|
Author
|
Topic: What information is not.
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 06. February 2007 20:00
Zarathustra doesn't even use the word "information" except when he is able to qualify it in the context it is being used, by explaining the framework of concepts within which it needs to be understood. The word means different things according to whether the field of discourse is physical data, signalling/encoding, semiotics, linguistics, semantics, etc. There is simply no single definition that is sufficient.
In this, we have to admit the folly of hoping to use the term "information" as an all-encompassing descriptor. Matt's original gambit fell foul of this; by conflating the usages of the term, he was able to claim that a number of different things were the "same information", even though they were manifestly different. This should be a salutory lesson to all of us all about the dangers of expecting a single word to capture all the complexities of real-world phenomena.
To a certain extent, some of the confusion was deliberate, born out of a need to further some unrelated religious hobbyhorse. This is a noxious trend, especially as it seems to spread beyond our discussions here. The likes of Dembski, for example, seek to replace sound information-theoretic concepts with those more suited to their own purposes. One needs look no further than the paper available on the ISCID site to see how even formal approaches can be corrupted by mock-academic strategies designed to support creationist agendas. They are a travesty, of course, made more so by their transparency.
Smith: Information is all that can be known
As I pointed out earlier, this just pushes the problem onto a different word, without shedding any light on the matter. What can be known? Let's see.
We can know the physical positions of an atomic particle to a reasonable degree of accuracy. We can, therefore, infer the distance between any two such particles in the universe. Moreover, we can determine the positional relationship between groups of such particles (up to, and beyond, the granularity of ducks). Only a small amount of reflection will show that there is a vastly huge number of such relationships, all of which can be "known".
Unfortunately, since we have started at the granularity of atomic particles, there is no means available in the universe to represent all this "information", since its amount exceeds the ability of the mechanism by which it must be done.
This leads to the inevitable conclusion: Some information cannot be known.
This result mitigates strongly against Smith's "Information is all that can be known", since it is demonstrably incomplete.
If something can be "known", it is fair to say that is "exists", after some fashion. Those things that cannot be known are not said to exist. A claim that "unknowable things exist" has to be treated more as a psychosis than as a reasoned ontological argument. This being the case, to say that "Information is all that can be known" is identical to saying that "Information is all that exists". This not sufficiently restrictive to be of value in discussion.
In summary then, the Smith definition has to be discarded for two reasons:
1. It is incomplete,
2. It is of no use in discussion.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 06. February 2007 22:25
Zarathustra,
quote:
there is no means available in the universe to represent all this "information", since its amount exceeds the ability of the mechanism by which it must be done.
This leads to the inevitable conclusion: Some information cannot be known.
All the information in the universe can potentially be known. It is not necessary that it all be known at once.
quote:
"Information is all that can be known" is identical to saying that "Information is all that exists".
We've covered this. You are confusing the physical object with the description of that object. Information is the description of the object (that which can be known about it), but not the object itself.
What constitutes the act of "knowing"?
It involves the cataloging of facts, opinions and data within our brains. The physical objects never enter our brain, so they are not "known". Only the facts about those objects can be known.
Therefore, saying "Information is all that can be known" is not identical to saying "Information is all that exists".
Maybe it would be clearer if I said "Information is all that can be known about the universe".
That would seperate "Information" from the physical universe.
Or maybe better would be "Information is all that can be known about anything".
That would then include any information that is not part of this universe (if any).
I really think though that "all that can be known" covers it pretty well, because, (as I've said), it's not the physical objects that are known, it's the non-physical information.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 07. February 2007 14:52
On a side note:
Does anybody know anything about the Moderator of this forum?
I've sent several e-mails asking for permission to start a new thread and have received no response.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 07. February 2007 23:10
Smith: All the information in the universe can potentially be known.
Here, you are introducing another shield word, i.e. potentially. Such a weak parry cannot be ignored. Zarathustra has just shown that all the information in the universe cannot be known, simply because it is not physically posssible.
Smith: It is not necessary that it all be known at once.
This is a disastrous counter; were one to include time-series data for a single atomic particle in what "can be known", it would allow for an infinite amount of "information" to be available for just a single particle. Clearly, such an amount of information cannot be known.
