Following John's, Loet's, and Terry's posts . . .
I don't think anyone would or could reasonably debate the contribution of
Shannon's framing. Even though (per Shanon-Weaver) it is an unsatisfying
notion they present, there is/was a bit of brilliance in that work. STILL,
they too saw that they
At 4:00 AM 06/27/2015, John Collier wrote:
I also see no reason that Bateson’s difference that makes a difference needs to
involve meaning at either end.
[KM] Right. The phrase saying “a difference that makes a difference” must be a
prototypical example of second-order logic in that the
Sorry Loet, but I just don't see the need for an observer. I do think the
difference must be by something to something (perhaps the same thing) but
Koichiro's formulation implies this. Again, I warn against unneeded
complication.
Sent from Samsung Mobile
Original message
Koichiro: “In order to make them decidable or meaningful, some qualifier must
definitely be needed. A popular example of such a qualifier is a subjective
observer.”
“A difference that makes a difference” for a qualifier, thus requires
specification of:
1. The first difference;
2.
Dear all,
I think that Wheeler's it from bit was the great step in physics, it was the
basis of modern information interpretations
of QM, due to Zeilinger and Brukner, and Quantum subjective probability
interpretation of QM, QBism of Fuchs.
yours, andrei
Andrei Khrennikov, Professor of
Dear Marcus,
Thank you for this simple and absolutely essential intervention. Allowing
ourselves the freedom to use the same term—'information' which is the
defining term for this entire enterprise—for such different relationships
as intrinsic signal properties and extrinsic referential and
Dear folks,
I believe that information in itself must be interpreted, and is not, therefore
intrinsically meaningful. The addition requires, I think, semiotics. Without
that there are mere mechanical relations, and at best codes that translate one
domain to another without understanding or
