An event that has only one possible outcome has no associated information. — frank

This is Shannon. In Pragmatic information theory only the information that gets cognized is information.
I think this will be more useful for describing an enactive world.

The pragmatic information measures the information received, not the information contained in the message. Pragmatic information theory requires not only a model of the sender and how it encodes information, but also a model of the receiver and how it acts on the information received.

And what physical stuff is mathematics made of? — Gnomon

The very idea of "physical stuff" is what the idea of "physical patterns" is meant to replace.

A metaphysics of stuff can't account for its own origin. It leads to the irresolvable paradox of getting something out of nothing.

A metaphysics of statistically emergent regularity can replace that by starting with the "everythingness" of a vagueness or uncertainty. Anything at all might be the case. Then the mathematics of patterns tells us the kind of determination in terms of self-consistent form that must then constrain that everythingness to a more organised somethingness.

And statistical mechanics or thermodynamics is all about that. Even chaos or randomness becomes subject to our new deterministic mathematical models of such phenomena.

Even chaos ain't just chaotic but a specific kind of natural pattern - one described by fractals, criticality, powerlaws, Levy flights, 1/f noise ... that kind of "mathematical stuff".

Philosophically, I tend to think of Information, because of its ubiquity and universality, in terms of Aristotle's essential "Substance" -- which is not physical, but meta-physical. Moreover, the core concept of the term "information" recalls Plato's Forms, which were abstract definitions of real things. — Gnomon

Yep. But the shift is from thinking that form in-forms stable matter to thinking of how form acts to regulate material instability, or pure potentiality.

What Aristotle likely meant by prime matter before the Catholics subsumed his metaphysics into their theology, or what Plato tried to get at in talking about his forms needing a chora or receptacle.

And some cutting-edge physicists have concluded that even physical Matter is made of metaphysical (abstract) Information. — Gnomon

They are finding it necessary to go beyond a metaphysics of physical matter as atomistic lumps of informed substance bumping about in the nothingness of a spatiotemporal void.

So the need - as cutting edge physics moves on to a unified quantum gravity theory - is to find a suitable metaphysics which can measure both lumps of formed matter and the backdrop spatiotemporal void in the same fundamental units.

The language of information/entropy does that trick. It gives hope of uniting measurement in units based on the Planck scale - the three constants needed to construct a quantum gravity theory, or h-scaled uncertainty, G-scaled curvature, and c-scaled connectivity between these two.

So it is not what the world is "made of", as that presumes it all begins with some eternal stable stuff.

It is how the radically uncertain becomes stabilised by the constraining necessity of achieving a generalised self-consistency.

The fundamental question is what are the laws that chance itself cannot escape?

And that is what modern views of probability - ones that have been expanded in a major way by adding powerlaw distributions to Gaussian ones - have been busy with.

Some noise is white, some is pink. Some motions are Brownian, some are Levy flights. Some systems are bell curve, some systems are fractal. Some equilibriums are dead and closed, others are active and open.

Probability theory is itself gaining a richer dialectical structure as it starts to come into its own at the centre of scientific metaphysics.

This is Shannon. In Pragmatic information theory only the information that gets cognized is information.
I think this will be more useful for describing an enactive world. — Pop

Ok, but that isn't related to IIT, or the way physicists think about information.

Philosophically, I tend to think of Information, because of its ubiquity and universality, in terms of Aristotle's essential "Substance" -- which is not physical, but meta-physical. Moreover, the core concept of the term "information" recalls Plato's Forms, which were abstract definitions of real things.
— Gnomon

Yep. But the shift is from thinking that form in-forms stable matter to thinking of how form acts to regulate material instability, or pure potentiality. — apokrisis

The way information works in the Enactive world

To some extent the "self" readingtheseFUNNYwordsbecomes identical to them, in the moment of reading them.

There are neural correlates of substances and they arise due to information. Make sense?

Information is mutually causal, when there is a change in a system? Capra -" cognition is a disturbance in a state". Information disturbs a state !!!

Ok, but that isn't related to IIT, or the way physicists think about information. — frank

Pragmatic information theory is far simplar and intuitive, I think. We can always trackback and see if we violate Shannon theory later?

Pragmatic information theory is far simplar and intuitive, I think. We can always trackback and see if we violate Shannon theory later? — Pop

It's just not related to ITT or physics. As long as you recognize that, you're good.

