|
Author
|
Topic: What information is not.
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 16. January 2007 10:00
quote:
Matt - I don’t see why to separate them by time; why is not the “manifesting now” of physicality still not a medium for information? That seems arbitrary.
Good question. As stated a few times - my POV is that information - both formal structure as bits and bytes and as contextual meaning - is subsumed by, or is a layer beyond, the physical. One is substance and energy (physical) and the other immaterial but with an analogue set of properties as structure (which interact with the physical through their probability of manifestation). The matter, energy and information making the whole reality of a thing, event or process.
I have enjoyed my communication with you in this thread. Maybe I should start a new one - to expand on ideas about structure and information. As to why time is a factor -- I think that information is in some ways independant of time and space. Quantum research appears to bear this out.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 16. January 2007 15:31
Stephen,
Would structure be pretty much synonymous with pattern? I have been thinking of patterns (which basically means mathematics) as the “single thing”, the context and vantage point from which we explore the universe.
But now wouldn’t physicality be subsumed by information instead of the reverse? Doesn’t the wave function prescribe what a particle does? If it instead describes it wouldn’t that make mathematics entirely coincidental? Furthermore, using wave functions takes the concept of infinity for granted, and infinity can never be subsumed by physicality can it?
Finally (I’m really stretching with these questions.), just as a really basic matter of logic, shouldn’t we say that information is subsumed by time itself? Because a pattern or structure (as I’m thinking of structure though you might have a totally different idea) is quite simply a repetition of meaning. Time, also being immaterial, would literally be the source of information (patterns or structures), from which then springs (it from bit) physicality. This might be supported by the fact that scientists have searched and found no evidence for time being quantized, and by Gödel’s outrageous theorem that made time disappear.
Stephen, I have enjoyed this immensely. It has been very refreshing. I look forward to your thread!
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 16. January 2007 17:47
Melvin, you asked: quote:
Let me ask you, if I can press the keys 2, +, 2, and = in that order, does that mean I can add?
I answered: quote:
no. But it does mean that a system comprised of both you and the calculator can add.
You responded: quote:
If you will agree to include the programmer in this system then I will agree that the system described can add.
But we can isolate the programmer from our system and the system will still add. By "isolating", I mean preventing any interaction during the test. Interactions before the test do not make the programmer part of the system.
quote:
But, if we remove the calculator from the system and set it on the table all by itself, it can by no means add.
Calculators don't necessarily need their buttons to be pushed in order to perform arithmetic operations. Those operations can be triggered by an internal timer or whatever.
quote:
Why it can’t even collect dust, although left idle dust would collect on it.
It is not accurate to say, “the earth moves in an elliptical orbit.” I would say rather, “the earth is moved in an elliptical [form of an ellipse] orbit by natural forces.”
You seem to be saying the physical entities must always be the object rather than the subject of actions. You don't argue against the phenomena (e.g. motion of the earth, collection of dust) but you object to universally accepted ways of describing the phenomena. Do you know of anyone besides yourself who would say that "the earth moves" and "items collect dust" are inaccurate claims?
quote:
Being the positivist that I am, I quickly conclude that the girl knows how to add.
And you conclude erroneously, since the subject of your test was not the girl, but rather the system comprised of the girl and her boyfriend. That particular system can add.
quote:
Would you honestly be pleased with your own child’s education if upon their 8th grade graduation they had memorized all the possible cases for subtraction problems and did not understand the concepts involved?
I would be thrilled to learn that my child has an infinite memory.
You make a good point here. The question is whether we define "subtracting" as a certain algorithm or as a mapping from inputs to outputs. I would guess that most hand calculators use the same adding/subtracting algorithm that we do, called ripple-carry. Some arithmetic logic units use an algorithm called carry look-ahead, others use carry-save-add, and there are probably other algorithms besides those. Who's to say which is the "right" algorithm? I would consider memorizing all possible cases to be a correct, albeit horribly inefficient, algorithm for subtracting.
BTW, the question still stands: How do you propose we test the proposition "X can add"?
quote:
Thank you for the Chinese room link; this is new to me and I will investigate.
