From: Peter C. McCluskey (pcm@rahul.net)
Date: Sun Aug 04 2002 - 09:39:34 MDT
lcorbin@tsoft.com (Lee Corbin) writes:
>It's possible that you understand what Caves is saying better than I.
>Elaborate if you've got time. Can you defend his claim that entropy
>is subjective? I am afraid (without knowing more about what he's
>saying) that a whole lot will turn out to be "subjective".
I haven't read his arguments carefully enough to be able to defend
his position, only enough to be reasonably certain that you haven't
made a good argument against it.
>We call the effects in special relativity "observer oriented" sometimes,
>I guess. What is meant is that there exist different frames of
>reference. I don't consider these in any way subjective, because
>of actual objective events that must be considered that are frame-
It sounds like you are using the word subjective to refer to something
(qualia?) that Caves is not refering to.
I think his arguments can be rephrased in terms of observers which are
almost as simple as a thermostat, and whose "subjectivity" consists in
having data that could be objectively observed to reside in the observer
(but which is subjective in the sense that only a few observers have the
data, just as in relativity only a few observers have any particular
velocity).
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter McCluskey | Free Jon Johansen! http://www.rahul.net/pcm |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:52 MST