One issue is whether there is any meaning in the passage itself without the contributions of a writer and a reader. — magritte
In-form-ation, as the name implies, takes on many forms. In its generic form, I call it EnFormAction.Semantic information may or may not be linguistic. — frank
The word "information" means the act of creating recognizable forms. But Shannon stripped the term of its original meaning in order to make an empty shell to contain whatever meaning we want to give it. What once was first, is now last. :smile:So meaning comes last. — frank
Here's my own personal general definition of Information :So the general definition of information (GDI) is: — frank
* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). — Gnomon
My personal worldview is based on the concept that Generic (general, all-inclusive) Information is the fundamental element of our world. — Gnomon
if everthing is red then redness becomes meaningless - redundant and useless. — TheMadFool
Yes, but the meaning of those transmissions is extracted from the digital code by the mind of the receiver. As philosopher Edward Feser noted : "Shannon was concerned with information in a syntactical rather than semantic sense". Syntax is the formal structure (grammar) of information transmission, and the vehicle or carrier of Meaning (Semantics). Syntax is like Morse code, which is nothing but conventionalized dots & dashes. Those abstractions have no specific concrete meaning until extracted by a conscious mind, trained to interpret the code. A biological analogy is the chemical arrangement of DNA, which is inert & meaningless, until interpreted by transcription factors into proteins. :smile:Although Shannon's work was specifically about transmission of information through communications systems. — Wayfarer
Information is not found in the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements. And Shannon didn't think of Information as elementary or fundamental. It was just a useful tool for his engineering purposes. But physicists are now coming to the conclusion that quantum scale Information is the fundamental "substance" of physical reality. It's a Primary Substance in the Aristotelian (ousia ; essence)) sense, and the Universal Substance in the Spinozan (God-Nature) sense. Physicist Paul Davies proposed "grounding [natural] laws . . . in information considered as the 'ontological basement' level of physical reality". This unconventional view of immaterial Information --- as the basic element of Matter, Energy, and SpaceTime --- is not yet accepted by all scientists, but it is an idea on the leading edge of scientific progress. :nerd:Again, I'm questioning whether information can be regarded as 'an element' on the basis that it's not 'elementary'. — Wayfarer
Yes. It's well-known in philosophy that Universals and Generals are abstract and non-specific, hence lacking in concrete specified meaning. But that very abstract universality of Shannon's code (1s & 0s) is also its power. The two-digit code can carry any of zillions of possible meanings. But the specific intended meaning must be interpreted by a trained mind similar to that of the encoder. :smile:to make universal claims has a downside to it viz. the loss of meaning: — TheMadFool
Shannon believed that information is anything that stands out - the more novel, the more unexpected, the more shocking something is, the more information there is. — TheMadFool
For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness — Gnomon
That's exactly the point of the Enformationism thesis. Generic (general, universal, creative) Information is Meta-physical. But it has the power to transform into Physical things,including living things --- just like Energy --- and like Plato's Forms. This radical notion is explained further in the thesis and the blog. The "specification" is in the Intention. And in Evolution, the fittest physical form is "selected" (specified) from among a random assortment of potential forms. Natural Selection is an algorithm. :smile:But I still say the idea of ‘generic information’ is self-contradictory. Information has to specify something or inform something specific. It’s like the equivalent of Aristotle’s ‘prima materia’ which is a metaphysical idea, not something that exists in reality. — Wayfarer
That invisible intangible Energy can somehow transform dead matter into living beings is well known. Many ancient traditions have postulated some kind of Vital Force or Chi or Prana or Soul. Since these "energies" have not been found by Physical Science, the names must refer to some Meta-physical power. In the Frankenstein novel, even the raw power of lightening was imagined as the vitalizing force. But nobody knows exactly how the "mechanism of organism" works. It seems to be related to the phase change from a collection of parts, to a single unified organic biological Whole.The ‘information signature’ which is associated with life is morphological - it is information that gives rise to biological forms. — Wayfarer
(Actually I have a ref to provide also, Marcelo Barbieri, What is information?. — Wayfarer
Barbieri : What is not clear, however, is the ontological status of information. — Gnomon
FWIW, my review of Paul Davies' book : — Gnomon
So the meaning of red contains its negation. — frank
Data, if defined as a basic lack of uniformity is the beginnings of meaning, or it's at the core of meaning; it's the grain of sand in the meaning oyster. — frank
