Hello all,
First let me just say to JON - I'm rather flattered that we got mixed
up!
My only hope is that your mention of "intelligence" doesn't get confused
with the oxymoron of military intelligence;-)
PETER:
<<<It seems at first glance to fit rather well with a theory I use when
trying to investigate "perception"; namely that (as a methodological
convenience) I hypothesise that the basic 'stuff' of the universe is not
matter, energy or space/time, but rather "information", and that those
other terms we use refer to 'properties' of this basic stuff, rather
than the other way round. ...>>>
Peter raises a number of interesting points that I alluded to some time
ago ,when I brought up the name of communications theorist Claude
Shannon ( http://www.moq.org/old_lilasquad/9808/0132.html ,
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9809/0043.html ).
Shannon worked on the mathematics of information transfer via
communication channels and came up with some very practical tools for
communications
design. What is interesting is that Shannon's
"information content" is inversely related to algorithmic entropy
(information sometimes called "NEGentropy") and the equations for its
manipulation are directly analogous to those used in thermodynamics.
Shannon looked at the "information
content" (the carrier) and deliberately ignored semantic meaning.
Back in September 1998 I wrote:
<<<Troy states that
MoQ does away with this distinction, but I disagree. We've had many
discussions on patterns, symbols, codes and language, and I'd say that
ALL those things are carriers. Words are carriers of value. The whole
MoQ is an abstract structure represented by carriers of value. If you
want to experience a "non-abstract" MoQ, go out for a walk, don't read a
book about it!
Abstraction is about manipulating carriers - you can't have intellect
without it.>>>
PETER:
<<<So, 'matter' is a particularly 'lumpy' form of
information, which can of course be converted into 'energy', which
is much more fleet of foot.>>>
Actually, as soon as you get theoretical, the information itself is
'lumpy'. Until you organise it into bits and bytes (or index cards!),
there is no way to work with it. FURTHERMORE, those bits and bytes need
to be physically represented by MATTER (e.g. marks on paper,
electromagnetic registers). This is EXACTLY like energy - there is no
scientific concept of raw energy - it is always carried by some sort of
matter, be it a wound spring, electrons, photons or whatever.
Thus, we have the bits and bytes of information entirely within the
physical material world, while true semantic meaning is in an entirely
different dimension.
So when ROPY asks ..."
>can there be information without an entity to be informed?
>And is intent to inform implied in the idea of information?"
.. one immediately sees why Shannon and other I.T. scientists stay away
from the semantic side as if it were the plague.
Jonathan Marder
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:45 BST