Bob-
Thanks for starting out the session so strongly.
Let me first give some context for my remarks. For me at least, the
agenda here is to collectively toy with notions that can actually
help us develop better conceptual tools. It isn't so much a matter of
finding a definition of information that works, that clearly has
formal footing. Rather its a game of finding among all the
respectable candidates a notion of information that leads us to new
theories and insights.
So a good part of the enterprise is deciding what looks good, is
defensible and even locally useful, but that doesn't give us the
disruptive leverage we want.
At the highest level, I think, there's a decision each of us has to
make about the nature of the abstraction space we want to work in.
Kauffman is famously on record as believing that the preferred space
is algebraic. He goes further in stating that it is the ONLY space,
all others illusory, or less fundamental. Without burdening you with
that rather indefensible weight, its clear to me that what you have
presented is clearly in this camp.
My argument against it cannot be based on any internal inadequacy:
algebraic characterizations of the world do work well, well enough to
have been seen as the default by many.
But consider some of the objections that Pedro raises. I admire his
attention to the more challenging goals, ones I share, even if I get
frustrated at how gently he advocates.
Alternatives are to come at this from some similar platform within
mathematics, like geometric reasoning (Von Neumann, Einstein)
represented here by some of the quantum interaction discussion, set
theory where I would place Karl's notions of number-as-indicator, and
some of Jerry's notational insights (though they deal with categories
as well). Leyton who is sadly absent steps in and out of groups in a
clever way that avoids being captured by them. Many of these
approaches that are inspired by mathematical mechanisms redefine
entropy and/or Shannon.
Then there's a whole wing here that takes information less from the
measurement side and more on the causal and builds from the semantic
foundations we have. I admire these because they truly do add
something new, and present possibilities for enhancing our formal
vocabulary. Its a bit distracting that they have to fall back on
semiotic or philosophic machinery from time to time, but that's why
we've been at this for years, right?
My own preference is to create a new hybrid that has algebraic tools
but is not inspired by them, but by the qualities of information that
come from the semiotic side, somehow escaping the similarly limiting
frameworks there. Loet seems to be starting from here and working
with social dynamics. I prefer certain other choices in this, and
freely admit they are arbitrary and tentative. (Jerry's preference
for syntactically focused language metaphors, narrative dynamics and
symmetry operations are all helpful to me.)
Its not my purpose here to argue for them.
I just want to make the establishing point that we are about
invention first. And perhaps algebra isn't the best starting place.
It takes the notion of "meaning" a bit more funadamentally. Somehow,
I think the biologists and chemists may be worth listening to on
this, but that may be just a "religious" view. But itdoes seem that
this cusp of introspective apparent selfishness implicit in Pedro's
and Walter's posts has merit. I read Stanley such that he supports
this.
-Ted
--
__________
Ted Goranson
Sirius-Beta
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