BUT, this is not philosophy, it’s data science, about transmission of data through electronic media. Out of his theory grew the algorithms for data compression. I’m sceptical of the way it’s been generalised as a general theory of meaning. At best it generates suggestive analogies. — Wayfarer
The more complex something is, the more information there is.Shannon believed that information is anything that stands out - the more novel, the more unexpected, the more shocking something is, the more information there is. This understanding of information squares with what unenlightened once said viz. that to make universal claims has a downside to it viz. the loss of meaning: if everthing is red then redness becomes meaningless - redundant and useless. — TheMadFool
Correction. They collect billions of terabytes of information, but none of it pertains to the existence of extra terrestrials, or was CAUSED by extra terrestrial activity. It was still caused so there is information there in the data, just not the type of information NASA is looking for.When science scans the universe for SETI, then it’s looking for the biochemical signature of life (or signals sent by an advanced culture). Nothing has been found to date. But the point is, during this search the instruments collect billions of terrabytes of data, none of which contains information specifically denoting the existence of life. — Wayfarer
The more complex something is, the more information there is. — Harry Hindu
f information only exists in minds and data exists everywhere else then meaning would be arbitrary and imaginary. If there are reasons some [sic] dara exists, then those reasons would be the meaning of the data. Those causal relationships are already there prior to some mind apprehending them. So information appears as data when the causal relationship is not apprehended, and it appears as information when it is apprehended. — Harry Hindu
But is it meaningful to consider the structure of inorganic matter in terms of ‘information’? Science has long since come to understand the atomic weight of the elements in the periodic table, which constitutes information about the nature of the elements. But is it meaningful to represent the elements as being actually ‘composed of information?’ Even if everything about the elements could be represented mathematically - and mathematical physics has many gaps in its accounts - is it true to say that this mathematical information is the substance from which the elements are constituted? That’s what I am dubious about. — Wayfarer
That's exactly the point of the Enformationism thesis. Generic (general, universal, creative) Information is Meta-physical. But it has the power to transform into Physical things, including living things --- just like Energy --- and like Plato's Forms. — Gnomon
As you said, the ontological status of "Information" is a complex topic with many aspects. In order to understand my personal attempt at clarification, you'd have to read the whole Enformationism thesis. Some may find it tedious and irrelevant to science, but I think it's a novel, even radical re-interpretation and consilience of the original meaning of "Information" as Knowledge in a mind, and the new concepts of "Information" as an abstract code, and as the essence of causal Energy : the ability to enform, :smile:Well, all due respect, I don't think you've really clarified it. But then, it's a very deep question. — Wayfarer
Yes. I think he's missing the key point of the Enformationism thesis : that information is not just a carrier of Data, but of Mind and Life. How do you think DNA information can enform not only proteins, but put them together into a living body? As a god-fearing person might ask, "at what step in the development of an embryo is the Soul imparted?" Maybe the potential for Life & Mind was in there from the beginning as Intention or Purpose or Teleology. :cool:Did you notice the brief discussion of Hubert Yockey in that paper? — Wayfarer
Yes. I was led by my exploration of the Enformationism thesis to conclude that something like a Divine Creator -- or First Cause of our space-time sequence of secondary causes -- is reasonable to assume; perhaps even necessary to believe. But the very generality & universality of Information in the real world, does not specify any particular traditional deity concept. Nor does it imply any humanoid characteristics, such as motherly love or fatherly commandments.So the premise that information is fundamental, implies that God is even more fundamental. But this implication is simply ignored or denied by the informationist. — Metaphysician Undercover
No. It's not.Information" Is an ambiguous term which allows the modern materialist, or physicalist, through the use of illusion, to escape the need for God in metaphysics — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, causality is related to time, however I don't see how it follows that that would mean it is a property of a system. Again, here you are using words that are vague or superfluous. "God" and, "time" are two examples. What is "time"? Isnt time just another word for change? Is change fundamental, or is the substance that changes fundamental? Can you assert that one is more fundamental than the other? Does it even make sense to separate one from the other?It is directly related to time in the second law of thermodynamics, and this allows the premise that if there is time, there is information. The problem though is that under this definition "information" is necessarily the property of a system, as entropy is defined as the property of a system. — Metaphysician Undercover
