:up:

information, regardless of this particular qualification, is really NOISE.
— Possibility

I’m sure that’s not right. I think - someone tell me if I’m wrong - that noise is one of the factors Shannon has to deal with in his attempt to define what amounts to successful transmission of information. Noise interferes with information transmission and if the information is totally degraded, then it just reverts to noise.

Information is first and foremost structured. A pile of rocks is just a pile of rocks, but the same pile laid out to spell ‘this is a pile of rocks’ in structured by the act of laying it out, and is no longer just a pile of rocks. It conveys information (and in this case, irony.)

The SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) program has been capturing noise from interstellar space for decades, and so far all it has is noise. If if had captured any information whatever, anything that seemed to be a structured signal, then that would be enormous news. And it would be news BECAUSE it wasn’t just noise.

But it hasn’t happened. — Wayfarer

Shannon was trying to measure (quantify) the capacity of a telephone line to carry intentionally ordered messages. He defined this capacity - information - as a measure of the number of possible alternatives for something. Each possible alternative referred to a particular order or arrangement of information. More information meant more alternative arrangements. Minimising the quantity of information to be transmitted at once ensured less possible alternatives in arranging the same information, which maximised the accuracy retained in the transmission amidst the noise.

Scientists use a quantity they refer to as ‘Shannon information’ - the logarithm in the base of N - to define actual information, based on Shannon’s understanding of this capacity, or potential information. The unit of measurement, or ‘bit’, is the minimum number of alternatives: the choice between two possibilities.

So a pile of rocks laid out to spell ‘this is a pile of rocks’ contains much more information than simply these words. There are many, many possible alternatives for these same words to be arranged with the same pile of rocks. And what you might consider to be a pile of rocks may in fact have already been arranged by someone according to colour, shape, size and/or mineral content.

Noise is information whose particular arrangement is undetermined.

Information = change.
A by itself is nothing but A in relation to B? Now that’s information. Because they are either qualitatively or quantitatively different from each other in some form or another. Information is the property of contrast, for if something had no matter, no spatial dimension, no mass, was completely uniform in every way with no characteristic dividing it into any other category, it would have no means by which to interact - nothing that can be relative to itself.

“It takes two to tango” — Benj96

Yep, cause and effect are like A and B. Information is the relation between them, or more specifically a spatial-temporal relation between two events.

I do wonder if von Neumann said this last with a wink. — Wayfarer

Von may have been teasing about using an abstruse technical term from physics to describe a mathematical function in computer code, but in retrospect he was prescient. The logical connection of Information to Entropy, led to it's physical equation with Energy. That logical relationship then pointed physicists to the conclusion that Energy & Matter are merely various forms of Generic Information (mathematical ratios). That genius hint also led to my own non-genius inference that Information is the fundamental "substance" (cf Spinoza) of the universe. Hence, referring its formless Potential state, I came to label universal essential Information as EnFormAction (the power to enform, to create). :smile:

The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Agree. I don't think the word 'information' is meaningful unless it is specified - what information? By itself, the word is merely a placeholder. In other words, there really is no such thing as'information' simpliciter. — Wayfarer

That's why I was forced to coin a neologism that encapsulates Information's meaningless,(simpliciter ??), generic, undefined, unspecified, pending, potential Form : EnFormAction. EFA is not-yet-actual Energy or Matter or Mind, but the Potential for all forms in the real & ideal realms of the world. Some posters on this forum will not appreciate my metaphorical use of the ambiguous label "G*D" to describe the ultimate source & generator of all forms of Information. But it has a philosophical heritage in Spinoza's notion of a universal Substance (essence), which he ambiguously labeled "Deus Sive Natura". :nerd:

Potentiality and actuality :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

Pending : 1. not yet decided ; metaphorically hanging in limbo

EnFormAction :
* Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of every-thing in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
* All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
* The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

deus sive natura :
https://ordinaryphilosophy.com/tag/deus-sive-natura/

Conatus :
a natural tendency, impulse, or striving : conation —used in Spinozism with reference to the inclination of a thing to persist in its own being.