It's just not related to ITT or physics. As long as you recognize that, you're good. — frank

It simplifies things enormously. It does not violate either, as far as I can see?

It simplifies things enormously. It does not violate either, as far as I can see? — Pop

:smile: Ok.

Does the above assertion make sense?

A metaphysics of stuff can't account for its own origin. It leads to the irresolvable paradox of getting something out of nothing.

A metaphysics of statistically emergent regularity can replace that by starting with the "everythingness" of a vagueness or uncertainty. Anything at all might be the case. Then the mathematics of patterns tells us the kind of determination in terms of self-consistent form that must then constrain that everythingness to a more organised somethingness. — apokrisis

I have been processing some of the references offered here, and the article ‘What is information?’ from Christophe Adami caught my attention - in particular a Venn diagram showing information as ‘what you don’t know (entropy) minus what remains to be known given what you know’.



If we consider that the ‘observer’ is one of these variables, and the ‘observed’ the other, then ‘information’ depends on how we structure them in this interaction.

There is a tendency to perceive information as something separate from the two interacting systems. The quote @Wayfarer gave from Barbieri, for instance, talks about life manufacturing observable information as molecular artefacts, as if from nothing. But I’m thinking it isn’t from nothing - rather it’s constructed from what we don’t know, in this way.

Earlier in this thread I made idle (and confusing) reference to dimensional structures of interaction, suggesting that an uninformative ‘interaction’ consists of two six-dimensional systems, the most stable consists of two interrelating four-dimensional events producing a third 4D structure as an ongoing process, and the most dynamic consisting of an interchangeable 3-4-5 structural relation. This is based on a speculative, heuristic structure of all possible relation consisting of six dimensions (in which anything at all might be the case) and every interaction, with an epistemic aggregate of twelve aspects, is ‘cut’ into a triadic relation. I don’t expect this to make a whole lot of sense in reality - it’s just a different (qualitative) way of approaching relational structure to incorporate the infinite uncertainty of entropy, information and meaning. But the above Venn diagram offers a visual that might help illustrate what I mean.

As an example, interaction between an intentional, potential observer mind (5D) and a fixed, material object (3D) generates information as an ongoing, changing event (4D) - eg. consciousness. For that same intentional observer to recognise actual information as a fixed (3D) object (eg. material evidence), they must recognise the observed as a changing (4D) event.

But most epistemology ignores ‘what we don’t know that we don’t know’ as part of a six-dimensional system (unformed possibility), and focuses instead on the single epistemic cut, arbitrarily made (eg the internal curve on the left hand circle), by which we distinguish ‘self’ and ‘other’. So an interaction is cut into two 3D objects, or an observer event (4D) and a wavefunction (2D), or affect (2D) and action (4D), or a mind (5D) and a linear (1D) value. The ‘epistemic cut’ in each explanation of these interactions refers to an indefinable, unformed idea being ignored: what we don’t know that we don’t know.

For me, this diagram solves or (at least keeps straight in my mind) the problem of identifying the nature of ‘information’ in any discussion, in relation to any assumptions made regarding the observer and the observed.

Information literally changes our form ( neural correlates ) . But we have to understand this in terms of constructivism, so it is a build up of form............... The change in form is memorized.

Does the above assertion make sense? — Pop

I'm just not seeing the relationship. I think ”information” is being used in two different ways here. The physics usage is closer to the idea of data. Pierce was focused on behavior arising from messaging.

For me, this diagram solves or (at least keeps straight in my mind) the problem of identifying the nature of ‘information’ in any discussion, in relation to any assumptions made regarding the observer and the observed. — Possibility

The diagram is excellent, thank you. The intersection is the relationship of two systems exchanging information. The systems are mutually changed in his exchange.

Please see my post above regarding enactive world. I would love a comment?

Information literally changes our form ( neural correlates ) . But we have to understand this in terms of constructivism, so it is a build up of form............... The change in form is memorized. — Pop

Yes. We don't think of consciousness as being of uninterpreted data, but rather of data plus meaning in some context.

Data plus meaning equals information.

The quote Wayfarer gave from Barbieri, for instance, talks about life manufacturing observable information as molecular artefacts, as if from nothing. But I’m thinking it isn’t from nothing - rather it’s constructed from what we don’t know, in this way. — Possibility

In a long series of articles and books, Hubert Yockey has underlined that heredity is transmitted by factors that are ‘segregated, linear and digital’ whereas the compounds of chemistry are ‘blended, three-dimensional and analogue’.

