|
Author
|
Topic: What information is not.
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 31. January 2007 16:21
quote:
So lets see if we can come up with a definition we all can agree on. Take your pick - or suggest an amalgamation.
* Object(s) that exist outside of the void and have meaning.
Don't ask me to define the "void".
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 01. February 2007 20:43
Zarathustra,
quote:
What, given Daniel's model, is not "information"? It must be all those things that can not be known! Since there is no-one here that can enumerate even a single one of them, one has to conclude that Daniel's set of "non-information" is completely empty.
This gives us an equivalently useless definition: "Information is everything".
I disagree.
Can we "know" a physical object? (Or can we only know facts and data about that object?)
Do we know a DNA molecule? (Or do we just know some things about that molecule?)
Information (as I've defined it) exists apart from physical objects.
So (again, by my definition) all physical objects are outside the set of "information", and only what can be known about those objects is in the set.
On this point, I am aligning myself with Matt's position: Information has no physical properties and is therefore seperate from all physical objects.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 01. February 2007 21:05
Daniel, quote:
Information has no physical properties and is therefore seperate from all physical objects.
You keep including the word "known" and "known" in your definition and that word implies already implies a "knower". Remember all of your definitions of information in the list are applicable when used in the proper context. To try to use a single word to cover all contexts is the crux of the confusion here.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 01. February 2007 22:55
IF,
The "knower" is us. Since I am a human, and I am defining information as it applies to us humans, we are the knowers. We decide if something can be known or not.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 02. February 2007 00:40
What is information without a knower? Can anyone give an example of a bit of information that is not known by some entity capable of knowing?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 02. February 2007 05:22
I have a better question.
What information have you come across that was not the qualification or the quantification of some observation?
That’s it! That is my definition of information. Information is the qualification or the quantification of some observation.
What do you know about that?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 02. February 2007 08:46
Mel,
quote:
What information have you come across that was not the qualification or the quantification of some observation?
None. I am the "you" (i.e. the "knower"). The physical objects that have meaning to me and exist are still there and have meaning to each other whether I qualify/quantify them or not. The objects I create in my own electro-chemical existence will disappear as soon as I am no longer able to maintain the electro-chemical state that defines them. However, the physical objects that I have qualified/quantified into my electro-chemical state either through personal observation or not do not disappear with me.
IP: Logged
|
|
Richard Oldani
Member
Member # 2606
|
posted 02. February 2007 11:09
quote:
I am not as familiar with quantum matters as I should be so I would like to know if the wave function is as useful at the macro level as it is at the quantum level of reality? Also, is an observer really required in the calculations?
It is only useful if you subscribe to the quantum mechanical definition of reality: "Quantum mechanics [is] founded exclusively upon relationships between quantities which are in principle observable." The observer is required if you believe the wave function is real, but most physicists use the mathematics to predict the outcome of an experiment and place physical importance only on the results of the experiments. IOW they sidestep the question of the importance of an observer.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 02. February 2007 12:16
Daniel, quote:
We decide if something can be known or not.
Wow! What if "we" are confused about some object/subject of interest? What about before we were here? For example did gravity have any meaning to anything or did the insects find meaning in anything?
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 03. February 2007 00:57
quote:
Daniel Smith: The "knower" is us. Since I am a human, and I am defining information as it applies to us humans, we are the knowers. We decide if something can be known or not.
Zarathustra would like to openly apologise to this new Daniel Smith for any confusion regarding his rejection of the claims made by the old Daniel Smith on pages 6 through 20.
The other Daniel Smith seemed to erroneously claim that:
a) information existed prior to the existence of anyone to observe it
b) all information was the result of some agent having "caused it"
c) information was intrinsic to an object, and not to the observer
d) inaccessible information still existed (remember: clay tablet, farm animal inventory).