I am in no way disagreeing with your view of information, by the way, Daniel, I am attacking your definition, which is not strong enough to serve any useful purpose.
The weakness in your definition lies only in the words by which you express it, and not its intent, as far as I am able to judge.
1. The universal quantifier "all" leads to trouble. If you use a term "all X", then you have to allow for the possibility of "some not X", otherwise "X" becomes a necessary truism. You don't allow for anything that is "not information".
Your definition "Information is all can be known" only starts to be usable when inverted back into a meaning that can be defended i.e. "All that can be known is information". This is no longer a definition of information, however.
[As an aside, it has to be noted that if we cannot directly "know" anything about the physical universe itself, there is no basis for saying it is "material", is there? It is demoted to "that which gives rise to percepts", and nothing more.]
2. "Can be" allows for too many variations. If something is theoretically possible, yet is unachievable in the real world, is it correct to say that such a thing "can be"? If something "might be", but only in circumstances beyond our means to produce, is it reasonable to suggest that such things are feasible?
3. "Known". Some things are said to be "known", and others are said to be "knowable". On the latter pivots the axis of your gyrations about the concept of "information", Daniel. It is a precursor to the understanding of anything that follows from it.
If your idea for a new topic adresses the idea of "knowledge", then I would willingly second it, since it would certainly be more fruitful. I thought this thread could be wrapped up on page six, where my first post occurs. But here we are at 23. I'm fairly sure that most of the other readers on this thread have already poked their own eyes out with salad forks simply to save themselves the distress of seeing any more pages on this topic. It has to end sometime.
[ 08. February 2007, 22:46: Message edited by: Zarathustra ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 09. February 2007 22:52
Zarathustra,
quote:
all the information in the universe cannot be known, simply because it is not physically posssible.
The only problem I see with this argument is how to differentiate between the information that can be known and that which cannot. Where do you draw the line?
Anyway...
I too am growing weary of this thread.
I see your points about my definition, but for the life of me I can't think of any other way to say it.
There probably isn't an all encompassing definition of Information.
IP: Logged
|
|
AnaxagorasRules
Member
Member # 4079
|
posted 22. February 2007 13:51
quote:
And if we ever discovered a physical property of information (or discovered information that could not be translated) then that would falsify its transcendence.
Now I see even more where you are going with your other post dealing with competition.
Information is the final result of a process. The external raw data that enters your brain is physical. Your ear drums are physically acted upon by the force that produced the varying waves, and the "sound" that your brain makes you aware of has a decibel level and a frequency. The data that is in the light that enters your eyes (hmmm...is that physical ![[Wink]](wink.gif) ) is converted to electrical signals that go to your brain, which in turn makes you aware of the external world around you, and you "see" colors, shapes, sizes, depth...which are physical properties. The same process is occuring with the other senses, with raw physical data entering by way of an organ designed to receive the data, and your brain makes you aware of the "smells", "feels", and "tastes" that they sense.
But yes, once the raw data is processed by your brain, the information gleaned has transecended into the realm of the non-physical.
Also, at that point, your information is extremely subjective. You can't be sure that your brain has interpreted the physical data properly. (Also, memory is necessarily involved with any act that the mind engages in, because the raw data currently being processed is mixed in with memories of past experiences. In fact, the act of thinking itself constantly requires the facility of memory)
The mediums you mentioned, the pen and paper, the DVD, and so on, are the devices we use to objectivize information, so that other minds can process a "facimile" of the original physical data (which has added to it, more than likely, some additional data based on internal biases and experiences of the sender, affecting tone, mood, ommissions, exaggerations, abridgements and errors that reflect the senders subjective viewpoint). The information we glean from this re-transmitted "copy" of the information may or may not jive with the original information produced by the senders brain.
Those mediums that transform the information back into discrete parts that are physical, so that other people can process it and arrive at their own subjective version of non-physical information, is how a consensus is formed. A consensus is very important because that is how we can be reasonably sure that our brain is working properly. Sort of like precision as it is defined in chemistry measurements. The closer the measurements are to each other, the more assured we feel that the measurements are correct. (However, precision and accuracy are two different things, and the consensus can be wrong, and often is when dealing with metaphysical issues...a catch 22.)