Well, @Gnomon and I discussed this in another thread. Assume the role of God, a creator deity (Bruce Almighty). Your task is to bring into existence a universe from scratch! How would you do it? Wouldn't you first need info ( a how-to algorithm) to begin & complete your cosmic task? To make the long story short, information is (seems to be) most fundamental, even more basic than (any) substance, as far as I'm concerned. Look at it from a God's eye view. How do coders build virtual worlds? I hope I'm not off-topic. Sorry if I am.

error — Harry Hindu

I'm a prototype. Still needs work! :joke:

Weight is the information. — Harry Hindu

Thanks for clarifying that for me, but I do hope you don't mean that in the literal sense. If I write "my phone weighs 500 gm" does my phone gain 500 gm? :chin:

Your task is to bring into existence a universe from scratch! How would you do it? Wouldn't you first need info ( a how-to algorithm) to begin & complete your cosmic task? — Agent Smith

Great question brother Smith! Consider this. When the circumstances forced heavenly life into a collective research effort to invent particles and vacuum they got involved in a long long process. The initial enthusiasm turned into despair, but the rescue came very unexpectedly, from a most unusual god species... And then it was creation time. Heaven helt it's breath.

:ok:

brother Smith! — Hillary

:snicker:

brother Smith!
— Hillary

:snicker: — Agent Smith

I'm waving, brother Smith, like all of us wave. One moment the gods are there in their full eternal heavenly divinity, and the next I think, who ordered them? Wouldn't it be great if the universe was heaven? Without any gods? I can't understand where then where the universal matter came from. Yes, two universes eternally inflate into existence, pair after pair, on a higher dimensional virtual quantum vacuum bulk substrate, so beautifully described by Lao Tse, but where the fuck did that came from?

That logical relationship then pointed physicists to the conclusion that Energy & Matter are merely various forms of Generic Information — Gnomon

I’m disputing that the term ‘generic information’ means anything, or that it’s a substance, in the philosophical sense.

As I said bear in mind the origin of the term which is now translated as ‘substance’, namely, ‘ouisia’, which is nearer in meaning to ‘being’ than to ‘stuff’. So another translation of the term in the context of pantheist philosophy would be that the universe comprises, not a single subject, but a singular being, of whom all particulars are modes or expressions.

Entropy, both physical and Shannon's, are a quantitave measure of the load of raw information a system contains or is able to contain. Information in this case can be interpreted with data, zeroes and ones. Consider a volume of space. Bekenstein showed that the maximum load of information, of zeroes and ones, is a proportional to the bounding surface of the volume. The maximum is actually reached if the mass inside this volume reaches that of a black hole with a Schwarzschild radius of a sphere with the volume involved. The number of Planck-areas (10exp-70 square meter) on that surface can be compared with the number of zeroes and ones on a memory chip. A gas in a container can carry a pretty big number of ones and zeroes. But compare this with the number of ones and zeroes that potentially be contained in a spherical container with a surface of one square meter: 10exp70, which can only be reached if there is enough matter to form a black hole with a Schwarzschild radius of about 0.3 meter.

It's a different question what the actual information is about. The zeroes and ones in a computer are just a means to compare with an actuality that depends on what we give them as a load. Likewise, the maximum information on the surface of a black hole (which is temporary entangled with the inner matter to resolve the information paradox) doesn't mean nothing as long we don't know from what the hole was formed. The surfaces black hole made from a super massive bike and one of a giant rabbit with the same mass, contain the same amount of information, but its obvious that the two pieces of info point to kind of different objects, the bike and the rabbit.

Generic: characteristic of or relating to a class or group of things; not specific.
"chèvre is a generic term for all goat's milk cheese"

The reason information can't be generic, is because it has to specify something. It has to be about something, or (in the case of biological 'information') formative of something. It has to convey meaning in some sense. So it has to be specific, otherwise, it's not information. So the concept of 'generic information' is a non-starter.

But isn't the information encoded in a message only one part of what is really an indivisible, overarching entity, the conversation? — Pantagruel

Like the "self-information" or "information content" (surprise value of an individual message) is relative to the overarching "information entropy" (average surprise value in a whole source or channel of messages)?

Or are you merely surprised (or informed!) that the theory equates surprise value with information?

I’m disputing that the term ‘generic information’ means anything, or that it’s a substance, in the philosophical sense.
As I said bear in mind the origin of the term which is now translated as ‘substance’, namely, ‘ouisia’, which is nearer in meaning to ‘being’ than to ‘stuff’. So another translation of the term in the context of pantheist philosophy would be that the universe comprises, not a single subject, but a singular being, of whom all particulars are modes or expressions. — Wayfarer

Sorry, "Generic Information" (Platonic Form) is my alternative term for "EnFormAction" (Energy & Causation) to suit different contexts. I borrowed the notion of intangible "substance" as the Essence of Reality from Spinoza & Aristotle to serve another context : essential Information comes in many forms, one of which is Matter, the tangible substance that we are all familiar with. Informational "Substance" is the formless clay, from which many things are formed.

Unfortunately, metaphors can be confusing when taken out of context. That's why I made a Glossary of technical terms & neologisms to gloss over the non-standard & metaphorical meanings. They are all defined from the perspective of Information as both the Form (source & cause) and the Substance (essence & material) of both Reality and Ideality.

At the top of my Information hierarchy, Mind, Energy, Matter, is absolute Existence, which I label as universal unitary singular "BEING" (not any particular being). It's not a person or thing, but the philosophical eternal (timeless) principle of self-existence. A more familiar, but baggage-laden, term is G*D. But that's a whole 'nother can-of-terms. :joke:

Generic : general ; comprehensive ; generative ; non-specific

BEING :
* In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

I can meet you part-way at least.

Great post. The question: Why do we need/want (a) god(s)? As per historians religions were simply the, how shall I put it now?, complexification of hope (hope for timely rainfall, for a good harvest, for a good hunt, for a healthy life, and so on). It makes complete sense that if these can be attained by ourselves, god(s) would no longer be necessary and we all know what humans do to things they don't need, oui? Where's the bloody trash can? :grin:

I can meet you part-way at least. — Wayfarer

:up:

well, the last paragraph in the post basically refers to philosophical theism, to which I'm positively disposed. Nothing to do with 'generic information', which I still say is an oxymoron. :grimace:

well, the last paragraph in the post basically refers to philosophical theism, to which I'm positively disposed. Nothing to do with 'generic information', which I still say is an oxymoron. :grimace: — Wayfarer

:ok:

I suggest we "think outside the box". There was a thread not so long ago on how people tend to understand ideas/concepts/phenomena/whathaveyou in terms of things they already do.

Last night I had an interesting experience with a 3 year old. This guy was hungry but he seems to know only one word that meant food viz. "chips". He repeatedly said "chips, chips, chips" and I was trying my best to convince him that chips was junk food and not recommended at his age. Only later did I find out that for this toddler "chips" = food.

As you might've already noticed, I use a computational framework (files, apps, windows, menu, etc.) to make sense of reality. We all do that I guess.

The same thing's happening here too - we're trying to get a handle on information (new) with the aid of substance (old). It's time we did something different in my humble opinion. How? I dunno!

we're trying to get a handle on information (new) with the aid of substance (old) — Agent Smith

You have to understand something in order to criticize it.

You have to understand something in order to criticize it. — Wayfarer

Yeah! Sorry, my wild shots (in the dark) has found an unintended victim it seems. :grin:

Yeah! Sorry, my wild shots (in the dark) has found an unintended victim it seems. :grin: — Agent Smith

Keep on shooting AS. But please turn on the light!