One must welcome this new Daniel Smith, for he recognises that "information" is a synthetic construct that sentient minds use to simplify their perception of the world. We cannot "know" anything in the physical world, obviously. The best we can hope for is sensory impressions. It's up to us what we do with them.
Is there "information" in a complex physical structure such as a molecule? If so, where would it reside?
Were there no-one to observe a physical entity, could it exist independently?
[ 03. February 2007, 01:02: Message edited by: Zarathustra ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 03. February 2007 01:00
quote:
Richard Olduvai It is only useful if you subscribe to the quantum mechanical definition of reality: "Quantum mechanics [is] founded exclusively upon relationships between quantities which are in principle observable." The observer is required if you believe the wave function is real, but most physicists use the mathematics to predict the outcome of an experiment and place physical importance only on the results of the experiments. IOW they sidestep the question of the importance of an observer.
The question you are sidestepping, Richard, is the importance of knowing what one is talking about. Don't waste our time by pretending you know about quantum mechanics and "the wave function" (as you so quaintly put it). You haven't a clue, and you've fooled nobody. How much more futile rubbish are you going to post in order to demonstrate how "clever" you are?
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 03. February 2007 03:33
Zarathustra:
quote:
One must welcome this new Daniel Smith, for he recognises that "information" is a synthetic construct that sentient minds use to simplify their perception of the world. We cannot "know" anything in the physical world, obviously. The best we can hope for is sensory impressions. It's up to us what we do with them.
Problem evidently consists in answering the question what information really is (and not "What information is not".). Let say many ancient civilisation wisdom (languages) are gone for good because no one wrote them down. So these information are irreparable lost.
Similary information that are probably incorrect (that darwinism is the right evolutionary theory for instance). After humanity and earth cease exists (some nuclear war) tomorrow these information will be lost too. Anyway wrong information is also information. Wrong information is not extracted from reality - is not rooted in it.
So I would say that "correct information" reflect reality in shape we can underestand it (words, symbols, pictures) - IN-FORM-ed, it gives form to something. So I would agree that information is not intrinsic to the reality (does not exist "an sich" there.) - good example could be incorrect information that do not reflect reality.
[ 03. February 2007, 03:46: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 03. February 2007 11:13
Martin, quote:
So I would say that "correct information" reflect reality in shape we can underestand it (words, symbols, pictures) - IN-FORM-ed, it gives form to something.
So you also subscribe to the one meaning/context fits all and it only applies to the human organism? There is no reality without us to define it? As expressed in your statement: quote:
So I would agree that information is not intrinsic to the reality (does not exist "an sich" there.)
Again, wow! quote:
good example could be incorrect information that do not reflect reality.
Doesn't this statement imply that the incorrect information resides within the electro-chemical state of a human organism and doesn't map to a physical object in reality? Can't the electro-chemical state of a human organism be considered an object?
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 03. February 2007 12:25
IF
quote:
Doesn't this statement imply that the incorrect information resides within the electro-chemical state of a human organism and doesn't map to a physical object in reality? Can't the electro-chemical state of a human organism be considered an object?
I am not sure about it but let say that incorrect information resides in electro-chemical state of our brain. Because the incorrect information is not rooted in objective reality only is presented in subject as "state of brain" than such information cease exist at the moment its bearer died (or forget it).
I would say that concept of incorrect information supports the idea that information as such depends on human (subject) and is not inherent in reality. At least I can conceive as many incorrect information as you like (for instance that Mexico is in Europe. Or that Imanuel Kant invented wheel.)
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 03. February 2007 12:50
Martin,
quote:
I would say that concept of incorrect information supports the idea that information as such depends on human (subject) and is not inherent in reality. At least I can conceive as many incorrect information as you like (for instance that Mexico is in Europe. Or that Imanuel Kant invented wheel.)
Are you sure that only humans use information about reality? Do animals or any non-humans ever have incorrect information as part of their electro-chemical state? How can you tell when you are sending/receiving incorrect information about reality? How could a non-human do it?
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