You're certainly welcome. The Chinese Room debate underscores the importance of pinning down operational definitions.
[ 16. January 2007, 18:36: Message edited by: 2ndclass ]
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 16. January 2007 17:58
Matt, you seem to be making two conflicting claims. One is that creativity is the basis for including or excluding items from your list of interactions that are impossible between physical objects and immaterial concepts. The other is that ALL such interactions are impossible. (I realize that "interaction" is a poor word choice on my part. I'm not up on philosophical terminology.)
Regardless, as far as I can tell, you have yet to make a substantive claim. By "substantive" I mean a claim that has a logical, mathematical, or empirical truth value. If you disagree, then maybe you can tell us what your claim is and how one would go about proving it formally or verifying it empirically.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 16. January 2007 23:24
Here is something you should know, gentlemen. It has been pointed out to me by a correspondent that Matt's brilliant new idea is actually copied from something that has been doing the rounds for some time.
For example, there is a 5-part mailer from Perry S. Marshall that contains the following:
quote:
Messages are immaterial. Information is itself a unique kind of entity. It can be stored and transmitted and copied in many forms, but the meaning still stays the same.
Can we say that "plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery", or should we conclude that Matt was simply dishonest when he said it was his idea?
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 17. January 2007 04:40
2ndclass,
I must admit; your logic is sound. However, I maintain that my argument is valid. The fact remains that we disagree. How can all three of these statements be true? You have made some core observations that illuminate.
You wrote:
quote:
But we can isolate the programmer from our system and the system will still add. By "isolating", I mean preventing any interaction during the test. Interactions before the test do not make the programmer part of the system.
I disagree a priori. I could tell you, the algorithm is the intellectual property of the programmer and as long as you (not the calculator) use that property the programmer is included in the system (interaction exists); but, this will not sway you. You might argue, when you purchased the calculator you purchased the intellectual property eliminating the programmer and any interaction with him from the system.
I should then ask you to suppose the purchased calculator worked perfectly fine except for one minor glitch; every time you tried to add x + 7, x + 17 was calculated. I would be glad to add that if approached, the programmer might say, “Why are you asking me; I’m isolated? Faulting my lack of creativity, respond you likely would; the user can simply adjust and type x + 7 – 10 and x + 7 would be calculated, thus keeping the user + calculator - programmer = adding system in tact. There is no logical error in my rendition of the naturalist argument; yet, I am unconvinced. Why?
You wrote:
quote:
You seem to be saying the physical entities must always be the object rather than the subject of actions. You don't argue against the phenomena (e.g. motion of the earth, collection of dust) but you object to universally accepted ways of describing the phenomena. Do you know of anyone besides yourself who would say that "the earth moves" and "items collect dust" are inaccurate claims?
I do not know of one naturalist who would agree with me. However, you would have a hard time finding a parent who has not said to their child; “Well, the remote did not just get up and walk off all by itself!”
That physical objects are the objects of action is self evident. I can give you arguments that support my assertion but I can’t prove it to you. I can’t show the statement “purely physical objects can perform action” as a false premise. But when you say:
quote:
I would guess that most hand calculators use the same adding/subtracting algorithm that we do, called ripple-carry.
I can’t help but shake my head in disgust. How is the interaction with the physical property, the calculator, different from the interaction with the intellectual property of the programmer? Let me explain. You say the calculator can add because we isolate the programmer but subsume his algorithm, his property, which we purchased. Why can’t my student subsume the property he bought, the calculator itself, and claim he has shown he can add by using this property? Is it because the algorithm is immaterial and the calculator material? What if the student had the chip implanted in his person? Would that be any different than carrying it around in his pocket?
You wrote:
quote:
BTW, the question still stands: How do you propose we test the proposition "X can add"?
As I said before, this is subjective. I have taught for eleven years now. If I work with a student observing their actions for 5 or 10 minutes, then I can tell you if they can add or not. But if I devise some objective test and administer it, I am less confident in my assessment of their abilities.
