Dear Marcus and colleagues,
I've watched the video and I have some remarks that I hope will contribute
to an improvement and clarification of ideas. I must confess I found the
video a bit dense and difficult to understand at some points. I suppose
that it would helped that more examples were cited as sometimes the
entities named are difficult to grasp.
The remarks are the following:
- In the examples that concerns with metadata definition how does a map
constitute metadata? Shouldn't it be the legend of the map? The same for
the alphabet.
- How to justify the Darwinian hypotheses of information building? If delta
z is to be understood as a 'fitness' or 'cost function' in an Darwinian
process, should we interpret 'meaning' as quantifiable? Why a Darwinian
process and not other?
- What should be the relation between 'role' and eventually 'model' in the
explanation of the entropy gap and Information building? I suppose 'role'
has to do with the function of the deltas but shouldn't 'model of the
world' be more appropriate?
- How do you justify the implicit assumption that there should be a
continuity between 'direct' versus 'indirect' roles in the reduction of the
entropy gap and building of Information?
- I found the explanation for the composition of the different entropy
components, at the end, very difficult to understand. I suppose examples
would helped very much.
In which concerns the definition of Bateson as "the difference that makes a
difference" I never heard comments about a distinct approach that employs
instead of 'difference', simply "relation between data". Take for example
two points in space, one definition of 'line' or any other geometric figure
is something that relates those points. Take two letters of the alphabet,
one definition of word is something that relates those letters. More
complex concepts are always something that relates less complex concepts,
in a nested infinite (and networked?) space. If this relations are mentally
established they can after be named (by association with a word) and after
they can also be shared. Could this open process of order building also fit
as theory of Information?
Thank you for your comments.
Kind Regards
António Fonseca
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