Yockey underlined that: ‘Chemical reactions in non-living systems are not controlled by a message … There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences’.

Yockey has tirelessly pointed out that no amount of chemical evolution can cross the barrier that divides the analogue world of chemistry from the digital worldof life, and concluded from this that the origin of life cannot have been the result of chemical evolution. This is therefore, according to Yockey, what divides life from matter: information is ontologically different from chemistry because linear and digital sequences cannot be generated by the analogue reactions of chemistry.

At this point, one would expect to hear from Yockey how did linear and digital sequences appear on Earth, but he did not face that issue. He claimed instead that the origin of life is unknowable, in the same sense that there are propositions of logic that are undecidable. This amounts to saying that we do not know how linear and digital entities came into being; all we can say is that they were not the result of spontaneous chemical reactions. — Marcello Barbieri, What is Information?

Data plus meaning equals information. — frank

- excellent!

Meaning in this sense occurs when the information fits already existing information?

** Sorry, I think you have already answered this.

This construction could be used universally - it describes the human process, I believe. But could also describe all processes that are a build up of form, which they all are!

Meaning in this sense occurs when the information fits already existing information? — Pop

This sounds like a theory of meaning.

The average theory of meaning is a labyrinth. Atomic meaning can't work. Holistic meaning doesn't work. Meaning as behavior doesn't work. Meaning as entirely abstract doesn't work.

Meanwhile I know what meaning and meaningless are. I see the potential for progress in the development of a testable theory of consciousness.

How do you see the issue?

This sounds like a theory of meaning. — frank

Information and meaning are kind of similar. Meaning occurs when information fits already established ( informational) structure. And all structures are informational in this view.

Meanwhile I know what meaning and meaningless are. I see the potential for progress in the development of a testable theory of consciousness. — frank

I don't think this is entirely new thinking. It is largely constructivism, and enactivism mixed in with a few bits of my thinking here and there. I'm hoping to reduce it to a heuristic.

Perhaps a theory of meaning can be your baby?

Meaning occurs when information fits already established ( informational) structure. — Pop

Meaning requires a context, true. Say a siren is blaring. We can't know the meaning without knowing the context

But is context necessarily in the form of meaningful data? I don't know. I'm not sure how to approach the question.

Perhaps a theory of meaning can be your baby — Pop

Do I get a tax break for adopting it?

Do I get a tax break for adopting it? — frank

I'm sure you could find a way :lol:

Information creates meaning, through a construction of form - Lego brick by Lego brick.

The only context "information" and "meaning" have is consciousness! imo. Integrated Information

Information creates meaning, through a construction of form - Lego brick by Lego brick. — Pop

I think meaning is supposed to be a constituent of semantic information. So how can it create meaning?

The only context "information" and "meaning" have is consciousness! imo. Integrated Information — Pop

In physics it's more like the history of an entity. Quantum theories don't allow two distinct entities to become indistinguishable. That would be a loss of information.

I guess consciousness is in the background of this line of thought because we're talking stuff that's knowable in principle, but the information discussed there isn't associated with any conscious being.

I think meaning is supposed to be a constituent of semantic information. So how can it create meaning? — frank

Semantic information is already a constructed meaningful informational structure. Further information has to fit this established structure in order to be meaningful. If it cannot fit, then it is meaningless - Shannon entropy describes something like this, I believe.

I doubt QM contains information. Think double slit experiment. It only becomes meaningful at the point of measurement / observation. prior to that it is probabilistic. I'm thinking Feynman and his proposal that the bucky ball goes everywhere in the universe. Most of what we know of QM is top down theory.
I am hardly an authority in this area - just a punter.

From the perspective of the Standard Model and CERN, and Quantum Field Theory I cannot see any problems. Wave theory is where this understanding started.

I guess consciousness is in the background of this line of thought because we're talking stuff that's knowable in principle, but the information discussed there isn't associated with any conscious being. — frank

That information has to be in the mix is well recognized in Zeilingers quantum randomness and information

This is due to the mind dependent nature of the world. At metaphysical base - no matter how deep we may dig, what we will find is a "substance" and its "information". But the question is - How are these things different?

This is due to the mind dependent nature of the world. — Pop

This is your starting point? Why?

At metaphysical base - no matter how deep we may dig, what we will find is a "substance" and its "information". But the question is - How are these things different? — Pop

I mentioned before that metaphysics isnt my bag. I don't really have a lot of philosophical baggage. :razz: No metaphysics, no theory of meaning.

