Well,withou me being informed (informationed?) the particle can still exist. — MikeBlender

Not until somebody interacts with it. Think Schrodinger's cat.

How would we measure something that hasn't been defined? — TheMadFool

The order of the wire minus its entropy. I think.

The order of the wire minus its entropy. I think. — Pop

Nope, I don't think that's correct.

Nope, I don't think that's correct. — TheMadFool

It was a guess. Its not really relevant for my purposes.

Not until somebody interacts with it. Think Schrodinger's cat. — Pop

Schrõdinger's cat is a bit old-fashioned. The particle needs interaction (an observer is not needed) to localize the wavefunction. The cat can die too if we dont look.

The order of the wire minus its entropy. I think. — Pop

Interesting! Whats the order? Form?

It was a guess. Its not really relevant for my purposes. — Pop

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.

The particle needs interaction (an observer is not needed) to localize the wavefunction. The cat can die too if we dont look. — MikeBlender

You need an observer or a measuring device. You don't know the situation of either until a measurement is made. ** You have no information until an interaction occurs.

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

I have explained above how my definition aids in philosophical explanation. Please enlighten me as to how Shannon's theory does this?

Please enlighten me as to how Shannon's theory does this? — Pop

Shannon's definition centers around uncertainty (skepticism).

You need an observer or a measuring device. — Pop

The superposition can collapse iñto the one that gives life or the one that gives life independently of observers or measuring devices. 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. Some interaction apart from us or measuring device can make the superposition collapse (even the vacuum can do that).

Shannon's definition centers around uncertainty (skepticism). — TheMadFool

Shannon's theory centres around quantifying the amount of information traveling over the wires of the phone company he worked for. Nothing to do with Philosophy.

Bell phone company needed to quantify the data they were handling, and he found a way to do it.

Please read the relevant Wikipedia pages.

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

The observing is the cause of the information. There is no information one way or the other until an interaction occurs. This interaction may also be purely mental, such as when you posit theoretical situations - however that can not occur either until you have the thought, and so this too is an interaction, though a neural one.

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.

Or simply tells us what information is according to Shannon, and how this is relevant to philosophy. Here is the original paper.

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

Ok. Here's what I think. Claude Shannon's theory of information is based on how many steps it takes for uncertainty to become certainty.

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.

This mirrors epistemology (skepticism & dogmatism): we're uncertain (is it A or B?) which is basically skepticism; then once we know A, we're certain which is dogmatism.

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?

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

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!

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. :chin:

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".

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.

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

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, thus creating distinction and hence time, and evolution.

Circles or squares are mental abstractions of information - Platonic forms. As far as information is concerned there is no difference between observed ( sense mediated neural disturbance ) and imagined mental manipulations. The change in neural patterning is similar. It is this change in neural patterning that is information, as per this more detailed comment.

Regarding the wave function collapse.

Pop, Hi,
I'm so glad I checked in and am so surprised at your last post. We are back in agreement but I suspect it won't last long.
I'll check this more often.

I'm so glad I checked in and am so surprised at your last post. — Mark Nyquist

Hi Mark, I'm not sure what you mean. I hope I am not giving the impression that I know precisely how neuroplasticity works. I am trying to conceptualize it to some level, which I think is the best one can do at the present moment, given the limited information on hand.

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

As written here, I would agree with this entire section. For most people, defining information will follow their personal use and opinion, but this linking of information to neural patterning and neuroplasticity in a dynamic environment gets at a fundamental that gives a universal definition.

This type of brain held dynamic information matches well with a communication model that uses strict encoding and decoding of physical matter for brain to brain communication.

I really hope that doesn't ruin things for you because I really think you're on track with a good model.

I hope I am not giving the impression that I know precisely how neuroplasticity works. — Pop

Well, no one does, but the science seems to be moving in this direction.

gets at a fundamental that gives a universal definition. — Mark Nyquist

That is the idea. :up:

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

If you could provide a link I would be interested too read it?

A contender to Shannon, Donald Mckay suggested that information should be defined as “the change in a receiver’s mind-set," and this is very similar to my definition. Mckay's definition is prior to Systems Theory, Constructivism, Enactivism, and IIT. I am trying to define the information implied in these theories. It is a panpsychist definition.

I can't provide a single link. Everyone I've read is really screwing it up. It's a start from scratch problem. The Shannon approach is application specific, not universal.
Mckay, Don't Know, I'll look.
In the end everything needs to fit together. Matter, brains, information, communication.

In the end everything needs to fit together. Matter, brains, information, communication. — Mark Nyquist

:up: Yes, everything needs to be unified and integrated. Understanding how this works and how everything is a product of this, will be the basis of Information philosophy, imo.

I read some Roger Penrose years ago and couldn't believe how bad it was. It wasn't well received but sold some books. Maybe he just needed some spending money and did his best work elsewere. Not recommended and if you have a copy (multiple titles) get rid of it (them) so your kids don't read it.

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

Information is that which reduces uncertainty, quantified as the number of yes/no questions required to pare down the possibilities from (say) n to 1 which is equal to $log_{2}n$.

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

:ok: I'm with you on that. Shannon's definition of informatiom as resolution of uncertainty doesn't go into meaning, in that it's deficient. I wonder if Ludwig Wittgenstein's theory that meaning is use is relevant or not. If yes, then meaning can't be encoded in a message - the same message will mean different things to different people. For instance, the information that a mosque is being built in the locality will impact differently on christians, jews, moslems, atheists, racists, and so on. Perhaps Shannon intuited this and thus, avoided the mess that incorporating meaning into his definition of information would result in.

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

I see. You're trying to make everybody happy by taking a syncretic stance - picking up all the essential elements of what information is in these four theories and bringing them under one banner (your definition of information).

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.

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 worth anybody's time, imo.

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

:ok: Good day.

:ok: Good day. — TheMadFool

Your welcome. :up: