Well,withou me being informed (informationed?) the particle can still exist. — MikeBlender
How would we measure something that hasn't been defined? — TheMadFool
The order of the wire minus its entropy. I think. — Pop
Nope, I don't think that's correct. — TheMadFool
Not until somebody interacts with it. Think Schrodinger's cat. — Pop
The order of the wire minus its entropy. I think. — Pop
It was a guess. Its not really relevant for my purposes. — Pop
The particle needs interaction (an observer is not needed) to localize the wavefunction. The cat can die too if we dont look. — MikeBlender
To me, it's very relevant. How would your definition of information aid or expand our understanding of information? Shannon's definition is both philosophical and practical. — TheMadFool
Please enlighten me as to how Shannon's theory does this? — Pop
You need an observer or a measuring device. — Pop
Shannon's definition centers around uncertainty (skepticism). — TheMadFool
The cat can thus be dead or alive without us observing or measuring. Of course we will only know upon observing but this observing is not the cause — MikeBlender
Please read the relevant Wikipedia pages. — TheMadFool
How about you take some of your own advice, and also read some background on the history of his Theory of Communication, as it was initially published.
↪TheMadFool Or simply tells us what information is according to Shannon, and how this is relevant to philosophy. — Pop
The observing is the cause of the information — Pop
For example, if the possibility space includes A and B, the message A collapses the uncertaintly A or B (2) to the certainty A (1). Only one step was required; ergo A contains 1 bit of information. — TheMadFool
The observing is the cause of the information
— Pop
Then what's the cause of the information in the observer? If information is interaction will not the form of the superposition (and its collapse) form a patternn (by interaction or per se) in the mind's world?
What interactions will particles force to form a circle? Or a squaere? — MikeBlender
I'm so glad I checked in and am so surprised at your last post. — Mark Nyquist
In the act of observing the form of an object will cause a change to the form of the neural patterning of an observer. The change in the neural patterning in the observer is the information, and this is distinct against the patterning previous to the observation. The neural patterning of one moment of consciousness, is disturbed by the patterning of the next moment of consciousness, this forms the distinction of one part to another that is information. New information overlaps old information in a continuous process — Pop
I hope I am not giving the impression that I know precisely how neuroplasticity works. — Pop
gets at a fundamental that gives a universal definition. — Mark Nyquist
This type of brain held dynamic information matches well with a communication model that use strict encoding and decoding of physical matter for brain to brain communication. — Mark Nyquist
In the end everything needs to fit together. Matter, brains, information, communication. — Mark Nyquist
Where have you defined, or even described what information is? As I have said previously, the minimum number of yes / no questions quantifies information. It does not tell us what information is.
Information is not about quantity. Information becomes you! — Pop
This is Shannon's original paper. How did Shannon define information? “Shannon's theory defines information as a probability function with no dimension, no materiality, and no necessary connection with meaning" -Robert K. Logan. How you connect this with Skeptisism and Dogmatism leaves me speechless — Pop
1. More technically, information can be thought of as the resolution of uncertainty.
2. Uncertainty refers to epistemic situations involving imperfect or unknown information.
3. In Western philosophy the first philosopher to embrace uncertainty was Pyrrho resulting in the Hellenistic philosophies of Pyrrhonism and Academic Skepticism, the first schools of philosophical skepticism. — Wikipedia
According to this interesting paper, an early critic of Shannon's definition was Donald Mckay:
"He suggested that information should be defined as “the change in a
receiver’s mind-set, and thus with meaning” and not just the sender’s signal [6]. The notion of
information independent of its meaning or context is like looking at a figure isolated from its ground.
As the ground changes so too does the meaning of the figure.
Shannon, whose position eventually prevailed, defined information in terms of the transmission of
the signal and was not concerned with the meaning. The problem with MacKay’s definition was that
meaning could not be measured or quantified and as a result the Shannon definition won out and
changed the development of information science". People that shared MacKay’s position
complained that Shannon’s definition of information did not fully describe communication. Shannon
did not disagree–he “frequently cautioned that the theory was meant to apply only to certain technical
situations, not to communication in general". — Pop
This is why I have defined it as the evolutionary interaction of form. This definition fits information as implied in those four theories.
In science information is distinction. Note distinction requires the interaction of two forms. One form distinct against the other. This is the fundamental relationship that is the basis of logic. That is the basis of our relational understanding. What is being informed is you.
Life is a procession of such moments of distinction , and what you are is the accumulative sum of those moments. — Pop
Integrated Information Theory tells us that consciousness exists as moments of integrated information. Systems Theory tells us that interaction is information, and nothing exists outside of interaction. Enactivism tells us that we are enacted / interacted in the world informationally, and Constructivism tells us that it is a body of integrated information that becomes knowledge, in an evolving and idiosyncratic fashion and what we are is a product of this. All that is missing is a definition of this information, and I think this one fills the bill. — Pop
Could you expand and elaborate on your definition of information as an evolutionary interaction of form?
1. What does "evolutionary" mean? At first I thought you meant biological evolution but that doesn't seem likely.
2. What does "interaction" mean? What's interacting?
3. What's "form"?
Thanks. — TheMadFool
If you read the OP, and watch the video, you will become acquainted with Systems Theory. It sounds complicated but is really quite simple. Order in the universe comes in the form of self organizing systems. It is the form of these systems that interact. A human being is a self organizing system.
The channel that made the video, has many such simple videos on systems theory. Getting acquainted with it is well wort anybody's time, imo — Pop
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.