From: Peter C. McCluskey (pcm@rahul.net)
Date: Thu Aug 01 2002 - 09:39:57 MDT
lcorbin@tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) writes:
>Amara writes
>> 'Bayesian view of everything' by Carlton Caves
>> http://info.phys.unm.edu/~caves/
>
>That's a fascinating essay, and quite readable for those with
>some familiarity with thermodynamics and who have an interest
>in probability theory. Until someone convinces me otherwise,
>however, I find his claims like the one that we should regard
>entropy as subjective, quite misleading if not downright wrong.
>Taking his view, one would conclude either that "subjectivity"
>was not something limited to the operations of minds, e.g.,
>the higher animals especially humankind, ...or that the operation
Subjectivity, in the sense that is appropriate to physics, does
not require any special kind of mind. Caves' argument appears to
require an observer that is approximately the same as the kind of
observer that Einstein referred to when describing relativity. Can
you rephrase your criticism of Caves' argument to clarify how your
criticism differs from a criticism of Einstein's arguments?
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter McCluskey | Free Jon Johansen! http://www.rahul.net/pcm |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:50 MST