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 Andrei, I would ask for clarification on whether you speak of information in your examples as something that has innate meaning or something that is innately meaningless . . . which has been a core issue in earlier exchanges. If this issue of meaning versus meaningless in the use of the
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