Dear Mark,
My concern about all recent discussions on FIS is the apparent tendency to
endow the notion of "information" with an existential status that is
unwarranted. Information does not exist beyond our conception and so the
language you use here worries me since there is nothing that is actually
"carried." Therefore, any discussion of a "carrier" of information is either
meaningless or a convenience.
For me, at least, the term "information" is simply a way of speaking about the
necessary distinctions of causality. It is that which identifies cause and adds
to knowledge, where "knowledge" is our way of speaking about that which
determines subsequent action.
So for me it is difficult to imagine "types" of information unless we are
referring to causal types. Any other categorization is cannot be general.
There are, of course, special ways of speaking about information in the
particular and in this we may find categorization convenient, not absolute.
With respect,
Steven
--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
http://senses.info
On Jun 7, 2011, at 6:34 PM, Mark Burgin wrote:
> Discussion colophon
>
> Dear all participants of the discussion (active and passive),
>
> I would like to express my gratitude to Pedro for asking me to start a
> discussion about basic problems of information theory and methodology, in
> which many qualified researchers have participated. I also appreciate efforts
> of all active participants of the discussion, who shared their interesting
> ideas related to information theory and practice, and especially to Joseph
> Brenner, who expertly distilled communication of different participants
> separating more or less direct answer to the suggested questions. As these
> questions have quintessential importance for information theory and
> methodology, I would like to suggest tentative answers to these questions,
> giving arguments in support of this approach.
> Question 1. Is it necessary/useful/reasonable to make a strict distinction
> between information as a phenomenon and information measures as quantitative
> or qualitative characteristics of information?
> All educated people understand that a person and her/his measure, for
> example height, are essentially different entities. It’s impossible to reduce
> a person to one measure. The same is true for subatomic particles and other
> physical, chemical and biological objects. However, when it comes to
> information, even qualified researchers don’t feel a necessity to make a
> strict distinction between information as a phenomenon and information
> measures, although there are infinitely many information measures. We can
> often hear and read such expressions as “Shannon information” or “Fisher
> information”.
>
> Question 2. Are there types or kinds of information that are not encompassed
> by the general theory of information (GTI)?
> A grounded answer to this question depends what we understand when we
> say/write “types or kinds of information”, that is, on information
> definitions. If we take intrinsic information definitions, then the answer is
> YES as it is demonstrated in the book (Burgin, 2010).
> At the same time, if we take all information definitions suggested by
> different people, then the answer is NO because some of those definitions
> define not information but something else, e.g., information measure or
> knowledge or data. There are also other “definitions” that actually define
> nothing. Naturally, these definitions and related concepts (if there are any)
> are not encompassed by the GTI. However, GTI organizes all existing knowledge
> on information and information processes in one unified system, allowing one
> to discern information from other phenomena.
> Question 3. Is it necessary/useful/reasonable to make a distinction between
> information and an information carrier?
> In the mundane life, it is possible not to make a distinction between
> information and an information carrier. For instance, we do not make
> distinctions between an envelope with a letter and the letter itself, calling
> both things “a letter”, or between a book with a novel and the novel itself,
> calling both things “a novel”.
> At the same time, a proper theory of information demands to make a
> distinction between information and an information carrier, especially,
> because any thing contains information and thus, is an information carrier,
> but it is evident that to consider that everything IS information is
> unreasonable and contradicts principles of science.
>
> I would appreciate any feedback to the ideas from this e-mail.
>
> Sincerely,
> Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
[email protected]
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