I would not consider testing an inanimate object as I have made clear above.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 17. January 2007 14:16
IF,
You wrote:
quote:
We must "believe" them when and only when we are forced to make a choice about some particular course of action and there is no time to research the matter for ourselves so that our statistical odds are better at making the correct choice.
No. In order to defend the above, you must first accept this premise: The larger the amount of imperfect experimental data one has, the closer the empirical distribution of outcomes matches the actual. Your correctness hinges then on the truth value of this implication. Or do you have some way of knowing what the actual is? I agree that the implication is self evident to all scientists, however, most appreciate its status as axiom; I hope.
You wrote:
quote:
Authority, the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes, in this sense Science has "earned" their "authority".
Since science is based on inaccurate measurements by error plagued individuals with clouded and biased understandings, I am reluctant to use it to settle issues and disputes about matters far removed in time and space from the data points.
You wrote:
quote:
I assume ( I hate assuming ) you think your Religion has "earned" their power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes and the right to control, command, or determine; or it makes you "feel" better.
I have no affiliation with any religion organized by man. Jesus Christ came to me personally in Spirit. I asked him to save me from my sins. He did so and more. There is some physical evidence of this miracle but for the most part it is indemonstrable with respect to the five senses. But you are correct to say that He has earned the right to control, command, and determine all things by His work on the cross.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 17. January 2007 14:23
Melvin: quote:
I disagree a priori.
We're each free to define our system and the scope of our test as we like. You can define your system to include the designer, and define your test as starting from the time that the designer conceives the schematic for the calculator, and ending when the output on the calculator screen shows up. But widening the definition of your system and scope of your test reduces the usefulness of the test, as it prevents you from drawing specific conclusions.
quote:
There is no logical error in my rendition of the naturalist argument; yet, I am unconvinced.
I don't see any naturalist or supernaturalist argument in play here. We're talking about a simple empirical test.
quote:
I do not know of one naturalist who would agree with me.
Do you know of any non-naturalist who would agree with you?
quote:
But when you say:
quote: I would guess that most hand calculators use the same adding/subtracting algorithm that we do, called ripple-carry.
I can’t help but shake my head in disgust.
And yet the object of your disgust is a sentence that any computer engineer would readily agree with. From my point of view, the problem is that my usage of terms is standard and yours is not. I feel that my intended meaning is clear, but you're ignoring it and interpreting my statements according to your own definitions.
quote:
Why can’t my student subsume the property he bought, the calculator itself, and claim he has shown he can add by using this property?
If you want to define "the student" to include the calculator, then the correct conclusion would be that the student can add. If we presume to redefine terms any way we feel like, then we can come to any conclusion we want.
quote:
As I said before, this is subjective.
This epitomizes our disagreement. The standard usage of the word "add" is objective, but you have redefined it in such a way that "X can add" is true only if you subjectively judge it to be true. That's certainly your prerogative, but it puts the question of whether X can add outside the bounds of rational discourse. We might as well be debating whether raspberries taste better than blackberries.
I have probably come across as accusatory in this post, and I apologize, but our discussion has reached the point where it's more frustrating than productive.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 17. January 2007 15:00
2ndclass,
quote:
Matt, you seem to be making two conflicting claims. One is that creativity is the basis for including or excluding items from your list of interactions that are impossible between physical objects and immaterial concepts. The other is that ALL such interactions are impossible. (I realize that "interaction" is a poor word choice on my part. I'm not up on philosophical terminology.)
No, I’m suggesting the creativity is a good test for whether something is capable of perceiving information—which roughly translates as to whether something has a “soul”. Because the notion of any and all interactions between the physical and nonphysical are just logically incoherent. The brain cannot use the five senses to perceive something that cannot be seen, heard, felt, tasted or smelled. A computer cannot use any input device to interact with something immaterial. There is no coherent alternative. The naturalist has no other choice but to insist that information actually has physical qualities.
quote:
Regardless, as far as I can tell, you have yet to make a substantive claim. By "substantive" I mean a claim that has a logical, mathematical, or empirical truth value. If you disagree, then maybe you can tell us what your claim is and how one would go about proving it formally or verifying it empirically.
