----- Original Message -----
From: Arne Kjellman
To: Karl Javorszky ; fis
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 10:52 AM
Subject: [FIS] Comment to Karl's reply to Andrei
Comment on Karls reply to Andrei:
please allow me to ask you not to include this person in your statement " we do not have at the moment the real understanding of information. It is always reduced to the definition of probability, through entropy. "
I publicly state - and probably this is the best podium to state this - that I do have at the moment the real understanding of information.
AAAA: I guess you here claim you are a realist that has a real (true?) understanding of information. A bold claim for being a realist to my mind!
You make a logical error by stating that the idea of information is always reduced to the definition of probability, through entropy.
Let us separate the idea of information from its appearances (like the idea of fire to one burning fire).
AAAA: Well here you make a dualistic statement and immediately accepts the realist model of speaking and thus assumes the validity of realism which is an illegal position attempting to criticize monism or even science.
The idea of information is that - due to a small inexactitude in the folding of one- into moredimansional metrics - there is a basic flaw in our counting system, if we try to use it to understand outside reality (which you have wisely assumed to exist).
AAAA: If you try to defend realism this is a wise and probably necessary assumption however if you try to advance science beyond it state of present paradoxes this is a devastating assumption.
As long as we regard our rational system of counting in itself, like a measurement instrument on the shelf of the laboratory, it is error-free, tautologic and exact. As soon as we try to use it to count and measure the outside, we run into difficulties.
Dealing with these difficulties, one can have following startegies:
* assuming that the outside does not exist at all: Arne's position, rejected;
AAAAA: This is why you cannot understand my position: I have never claimed that the outside never exists my claim it is illegal to speak about it simply because we cannot feature it in words. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent ::Wittgenstein.
* saying that we do not understand it: your position, rejected;
* checking the measurement instruments: my position, useful.
Our measurement instruments count solely and only on units that are similar to each other.
AAAAA: Agree!
We disregard the logical diversity of the impressions we process.
By Darwin's laws, (AAAA: here you are a realist again!) we are rewarded (by increased chances of reproduction) if we recognise the similar in a multitude which has properties of similarity and dissimilarity. We perceive the similar before a background of dissimilarity.
AAAA: Agree!
That our nervous system is built like this should not discourage us from investigating the properties of the background, too. We are like moths being attracted to the light (of similarity) and I am a moth which says: dark can have differing degrees. Wont we count the degrees of dark? The answer, usually, is: what, dark! Dont you feel the truth? It is light that attracts us!
AAAA: Its a choice simply we can analyse the background as well I agree!
So, the dialogue does get a bit tedious.
Unfortunately, diversity is NOT exactly the opposite of similarity. One can count in units of diversity. One can build a counting system based on units of diversity. This D-based counting system neatly interacts with the traditional, similarity-based counting system, generating lots of what people call "natural constants" along the way.
AAAAA: I do not know about the D-based counting system (reference?) but I follow your thoughts. Apart from the divergence mentioned below I think SOA could benefit from using such a system of quantification.
So, the idea of information is deeply understood to mean the average difference (torsion, slack) between counting systems, where one counting system is based on axiomatis similarity of units, and the other is based on axiomatic dissimilarity of units. (This is like saying that the basis of our spatial seeing is the distance between our eyes and that we have two eyes.)
The realisation of information is best observed by assuming probabilistic models of distribution of this bias.
AAAAA: And here you slips not in interpreting the D-based counting system but in its application. You here fail to take the step necessary that overthrows the realists belief system :: The fire you talking about and the domain which you apply your counting system is your personal EXPERIENCE not some imaginative reality. This is the only valid use we can make of an IS-operator (Is-predicate).
So, please exclude me from your sweeping statement "we don't understand what information is", and thank you for the opportunity to add to your statement "we assume it to be a concept of probability theory" the clarification, that realisations of the slack showing itself under some circumstances can well be modeled by using methods of probability theory.
There is a small inexactitude in the measurement instrument (because it is only one of two oculars). This inexactitude blurs the vision. Information is not in the visual picture where it can be caught or declared to be statistical phenomen: information is the inexact nature of a mono-logical describing system. The inexactitude adds up and loses the picture, making us belkieve that the picture is blurred. The blurs can be discussed by means of probability theory, but a better idea is to use the other half of the stereo-logical description tool, too, and the vision will be beautiful.
AAAAA: However there is a more urgent and pressing need for using probability calculus this is a way we can provide the LAWS OF EVOLUTIONS OF EXPERIENCE that are used to predict future happenings.
Finally to my mind you have still some crucial steps to take in order suggest a useful model of information. You must let go your realist conviction.
Best Arne
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