You seem to have something going on with causality from what I've gathered from your posts. What is it about causality that interests you? Anyway, you mean to say that information is data understood (apprehended)? Pray tell, what is data then as information seems to supervene on data. — TheMadFool
What interests me is how effects are about their causes and how causes are about their effects. It is also interesting to note that every effect is also a cause of some subsequent effect and that all effects carry information about all prior causes. — Harry Hindu
Yes, that is an example that I like to use, too. I also like to use the example of a tree stump with tree rings. The tree rings carry information about the age of the tree. The tree rings were caused by how the tree grows throughout the year. The meaning of the tree rings is not in the mind of an observer. It is in the process that created the tree rings. This implies that meaning and information exists independent of observers and their minds.Yes, I agree with you. To the extent that I'm aware, this comes from my acquaintance with detective work, the effect contains telltale signs of the cause. How else is a detective supposed to operate? Working backwards from the crime scene to the crime itself is how a detective earns his keep. — TheMadFool
What I mean is that information is that relationship between cause and effect. Causes and effects are epistemological snapshots of the entire process. Causes and effects are the objects and events that we talk about.Note, however, that you used information in a sense that suggests that it has to do with more than just causality. If the two were identical you wouldn't/shouldn't have said, "...all effects carry information about all prior causes", right? I would like you to expand on the non-causality aspect of information. — TheMadFool
No. It's not.
First, I'm not a materialist. Second, I'm not trying to escape the need for anything except unnecessarily complex assertions using terms that you don't even understand what they mean, and can't be consistently or properly be used. — Harry Hindu
The more complex something is, the more information there is.
If information only exists in minds and data exists everywhere else then meaning would be arbitrary and imaginary. If there are reasons some dara exists, then those reasons would be the meaning of the data. Those causal relationships are already there prior to some mind apprehending them. So information appears as data when the causal relationship is not apprehended, and it appears as information when it is apprehended. — Harry Hindu
Yes, causality is related to time, however I don't see how it follows that that would mean it is a property of a system. — Harry Hindu
Again, here you are using the word, "time" inappropriately. What is, "time"? Isnt time just another word for change? Is change fundamental, or is the substance that changes fundamental? Can you assert that one is more fundamental than the other? Does it even make sense to separate one from the other? — Harry Hindu
Yes, that is an example that I like to use, too. I also like to use the example of a tree stump with tree rings. The tree rings carry information about the age of the tree. The tree rings were caused by how the tree grows throughout the year. The meaning of the tree rings is not in the mind of an observer. It is in the process that created the tree rings. This implies that meaning and information exists independent of observers and their minds. — Harry Hindu
information is that relationship between cause and effect. — Harry Hindu
I don't understand the question. "WHO" is behind what?Nothing to add/subtract although the most pressing concern regarding information being sought, given the teleological slant of many of our predecessors, seems to be WHO...is...behind...all...this? [the questioner takes his last breath, his eyes glaze over, and then his body goes limp] — TheMadFool
Yes, causality = information = meaning. However, I don't understand your aversion to synonyms. Do you not use some words interchangeably? Also, I think "information" provides that sense of aboutness that "causality" does not seem to imply.Too, what exactly do you mean by "relationship" between cause and effect. The only relationship that exists between these two is causality. Are you suggesting information = causality? If you are then that brings us back to the question I asked, what's the point of the whole exercise of inventing the word "information"? — TheMadFool
No. I said that the more complex something is, the more information there is. There is information in simple systems, just not as much as in complex systems. The system being the causal process that leads to the effect that we are talking about.See the ambiguity in your usage? You start out by saying information is in the complex thing. Then you end up saying that this is really "data", and it only appears to be information when apprehended by a mind. So which is it, is information in the thing as what we call "data", or is it how the data appears to the mind when apprehended? You do understand that there is a difference between these two don't you? And to switch back and forth is to equivocate. — Metaphysician Undercover
I wasn't. They are the same thing.I wasn't talking about "causality", I was talking about "information". Why change the subject? — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.