And therein do you see the arbitrariness of either choice.
The universe is subjective, not objective.
Read on semiotic theory as it will give much enlightenment
on this issue, that is *meaning* versus *information*
The fact that the interpreter can interpret means that the
interpreter already knows the meaning of any accepted
informational form. Isn't this how compilers and interpreters
in a computer work?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:everything-
> l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 7:11 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
> On 3/1/2013 5:27 PM, William R. Buckley wrote:
> >> Thinking about how information content of a message
> > Big mistake. Information is never contained with but
> > exactly one exception, an envelope.
> > I made this point with Jesper Hoffmeyer regarding a
> > statement in his book Biosemiotics, that information
> > is represented but not contained in that representation.
> > That marks of chalk upon slate may be taken to represent
> > information at a meta level above the reality of streaks
> > of a deformed amorphous solid has nothing to do with
> > the information represented by that deformation, nor the
> > increase of entropy associated with the greater disorder
> > obtained from that deformation; these are but three of
> > the *informations* to be found upon review of those
> > streaks. Entropy is how nature sees information (not
> > yet an established fact but I think the tea leaves read
> > clear enough) but that has (presumably) nothing to do
> > with how intelligent individuals see information, or
> > as von Uexküll called such phenomena, signs.
> > Most definitely the information is not to be found
> > within the material of its expression, its representation.
> > Rather, the information is already to be found within the
> > interpreter.
> But where is it found within the interpreter? When the Mars Rover
> receives photons in
> it's camera which it interprets as an obstructing rock that
> interpretation is "just"
> physical tokens too. So isn't it a matter viewpoint whether to look at
> the causal chain of
> tokens or look at the behavior and call it interpreting information?
> > That which is information is so by virtue of the acceptor
> > of that information; else, it is noise.
> > And, write the information on a piece of paper and seal
> > the paper within an envelope and you may justifiably
> > claim that the information is contained; else, you are
> > deluding yourself.
> >> has an inversely proportionate relationship with the
> >> capacity of sender and receiver to synchronize with
> >> each other.
> > ....<snip>
> > wrb
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.