I would just repeat my opening post argument for how the nonphysical nature of information is an observable, testable, falsifiable fact. The only other thing I might add is that, again, there is no coherent alternative. That is to say, no scientist or philosopher has yet articulated a theory for concrete information. They just try to take it for granted. Here is Dr. Robert Aunger of Oxford trying (and failing) to take it for granted:
quote:
It is a fundamental fact that “information is physical.” This phrase has become the mantra of a group of scientists called information physicists…The mantra does not mean that information is a separate kind of entity whose bits get totted up alongside the number of molecules and joules when accounting for all the material in the universe. Nevertheless, the presence of information can change the course of events, and it is in this sense that information is physical. Any complete description of the universe must include information. Physical reality must be considered to include not just matter and energy, but information too…Why does information matter? Because the structure of the universe—that is, of matter and energy—is a function of the distribution and quantity of information. If matter and energy are randomly distributed through space, there is no structure to the universe; if there is useful information in the universe, then there are pockets of organized matter or energy within it, capable of doing work such as being converted from one to the other. Information is a quality or property of bundles of matter or energy. (The Electric Meme: A New Theory of How We Think, pp. 139-140.)
Notice how his explanation gets turned upside down and inside out within the span of a single paragraph. He starts off saying that “information is physical,” but concludes by saying information “is a quality or property”—two abundantly abstract, nonphysical concepts. After all, what are the physical qualities of a “quality,” or the physical properties of a “property”? They do not have any. The word “physical” (which is itself an abstract concept) is not defined as the presence of something “which can change the course of events.” Rather it is generally defined as something that can be directly or indirectly seen, heard, felt, tasted, touched, or smelled—something that our physical bodies sense; something that has mass or charge or some other physical property.
That is not to say that Dr. Aunger is wrong in observing that information changes the course of events (yet another thoroughly abstract concept). It does. But it is not physical. Everything that is physical might convey information, but information is not physical.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 17. January 2007 15:11
Zarathustra,
Um, yeah, the understanding that information is immaterial has been around for thousands of years. I got my initial understanding of it from the Bible. The argument I’m making—which I said has surely been made dozens of times though I’d only found one example in Paul Benacerraf from Brian Davies’ book, referred to back on page 3)—is that this is an observable, testable, falsifiable fact. Perry Marshall’s argument—at least as you quoted it—is not nearly as thorough and clear as Benacerraf’s or mine, but its certainly a good one. Thanks for showing it to me. I'd be very glad to see other such work.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 17. January 2007 15:30
Matt: quote:
No, I’m suggesting the creativity is a good test for whether something is capable of perceiving information—which roughly translates as to whether something has a “soul”. Because the notion of any and all interactions between the physical and nonphysical are just logically incoherent.
So is a soul indicated only by perceiving information, or is it indicated by any interaction with anything nonphysical?
quote:
I would just repeat my opening post argument for how the nonphysical nature of information is an observable, testable, falsifiable fact.
The question you're avoiding is: How do we go about testing it? To answer that question, you'll need to flesh out your definitions of "information" and "nonphysical". Until you do that, we can't assign a truth value to your claim.
I submit that you can't answer this question without undermining your other claims.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 17. January 2007 15:41
quote:
... you must first accept this premise: The larger the amount of imperfect experimental data one has, the closer the empirical distribution of outcomes matches the actual.
Except for the word "imperfect" (if you leave that word out it is a better in a more general sense) there is no argument. Also, I don't think it is a common understanding that science and its methodology is infallible in every single circumstance. Perfection of our knowledge and understanding is the ideal goal for all of us; I hope.
quote:
Your correctness hinges then on the truth value of this implication. Or do you have some way of knowing what the actual is?
That's the job (knowing the actual) that Science has taken upon itself, isn't it? That is what has made Science so useful.
quote:
Since science is based on inaccurate measurements by error plagued individuals with clouded and biased understandings,
But isn't it supposed to be a self-correcting process? It might take longer than you would hope but it is supposed to get it right eventually.
quote:
I am reluctant to use it to settle issues and disputes about matters far removed in time and space from the data points.