Isn't information just some material stuff we can use to inform each other? Something with no inherent material existence in nature? The surface of a black hole contains information of the stuff inside, the maximum quantity even, but what does that mean?

There is a similar thread: What is information?, started up by the unforgettable @Pop.

Isn't information just some material stuff we can use to inform each other? Something with no inherent material existence in nature? — Hillary

For example, imagine a computer memory chip. Say we have assigned color at certain combinations of ones and zeroes. And say we associate with each color a coordinate on a plane. Also in the form of ones and zeroes. With this information we can construct a picture in color. Black and white takes less info. If we want many details more. If we want a picture adequate to sub atomic level, we need a lot of info.

But how we know what the zeroes and ones stand for? We know because we give the info meaning. And meaning has weight! Literally! A memory chip with meaningful information weighs more than one without.

Thanks for clarifying that for me, but I do hope you don't mean that in the literal sense. If I write "my phone weighs 500 gm" does my phone gain 500 gm? :chin: — Agent Smith

I said that weight is the relation between your phone's mass and the force of gravity on surface of the Earth. How does writing scribbles on this screen change that relation? It seems that to change that relation/information you'd have to add mass to the phone or change the force of gravity on the Earth. You could also go to the Moon and your phone would have a different weight.

If information is the relation between cause and effect (weight as the effect of some mass influenced by the gravity of Earth), then changing the information in your smartphone would require a cause - as in you downloading an app. The installed app is the effect of prior causes - like the lines of code that were written by a programmer to use the electronics of your phone to produce new information depending on the input it receives. It is also the cause of new effects in that it computes input to outputs.

Information is everywhere. The goal in some mind is what amplifies (focuses the attention on) certain information over others. For instance, the scribbles that appear on this screen are the effect of some human having an idea and the intent to share it. The types of scribbles are determined by their idea, the language they learned and are using, their level of understanding of the language they are using, and many other causes. You, as the reader, have the goal of understanding their idea so are focused on that cause of the scribbles being on the screen. You are using the scribbles on the screen to get at their idea (the cause), just as you could use the scribbles on the screen to get at the language they are using and their level of understanding of the language they are using - if that were your goal - and just as the investigator using the evidence at the crime scene to get at the identity and motive of the criminal.

I said that weight is the relation between your phone's mass and the force of gravity on surface of the Earth. How does writing scribbles on this screen change that relation? — Harry Hindu

Paradoxically it may sound, but a phone with information on it actually weighs more than without.

Paradoxically it may sound, but a phone with information on it actually weighs more than without. — Hillary

You need to provide some kind of evidence for this that shows that downloaded apps on your phone changes the mass of your phone or changes the Earth's force of gravity.

Information is everywhere. — Harry Hindu

Only in computers (a great part of which is metadata) , books, signs, roads, airplanes, schoolboards, or commercials (so pretty much anywhere!). There is no information inherent in nature. Information is always about something we define. A wavefunction contains no information, neither is there an "it from bit" computed beneath and displayed as matter.

Well, the Gibbs free energy increases. And mass is equivalent to energy. The amount is tiny though. And it depends on how the info is stored.

There is no information inherent in nature. Information is always about something we define. A wavefunction contains no information, neither is there an "it from bit" computed beneath and displayed as matter. — Hillary

In making the argument that information is the relationship between cause and effect I am asserting that information is inherent in nature.

What do you mean by "wavefunction"? Are you talking about mathematical equation (a string of scribbles) or what the scribbles represent? If the former then the scribbles are the effect of some observation of what the scribbles represent. If the latter then what they represent may be uncaused - meaning that it would not be information as you say.

In saying that information is about something, effects can be about their causes. The crime scene is the effect and the criminal and their motive is the cause. The former is about the latter.

Tree rings are the effect of how the tree grows throughout the year, not something made-up in the mind of some observer. The mind does not project the age of the tree into the tree rings. The tree rings represent the age of the tree because of how the tree grows throughout the year. The tree rings are about the age of the tree because how the tree grows year in and year out produces the tree rings.