this is nei<strong>the</strong>r a definitionnor a prerequisite. The statements are much more <strong>the</strong> result ofcountless observations.Q23: Can a law of nature be toppled? Or, to phrase it differently,are <strong>the</strong> laws of nature confirmatory?131

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!