Just few minutes ago I had written a little philosophical paper on two concepts Information and The Original Idea. I would be happy if you would give your honest opinion about those two concepts and errors in my own thinking.
It's hard to follow what you're talking about, at first you seem to be trying to define "information" but you just ramble about the past being information and then say:
Before describing what future is, I like to remind that information is never stagnant on itself, it always changes it’s form and shape, one can say that is most dynamic thing in cosmos.
But the past doesn't change.
You continue talking about the future for a bit, either trying to define it or give some sense of scale, it's not really clear either way.
The next paragraph begins with the assertion that you've described "information", which I suppose you have done, in a vague rambling way that ironically didn't actually convey any useful information.
Now you're on to "The Original Idea", you start by explaining that all creativity is essentially derivative, you don't explain it well but I'm familiar with the dadaist concept, that we can neither truly create nor destroy information only change it and that everything we create is an amalgamation of the things we already know.
From that point on I can't make any sense of what you're talking about, you seem to be implying that all information has to have come from somewhere, the "Original Shape of Information" but it's basically word soup at this point.
This site uses cookies to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. We have no personalisation nor analytics --- especially no Google.