What's the alternative?
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 17. January 2007 20:12
2ndclass,
I am also frustrated. Perhaps the impasse is all my fault. Why must I complicate the issue? Why can’t I just agree with everyone else and move on? Life would be much simpler.
It is kind-a-like when that jerk Einstein changed the definition of gravitation. Newton’s law of gravitation is so elegant and easy to use and understand. Why muck up the works with curved space-time? Everyone else was perfectly happy with gravity as a field force, end of story.
Most scholars I have asked in the past few days say at first glance that the calculator can add (they also think of gravity as a field force). When I voice my opinion they just look at me and then go about their business. They don’t really care.
The footer for your argument seems to be common practice. You are aware, I am sure, that this is a logical fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not give ‘evidence’ to support an action.
If programmers agree with your characterizations of the abilities of machines, be aware that this programmer (cobol, fortran, basic, C++, visual basic, GDC) does not.
Please consider that it is possible 2ndclass is responsible for the impasse. As we read from Wikipedia:
quote:
Certain problems arise with the positivist belief system once it is accepted: (1) Since all of our most certain knowledge, namely, that of ourselves and our own mental states, is inaccessible to objective science (being personal), how is positivism to account for what we know? And since our inferences about what we do not directly know, but only surmise on the basis of our actual experiences, comprise the objective world of scientific entities imagined by positivist philosophy, how is it supposed to be possible to account for any knowledge at all positivistically?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 17. January 2007 21:47
Matt: Um, yeah, the understanding that information is immaterial has been around for thousands of years.
No it hasn't. You just made that up. If not, please provide a reference to support this claim. Misinterpreting Plato will not be sufficient. Your use of the phrase "the understanding that" is designed to lead the unwary reader into thinking that you are subscribing to a given. Not so. The nature of what is "material" seems to have defeated your understanding, Matt, and your inability to say what information actually is makes your statement a travesty.
Matt: I got my initial understanding of it from the Bible.
Nothing in the Bible relates to information being immaterial. Please post the relevant passages. The original language is fine; Zarathustra has done his fair share of translations.
quote:
Matt:The argument I’m making—which I said has surely been made dozens of times though I’d only found one example in Paul Benacerraf from Brian Davies’ book, referred to back on page 3)—is that this is an observable, testable, falsifiable fact. Perry Marshall’s argument—at least as you quoted it—is not nearly as thorough and clear as Benacerraf’s or mine, but its certainly a good one. Thanks for showing it to me. I'd be very glad to see other such work.
Benacerraf argues that an adequate account of truth in mathematics implies the existence of abstract mathematical objects, but that such objects are epistemolgically inaccessible because they are causally inert and beyond the reach of sense perception. Benacerraf's logic dictates that anything that we can conceive must exist, albeit it some dream-world of his own invention. He has never bothered to give a list of all the other things that must exist in that imaginary zone.
Zarathustra does not post references to intellectually bankrupt thinking, except for the purposes of ridicule. You will have to find such material for yourself, Matt.
How can the immateriality of something be an observable "fact"?
quote:
2nd Class: The question you're avoiding is: How do we go about testing it? To answer that question, you'll need to flesh out your definitions of "information" and "nonphysical". Until you do that, we can't assign a truth value to your claim.
I submit that you can't answer this question without undermining your other claims.
That's such a good point that I'm utterly certain that Matt will have to ignore it completely, or pretend that you asked a different question. Nice one, 2nd Class.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 17. January 2007 23:04
To all those who disagree with Matt:
If it's not information, then what is it?
When we take a movie and transfer it to DVD, what are we transfering?
When we print out a paper - changing it from bits in a computer to ink on a page - what is it are we changing from one medium to another?
When an artist tries to convey a message through a painting, what is it he is conveying?
When a scientist sequences a genome and makes a chart with lots of combinations of C's A's T's and G's, what exactly is it he is transfering?
You all seem dead set against any implication that information is non-physical or immaterial, but if it's not information, then what is it?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
