|
Author
|
Topic: What information is not.
|
JT75
Member
Member # 3262
|
posted 01. January 2007 17:16
Melvin wrote:
quote:
The point I am trying to make is that while the mathematics hold as objective the application of the maths can never be objective.
Mel, since this seems to be a core statement about the point you are trying to make I would ask you to clarify what you mean by this. I am just not seeing what it would mean for mathematics to be objective in itself but not in its application. Would this be something like if I measure the length of a pencil and it measures, say, 6 inches, this is approximately correct, but as far as the pencil is concerned i could always be more and more precise about this measurement down to, say, another decimal point? If this is correct, then would you agree that mathematics is "sufficiently objective", that is, objective enough for us to make accurate satements about the objects they describe (like language) with the realization that where we end our precision is arbitrary because we could always say more? Is it something like that?
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 01. January 2007 17:54
quote:
Melvin: Any system of mathematics takes for granted the context of a universal objective set of truths called axioms.
The axioms are universal to the system, they apply every where and always.
So long as it is understood that the axioms are purely local to the system, you are of course correct. Apologies for any confusion. There seem to be some people here who do not understand that any "universality" or "truth" is scoped by this constraint.
I put this down to their simply not knowing very much about mathematics. This limitation does not seem to have dampened their zeal for using mathematics as a basis for their arguments, regrettably.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 01. January 2007 18:02
Matt's argument is starting to become so threadbare that there are now gaping, ragged holes in it.
Here are a few of the non-contentious points that have so far arisen:
1) Information is not a physical property of its subjects.
2) Information can be said to exist in people's minds.
3) Representations (or encodings) of the same information can be made in a number of different formats or languages.
This model suffices for all rational purposes.
Where Matt takes a leap off the diving-board of speculation into the murky duckpond of unjustified assertion is with statements like this: "Matt: ... and an immaterial, creative rationality (as coherent and as infinite as arithmetic) pervades every quanta of the cosmos. "
Are we to suppose that there is an infinite number of unwritten Harry Potter novels lurking in some supernatural "information world" just waiting to come into existence here? Are all the unplayed games of chess that could ever exist hiding there as well? It's plainly preposterous.
Any claim regarding the existence of something needs to be justified, which Matt has not done, apart from by his simple say-so. The onus is on Matt to provide grounds for his claim that information exists in a manner other than described in the above model.
Do that now, please, Matt. If you can't, then it is only gentlemanly to concede that your claim does not deserve further consideration.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 02. January 2007 08:21
IMO, data-information, body-mind, real world phenomenon-mathematical model distinctions are extemely useful, but such distinctions are only useful and relevant within the specific context or framework in which they are applied. Scientists and philosophers and engineers and systems designers and psychologists all find it useful to work with mental abstractions like information. I dont, however, believe we are justified in attributing a reality to these abstractions that has any useful meaning beyond the context in which they are defined.
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 02. January 2007 11:26
JT75 wrote
quote:
Kant's transcendental argument for the nature of natural laws being derived from the necessity found in the intellect (or more specifically its intuitions and categories)implies that it would be impossible for their to be a scientific revolution that proves Newtonian physics false (or limited) or Euclidean geometry false (or limited).
I am not sure that Euclidean geometry is false(limited). I would say that Riemann or Lobatchevski geometry has been built using different axioms. To be more precise Lobatchevski developed a geometry in which the fifth postulate is different.
I dont know if it means that Euclidean fifth axiom is therefore false.
It seems to me to be same with Einstein physiscs. If in general theory of relativity he consider gravity as curvature of space-time nobody can imagine it. Could you percieve or see curved space? I suppose no. Nobody can.
Its just mathematics construct that explains reality but it neverthenless is beyond our imagination. I would say that it even support Kants notion that space and time are just forms of human perception - we are unable go beyond it. We are unable to percieve curved space. The question is why? If curvature of space
really exists why we cannot imagine it? Why we cannot imagineforth dimension too? And why we do not perceive them?
I do not deny Lobatchevski or Einstein theory at all. I only do not underestand why they proved Kants conceptions to be wrong.
I would say that we have new calculations and equations that fit somehow better to the model that describes Universe. But despite of old physics and geometry we cannot imagine them. And they do not as clearly refute Kants conception of apriori forms as it is claimed. I dare say that they might prove it as well.
[ 02. January 2007, 11:28: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 02. January 2007 12:50
JT75,
Mathematics is sufficiently objective to describe the here and now, near future, and near past. As far as the distant future and the distant past are concerned, mathematics is not sufficiently objective. The particular model being employed may only be tangent to physical reality and therefore useless for such extreme extrapolation.
From the perspective of this pure mathematician, Bruce has stated the problem very clearly when he says:
quote:
The rules of mathematics are fixed. If you attempt to generate different rules, you end up with a mathematical form that is internally inconsistent -- that is useless.
Math does not govern the universe and the physical universe does not invalidate any system of mathematics. Math does not do anything. It seems that some scientists worship math as the glue that holds everything together.
The information we get by using mathematical techniques of the mind helps us navigate the physical world. The null hypothesis must be, however, that the maths are not included in the physical structure of our universe or perhaps you have a circle at home you would like to show me. Take R^3 for example. This model works very well in most cases to predict the location of objects in physical space. However, that does not mean that physical space is made up of an infinite number of points each having no dimension. It may be or it may not be, we just don’t know.
You can believe physical space is R^3 but don’t tell me that it is a scientific fact. This could end up being as large an error as stating the world is flat. Please note that the mathematical model of a flat world was consistent with the scientific information of the time. The idea turned out only to be tangent to physical reality. I flat world is still a good local model. Do you use an atlas or a globe when taking your family vacation?
I can’t think of one mathematical model that has ever been shown to be a perfect model of physical reality. I can think of plenty that were supposed to be but turned out to be mere reflections [back to Plato’s cave].
So, does this help you understand where I am coming from or only cloud the issue further?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 02. January 2007 23:10
Sorry to break into this discussion on math, but since math is not my forte, I'll continue on with my earlier line of thought...
In my opinion two questions need to be answered:
1. Is information inherent in things, or does it only become information when we discover it?
2. Can we create new information.
I'd say the answer to #2 is pretty obviously "Yes". Man is unique in the known universe in that he is the only being that is capable of appreciating and creating new information. In spite of all the books that have been written, and in spite of all the letters and emails sent, still the odds are that no one has ever put the exact combination of vowels, consonants, spaces, capitalization, and punctuation together that I have in this post. So this post represents new information. (I can only hope that you all can appreciate it!)
As for #1, that's more difficult. I think the common sense answer is that information is inherent in things. I don't think it matters whether we're there to see it or not. It is there. If it's not there, how can we discover it? Surely information must pre-exist it's own discovery.
Now if information is inherent in things, and if information can be created, then is the information that is inherent in things created?
Does information require a creator?
I think it does. I don't think the information on this page can exist without a creator (me), so how can we argue that any information can exist without a creator?
Something to think about.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 03. January 2007 00:06
Zarathustra,
My opening argument is both incredibly simple and entirely unassailable, yet it totally and completely beggars the imagination. Perhaps it poses something of a paradigm shift, which is why several people--instead of addressing it--try to give reasons that it should not be made. You, for example, have yet to actually engage it. First you declared that it was not interesting because it was not a "phenomenon". Now you throw out an absurd straw man--Harry Potter books?!--and declare it preposterous.
1) Any and all information is immaterial. (This was my opening argument.) Give any example of information--by any definition, whether from philosophy or biology or whatever you like--and we can observe that it is immaterial. This is unassailable.
2) Therefore, the brain can neither be the source nor the perceiver of the information. For example, can the brain use the five senses to perceive something that cannot be seen, heard, felt, tasted or smelled (i.e. rational, creative information)? The answer to that is a no-brainer. Literally. And the brain is simply a tool that we (whatever we are) use, in principle the same way we use our hands, our laptops, our telecommunication satellites, etc. This argument is also unassailable.
3) Information is everywhere. Maybe some philosophers can pretend to debate this statement but scientists truly cannot. Scientists search for information and translate it into, for example, English. Some examples are DNA, the process of photsynthesis, the periodic table, the Standard Model, relativity, Uncertainty, etc., etc., etc., etc. No matter where we look in nature--whether we look through a telescope or through a microscope or just take a walk in the woods--we discover rational, creative data. To a large extent scientists are in the business of data compression. For example, an astronomical amount of data can be summarized into a single sentence: "Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared."
4) Information is not just everywhere but infinite. For example, look at this little dash: _ There are as many mathematical points on that dash (mathematically, a one dimensional dash) as there are in the entire 3-D universe (assuming the universe is finite; if its not, I'm not sure if the data is equivalent). And everywhere we look we see 3-D representations of mathematical data.
5) All that mathematical data--some very simple, some outrageously complex--is rational. Which is another way of saying it is unified. For example, the word "three" is a perfectly unique and coherent concept, as is the Rheiman Hypothesis.
Putting all of this into perspective stretches the furthest reaches of the imagination. As to who authored it all, he/she/it/they would have to reveal it. BTW, I am a Christian; of Jesus Christ the Bible says, "In the beginning was the Word."
[ 03. January 2007, 06:36: Message edited by: Matt Connally ]
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 03. January 2007 09:57
Can there be information without an informer or an informed?
Can there be meaning without information?
Are there sounds without listeners?
Word(s) without language?
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 03. January 2007 17:14
Matt
quote:
and we can observe that it is immaterial. This is unassailable.
Words are difficult at times. The word observe has semantic meaning of a physical nature, such as detection. In this sense - we cannot observe something that doesn't reflect light. So, what you say is idomatically not sensible, regarding sight.
If you say that observe refers to a mental observation -- well then we can mentally consider the immaterial nature of concepts. But what does that mean? We don't have a process understanding of insight, like we do sight.
Subjective mental observation and assertions from same, are not only assailable, but not taken as evidence - only opinion.
The problem seems to be able to declare the events of the mind as much a phenomena as events of the body. We are back to the subjective/objective issue. I tend to agree that there should be a common sense way to have the event of one's thoughts rise to empirical status. But not in the current pardigm.
Until there is a simple process that describes mental activity as causal - this will remain a vague area.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zarathustra
Member
Member # 3407
|
posted 03. January 2007 21:31
Matt: My opening argument is both incredibly simple and entirely unassailable,
No, it is simplistic and unedifying. Information is abstract, and is not a property of physical objects. No-one disagrees with this, so there is no need to bang on about it.
Matt: Perhaps it poses something of a paradigm shift, which is why several people--instead of addressing it--try to give reasons that it should not be made. You, for example, have yet to actually engage it. First you declared that it was not interesting because it was not a "phenomenon". Now you throw out an absurd straw man--Harry Potter books?!--and declare it preposterous
I, like many others here, have challenged your line of thinking with direct questions. You, however, have chosen to ignore any question posed by bleating "red herring", or "straw man", or "I am not a platonist", etc. Sometimes you take the easy option of answering a different question. This is simply intellectual cowardice, in my book.
To paraphrase: "None so blind as he who will not hear".
Matt: Any and all information is immaterial ... and we can observe that it is immaterial. This is unassailable.
And poorly phrased. We cannot observe the immaterial.
Matt: Therefore, the brain can neither be the source nor the perceiver of the information.
This incorrect statement dooms your "brilliant idea" to the same grave as Cartesian dualism. Information can be said to be real, in that it is abstract, and as such is a mental artifact. There is a mountain of evidence to show that abstract thought occurs in the brain. There is none to show that any other mechanism is either necessary, nor actually exists.
Matt: Information is everywhere. Maybe some philosophers can pretend to debate this statement but scientists truly cannot.
Since you are neither a philosopher nor a scientist, and do not seem to have even the barest notion of what "information" is, it's difficult to see how anyone should take your word on this.
Matt: whether we look through a telescope or through a microscope or just take a walk in the woods--we discover rational, creative data.
There is no such thing as "rational, creative data", so it is unlikely that anyone would find it walking in the woods. I've just looked in my sock drawer, and I didn't spot any of it there, either.
Matt: Information is not just everywhere but infinite. For example, look at this little dash: _ There are as many mathematical points on that dash (mathematically, a one dimensional dash) as there are in the entire 3-D universe
Those points don't actually exist, Matt. They are notional. Maybe you skipped that math class.
Matt: And everywhere we look we see 3-D representations of mathematical data.
This view of the observed universe is close to becoming what is normally described as "delusional".
Matt: All that mathematical data--some very simple, some outrageously complex--is rational. Which is another way of saying it is unified.
No, this is just another way for Matt to say something meaningless.
Matt: As to who authored it all, he/she/it/they would have to reveal it. BTW, I am a Christian; of Jesus Christ the Bible says, "In the beginning was the Word."
It is manifestly obvious that Matt has a woefully inadequate grasp of philosophy, science, mathematics, and logical reasoning. To now claim to belong to a cult that worships imaginary super-beings is not sufficient to redress these inadequacies.
I think it's safest for everyone just to let Matt think he is right on this, since he is impervious to any and all attempts to debate this topic rationally. What will his next new "unassailable" idea be?
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 03. January 2007 22:33
Zarathustra and Stephen,
When we have several physical mediums which have no physical properties in common, we can observe that they have no physical properties in common. We can observe the complete absence of common physical properties, for example, amongst black-and-white paper, electromagnetic waves, compac disks, and brain tissue.
And yet those different physical mediums can carry the exact same information. Now I am not arguing that information is abstract (though of course much of it is); I certainly agree that would be a silly argument, even a straw man. But no, I am arguing that information is immaterial. We can observe the complete absence of physical properties in it.
Totally, completely beggars the imagination...unless one's imagination has been hijacked by the Darwinists and beaten into submission.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 04. January 2007 06:16
Abstractions or mental abstractions such as concepts like information have important practical applications in human communications and particularly in human scientific communications. Attempts to give those abstractions a reality outside the realm of human communications seems of dubious value, as the discussion here appears to demonstrate.
IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Wright
Member
Member # 195
|
posted 04. January 2007 08:45
quote:
Information can be said to be real, in that it is abstract, and as such is a mental artifact. - Z
This declaration is interesting in that it asserts mental work produces a specific output or an artifact. Please advise HOW this is done, in your view. Can we understand you to define these artifacts as new information?
Does this artifact endure? For how long and how is it subsumed over time?
I think Matt's argument back to you Z, has legs. If the same information exists in a form that can be realized as negentropy within a system and is useful in identical ways in that system - even though the physical substrate can be transferred from multiple formats - it indicates some property of the information (formal) is stable. There must be some realized criteria involved so as to have "abstract" information be constant in its causal effect!
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 04. January 2007 12:23
Matt, I'm afraid that your argument falls quite a bit short of the "unassailable" mark. To reach that level, you're going to have to go out on a limb and start filling in some details.
For instance:
1) There are several formal definitions of "information". You need to tell us which of them you mean when you say the word, or come up with a formal definition of your own.
2) You say that humans can perceive information but computers cannot. You need to tell us how to go about determining whether something "perceives information" or not.
[ 04. January 2007, 13:32: Message edited by: 2ndclass ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