Yes, I recognise that the quote was taken out of context (to illustrate my point), and I will get to reading the full article...

But I do think that even Yockey is copping out here - excluding what we don’t know that we don’t know for the sake of certainty. Everyone then has their own version of ontological duality, with a dividing barrier that absolutely cannot be crossed, even as it can be shifted with an alternative interpretation.

The reactions of chemistry, understood as three-dimensional, cannot generate linear and digital sequences from interactions. We have to recognise the part that we play as observer in understanding the interaction.

The variability (information) in a chemical reaction process is four-dimensional at least - it varies over a duration. When this interacts with another four-dimensional structure, an informative event (4D) occurs - regardless of whether or not anyone notices. The possible information in an interaction between two ongoing chemical reactions is equal to what remains when you subtract from entropy what information one reaction cannot obtain about the other in that interaction.

If we recognise our part in this as mind, then we restructure the interaction as:

- our intentional evaluation (5D) of a meaningful (3D+3D) interaction generates a linear or digital information sequence (1D); OR

- our intentional evaluation (5D) of life as an ongoing event (4D) generates a biochemical (3D) information structure;

Or frankly any way you care to divvy it up, so long as the aggregate is twelve.

If we recognise our part in this as irrelevant or unintentional, then we can restructure the interaction as:

- any temporal observation of an ongoing event generates an informative event.

But we can’t just write ourselves (or what we don’t know) out of the equation.

The intersection is the relationship of two systems exchanging information. The systems are mutually changed in his exchange.

Please see my post above regarding enactive world. I would love a comment? — Pop

Enactive in this context simply means that we are part of any interaction, and cannot objectively talk about ‘information’ without including ourselves and what we don’t know that we don’t know.

Any change you’re referring to in the diagram, then, is only a possibility. H refers to entropy. You need to identify yourself in the diagram. Are you the entity that doesn’t know what it doesn’t know - the outer box? If so, how certain are you regarding how you define each system? Or are you one of the two systems, and if so, is your consolidation as such at the level of meaning, intentionality, consciousness, life or object? And how would you define the other system? This determines to what extent a system can change, and therefore what kind of information is available in the interaction.

I mentioned before that metaphysics isnt my bag. I don't really have a lot of philosophical baggage. :razz: No metaphysics, no theory of meaning. — frank

That information has to be in the mix is well recognized in Zeilingers quantum randomness and information: abstract: ,

"in 1999, one of us (A.Z.) has put forward an idea which connects the concept of information with the notion of elementary systems. For the subsequent line of thought, we first have to make ourselves awareof the fact that our description of the physical world is represented by propositions, i.e. by logical statements about it. These propositions concern classical measurement results. Therefore, the measurement results must be irreducible primitives of any interpretation. And second, that we have knowledge or information about an objectonly through observations, i.e. by interrogating nature through yes-no questions.It does not make any sense to
talk about reality without the INFORMATION about it[/b"] - - my bold and Caps.

This is quite similar to

"We need therefore a paradigm that goes beyond the two present paradigms of biology. A paradigm that fully accepts the implications of the existence of the genetic code. The implication that life is based on copying and coding, that both biological sequences (organic information) and biological coding rules (organic meaning) are fundamental observables that are as essential to life as the fundamental quantities of physics. This is the code paradigm, the idea that ‘life is chemistry plus information plus codes’." - Barbieri 2016.

In short, they are both roughly proposing, as do the other 20 papers, that information is a fundamental quantity in its own right. The Empirical world assumes a fundamental substance ( matter ) and information about it. The enactive world says the substance and observer are enacted in their interaction.


Enactivism
"Enactivism is a position in cognitive science that argues that cognition arises through a dynamic interaction between an acting organism and its environment. ... "Organisms do not passively receive information from their environments, which they then translate into internal representations."

Sorry bout the bold, editor has gone haywire.

Enactive in this context simply means that we are part of any interaction, and cannot objectively talk about ‘information’ without including ourselves — Possibility

:up: We cannot extract ourselves. The exchange and ourselves, to some extent, become one.

Information is that which gives us form, and our most recent form is consciousness?

We cannot extract ourselves. The exchange and ourselves, to some extent, become one. — Pop

Not in a reductionist sense, though. We are not one with the exchange, but only with a part of it. The question is, which part?