Is information just traces left behind by a thing? Can we have information about the future? — frank

In my view, information is proof of meaning. Two dimensional information - noticing that the same space can have a different shape to it - is proof of a three-dimensional aspect to the space. Three-dimensional information - noticing that the same object can change in spatial details - is proof of a temporal (4D) aspect to the object. Four dimensional information - noticing that the same event can happen differently - is proof of an aspect of (5D) experience to the event. Five dimensional information - noticing that the same experience can have a different value - is proof of an aspect of (6D) meaning to the experience.

So when we notice that the same event can happen differently at different times, we can look for information about how those differences relate to surrounding events. Then we can recognise those surrounding events as causal relations, and predict certain future events based on the occurrence of related preceding events. In this way, we can have information about the future.

So what's the difference between information and speculation? Would you say it's basically the same thing?

So what's the difference between information and speculation? Would you say it's basically the same thing? — frank

Sorry, that wasn’t very clear. Information is not the same as speculation, no. Information is what we have that is real (not necessarily physically real, mind you). Speculation is the process of guessing what might fill the gaps between the information we have. The scientific method makes use of speculation in order to acquire more information.

The information we have is not of the future as such. It’s about the future as much as it is a correlation regardless of time. We use this information to speculate about the future, and we use our speculation to seek more information.

The way I see it, the higher the dimensional information the more variables, and so the more information we need to make reliable predictions. The scientific method struggles at these higher levels, leading to more speculation than we would like. But rejecting information that doesn’t meet certain criteria (ie. reducibility to three- or four-dimensional information) is detrimental to the scientific method’s ability to acquire more information, in my opinion.

Language is moving thoughts from one head to another.

Well, ideally that’s what it is, or that’s what we try to do every time we open our mouth. (Thoughts include factual information, ideas and feelings.) Unfortunately, a language is a very imperfect thing and our ability to use it is limited, so our thoughts are often very inaccurately transmitted. Still, since we lack telepathic abilities, we make the best of it.

It is said that we do things with language. Sure, we praise, we beg, we inaugurate events, but that is also essentially transformation of thoughts. Even when the words have been formed in advance, as they are when we recite a poem or perform a ceremony, we are essentially repeating thoughts. We don’t hammer nails with language…

Language is communication and nothing more. Words don’t have magic meaning and any one of them is as good as any other as long as it succeeds in communicating the speaker’s meaning.

Language is not identity, at least it shouldn’t be. We may put on a hat to signalize who we think we are, but if we use language for that purpose, we obscure its effectiveness. Moving thoughts from one head to another is difficult enough as it is.

Well language isn't necessarily moving, for starters. That would be an odd way to describe language, so not the best description of what language is. But then it's not necessarily doing things with words, either. In fact, that's more like a description of talking or writing. So I think you need to try again, @Banno, maybe with less words. But the right ones this time.