I've only read your post on this topic, and not the many comments that it garnished, so my apologies if I'm merely repeating what has already been said.
[ 22. February 2007, 18:05: Message edited by: AnaxagorasRules ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
zokj
Member
Member # 4936
|
posted 19. April 2007 05:39
"The closer the measurements are to each other, the more assured we feel that the measurements are correct." AnaxagorasRules,
this may be the motivating factor for idealizing the collective as a requisite for truth (in order to pursue it). But the source of truth is in the fallibility of the measurements.
in other words you don't have answers to the questions you don't ask.
IP: Logged
|
|
blackowl
Member
Member # 5176
|
posted 02. May 2007 18:16
Hi everyone I am new,
unfortunately, 4000 years of time not made any change in human brain. 4000 years ago people were saying: river seems flowing but actualy not... anyway today we are keeping same method of thinking; because education system we are having pushing usto same way of thinking. when someone start to think in another way (Newton, Galileo...) we say they are talented people. of course anyone can undestand why apple dropping but people like Newton can use intangible word to create or find new rules for science. It is same when Man create new GOD which is intangible to stop motherhood time and their tangible god(s).
Education systems in the world are so bad because of politic. without understanding politic (-otherways you react to me and we can never understand eachother-) and without critisizing this education system engulf many people like Newton.
Finally pls everyone no rules for thinking. If we put rules for thinking, that rules stop or will made slow....
I am just joined to this forum and I do not know is there any topic to understand 'TIME' because this topic hardly concluded to understand time
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 03. May 2007 10:18
blackowl,
Welcome!
quote:
I am just joined to this forum and I do not know is there any topic to understand 'TIME' because this topic hardly concluded to understand time
The only statement I offered about made about the nature of time is that it is immaterial—without mass or charge or even any theoretical components of the physical universe (Higgs bosons or fields, etc.). For all such things are mediums of information and within the context of pattern, which is immaterial and temporal. And yet to the extent that the universe or any physical component of it can be said to “exist” or be called “real,” we can objectively say exactly the same things of time and information.
To say that the physical universe was made out of that which is invisible/immaterial is not an incoherent statement, and to say it is would be to arbitrarily ascribe properties to that which is immaterial (time, information, etc.) It is an outrageous statement, much more bizarre than declaring that the moon is made of cheese or that the earth rests on a gigantic turtle. But it is not incoherent.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 03. May 2007 10:59
Or, speaking of Higgs bosoms, a better way to put it would be to realize that anything beyond 3 dimensions will always, only be an idea--a word; a piece of information; an analogy of the material world.
A beautifully coherent idea.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 03. May 2007 12:27
quote:
Or, speaking of Higgs bosoms
That gets my vote for Freudian slip of the week.
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 04. May 2007 18:10
quote:
anything beyond 3 dimensions will always, only be an idea--a word; a piece of information; an analogy of the material world. - Matt
Let's try a thought experiment -- how does making the immaterial more specific - as an analogy to dimension - "feel" to the rational mind. In this manner those here that are comfortable in the data and math implications of physics can relate. We can detect time pretty well, even without a detector mechanism like an ear or eye. My implication is that maybe we “detect” the real aspects of information with the mind.
Surely we measure time very well and noting it is not material, but is an essential physical attribute. The concept of time relates as an essential dimension to defining some mass as a manifest object, as it must be measured in some finite timeline, just as much as mass is measured in some specific space.
I suggest for fun and mental exercise; that just like time -- "information" with its structure measured as bits (Shannon info) and its functionality measured by logical connections (semantic information) - can be perceived as a package of both info types and exists in reality. It can be seen as a 5th dimension to an object, process or event. In this way information has "substance" more than just an idea in the air, it has measurable aspects and potential for further actualization.
quote:
“The problem with detecting the fifth dimension (or the sixth, seventh, and so on) is that our bodies are built to measure only the three old-fashioned spatial dimensions, plus time as a fourth dimension.”
By Alan Boyle
Science editor
MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13070896/
[ 04. May 2007, 18:15: Message edited by: Stephen Wright ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic