Wonderful to hear from you einseele, especially on this topic! Information in isolation, taken out of context one bit at a time, is incompressible, and often binary. However, even a simple yes/no DOES have context because it is subject to the experiential base of the receiving awareness/computational entity. So *I* maintain that information is ALWAYS compressible until it reaches a critical limit of uncertainty based upon each unique receiver's experiential base.
The question then devolves to "How many receiver's sensoriums do I desire to attain comprehension of my message?" That depends upon objectives of the sender. Furthermore, the question arises as to the impact of miscommunication upon those who are not the objectives of a particular message's transmission dispersal. Interception of messages outside the transmitter's intended routing list is so common as to be taken as a given. *I* maintain therefor that the optimum composition strategy for messages MUST include as a PRIMARY objective the goal of making messages not only incomprehensible outside of the routing list, but also contain content such that each intercepted message will be DISCARDED as "nonsense" by interceptors outside of the routing list of intended recipients. By following this precept there is little harm which will occur due to messages scattered freely to the public, such as my messages on the internet... I estimate that limited comprehension of the surface text of the above statements can be attained by 1% of the population. Deeper understanding of the implications can be attained by 0.1% of the population. Since it is intuitively obvious to those who have provided intelligence tests to me, that due to my scoring at the 0.1% level of intelligence on a consistent basis that my intelligence must be at the 0.1% level rather than (for example) at the 1 per billion level, then there can't possibly be anything even deeper to be discerned. However, I note that sometimes *I* surprise even *myself* by how cute or clever I have been in past postings. What might those further hidden meanings be? *GOD* only knows LOLOL... Lonnie Courtney Clay On Saturday, June 4, 2011 4:35:29 AM UTC-7, einseele wrote: > > Which is the compression limit > Physics teaches that such limit is mass > > So the question is. Which is the limit for information compression. > > The answer to this question is about information itself. > > If information cannot be compressed beyond certain limit, then > information has mass. > > If information can be compressed limitless, then information does not > consist of a mass, therefore is not compressible. > > I believe this is the case, and the next question should be. > Well, if information has no mass, what are we compressing in its > place, and where and what is information. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/Yk9CSUlkeWF6SzhK. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
