Dear Robin,
Let me take it step by step: > I very much agree with his distinction, though due to my own interests, I > prioritise the closely related concept of physical information over Shannon > information. For me, by far the most important application of Shannon's > concept is in physics, because that is metaphysically foundational (I'm a > naturalist in this context, following Don Ross et al). But if we bracket > Shannon and physical information together, then the distinction between that > and meaningful information(2) is absolutely crucial. The relation between Shannon information and physical information is not ambiguous because S = k(B) H. H is dimensionless and can be expressed in bits; both S and k(B) are expressed in Watts/Kelvin. > But regarding the measurement of information2, this is absolutely impossible! > The reason is that difference2 is inherently subjective: This seems too apodictic (and perhaps outdated) to me. If the receiving (or observing) system is a human being then you are right. If it is a discourse which contains uncertainty, information2 may add to that uncertainty or reduce it. This is measurable. It seems to me that precisely here we are at the research front. See, for example: <http://www.leydesdorff.net/meaning.2011/index.htm> "Meaning" as a sociological concept: A review of the modeling, mapping, and simulation of the communication of knowledge and meaning, Social Science Information 50(3-4) (2011) 391-413; <pdf-version <http://www.leydesdorff.net/meaning.2011/meaning.pdf> > Redundancy in Systems which Entertain a Model of Themselves: Interaction Information and the Self-Organization of Anticipation, <http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/12/1/63> Entropy 12(1) (2010) 63-79; <pdf <http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/12/1/63/pdf> > Best wishes, Loet
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
