BO:
Pirsig took the full leap and said: THERE IS NO ABSTRACT-
CONCRETE DIVIDE however many retro-abstractions are made.
ROG:
Indeed. This is essential to the MOQ. And even without the dynamic/static
split, Zeiliger's ideas can make sense to those that do recognize the
split.
ROSS:
Agreed.
BO:
Now, Zeilinger really HAS postulated that the physical world is
information and maybe it will be the last straws that breaks the
SOM's back.
ROSS:
Are Zeilinger and the SOM really contradictory? If so, how obvious is the
contradiction?
ROG:
But we don't want to destroy it, we want to build the new map from its
higher
vistas.
ROG prev:
The
value in a pattern then becomes a measure of the information contained
within or protected by the pattern. And DQ becomes pursuit of new
information (at the never-ending risk of just finding noise).
BO:
Er.. it's information as the basic physical reality which is Zeilinger's
message, not information ABOUT any reality beneath information.
As is Pirsig's about Quality as the groundstuff, not any value
sticking to this or that phenomenon or thing. This may be just what
you are saying though ...?
ROSS:
I'll let Roger speak for himself. For my part, however, I'm not saying we
should change the MoQ. What I'm talking about really is taking some of
Pirsig's examples, and maybe inventing a few more, and examining them in
terms of information, and defining information in the terms of the MoQ. I'd
specifically like to see if Zeilingers definition is consistent with ours. I
have a suspicion that the two may fit together quite elegantly. I don't
really see information deposing value as the basic groundstuff.
My other current area of interest, something I'm writing about, is I guess
best described as "morality in interpersonal and sexual relationships" (I
still haven't decided on the best description yet, but you get the idea).
That's my personal rant against victorianism. Here, I don't expect talking
in terms of information rather than value or Quality is going to get me
anywhere. So politically I wouldn't have any interest in doing that either.
[ Oooh no, I do sound suspiciously like I have an agenda here... Naughty,
naughty! Please rest assured I do have some integrity where matters like
that are concerned. It's funny, I picked up Lila entirely by chance and
found it fitted right in with what I was already thinking about. So I
re-read it, investigated further and ended up here. Somehow I've ended up
talking about physics though. :-) ]
> ROG:
> Thanks for catching this. I think I was actually juxtaposing two
definitions
> of information. One corresponds with Zeiliger and the other corresponds
with
> what is subjectively known as bit-reduction, or the ability to condense
> interactions down to patterns.
Zeiliger's definition is an extension of Shannon's (the latter)
> It is the creation of the patterns themselves
> -- not subjective awareness of this property in the pattern -- which seems
to
> correlate with SQ. I don't know, perhaps there is some type of
conservation
> of information where random bits are converted into higher quality
patterns
> of different but equal information. (I am way over my head on this one
> though... just consider me rambling. I have read there are two opposing
> uses of the term information though. Ross?)
Ross:
Shannon's definition has no relationship to the meaning of the message, so
you can see for practical purposes it may not always be the most convenient
definition to use, for instance if we are talking about information
pertaining to a specific task.
To reiterate Zeilinger, however, in quantum systems the information you can
extract depends on the order in which you make your measurements, so his
definition extends Shannon's to take that into account.
Actually, perhaps that's always the case anyway, it's just that sometimes
the difference is negligible. When you look at a rock you have to bounce
some photons off it - big deal, they're not going to push it very far
anyway, but arguably there's some negligible change resulting. But
Zeilinger's definition of information reminds me of an interview between two
people, where the questions that are asked and the order they are asked in
may affect the answers that are given.
[ This example kind of demonstrates how I regard information and its
transmission as something of a unifying principal. ]
BO:
"Metaphor"? Wasn't that a thread once, with the result that
EVERYTHING IS METAPHORIC and that a "Metaphysics of
Metaphors" could have been made?
ROG:
I agree. All metaphors, all the way down.
ROSS:
Me too. Interesting how in our cutting-edge science the "fashionable"
metaphors often correspond to contemporary technological trends. Like Newton
et al and the clockwork universe. I'm a programmer (with a little bit of a
physics background), I guess that for me some of the of the appeal of
information as an idea comes from that. Similarly, Pirsig's example in Lila
of how software is independent of the hardware it runs on appealed quite a
lot for that reason. I try to be aware of these things in case anyone starts
talking about grinding axes. It pays to be aware of where one's own
potential prejudices may lie.
BO:
I am not too happy
about the "map" comparison. Each static level may be seen as a
map - the last one (intellect-as-SOM the toughest to escape from,
but the MoQ itself can't well be regarded a map because that
suggests a reality beyond which it is a map of. Exactly as the
Information idea says there is no beyond information!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ROG:
But maps can be self referential, just as reality is self referential.
Surely the MoQ as we discuss it here can only be a "map". As we experience
it, it's base reality, but the concepts we're tossing around here are just
words. What was it Phaedrus said about a restaurant with a 3000 page menu
and no food? But I digress! (and although I'm new here I have to wonder if
this is opening up an old can of worms)
ROG:
PS -- Ross, you sound like the subject matter expert, so lead the way....
ROSS:
Um, thanks! I'm just an enthusiastic amateur really. Especially here - I've
always been good at logical reasoning but I've never really paid enough
attention to the underpinnings of that reasoning, I rely on my natural
intuition for it. Consequently, when I'm talking about metaphysics I feel
kind of like I'm flying, Douglas Adams style - where the secret is never to
question what's keeping you airbourne.
Nevertheless, this seems like a productive discussion so I'll keep digging,
reading and thinking it over and I'll post anything else I come up with
that's interesting.
I haven't read it in detail yet, I was interested to see
http://www.moq.org/forum/emmpaper.html
Subjects, Objects and Data Values by Pirsig. In it, he describes the
application of MoQ to Bohr's principal of complementarity.
Meantime, anyone got any suggestions for a definition of information?
Ross
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:43 BST