What really is information?

[Tormod]

No, I would rather say:

 

the 'information', are the messages that some channel "allow"!:ud:

 

I agree, to a point. I think this statement is too restrictive, in that it does not include the properties that the channels cannot convey but which are still available - metainformation.

 

IMHO information will always depend on "perspective". What constitutes information may not be information (or another form of information) seen from another perspective. If there is no perspective, then there is no information. Or rather, perspective should read "bias"...

[hallenrm]

What constitutes information may not be information (or another form of information) seen from another perspective. If there is no perspective, then there is no information. Or rather, perspective should read "bias"...

 

You got it right! according to my perspective, an information is invariably subjective! :hihi:

[Buffy]

If an idea falls in a closed forest and there is no brain there to perceive it, is its entropy reduced?

I really donot understand your juxtaposition of brain and Entropy:confused: In my opinion information is independent of both Brain or Entropy:)

 

What constitutes information may not be information (or another form of information) seen from another perspective. If there is no perspective, then there is no information. Or rather, perspective should read "bias"...

You got it right! according to my perspective, an information is invariably subjective! :lol:

So which is it? As far as I can tell, you've expressed two contradictory opinions here! Either information is an intrinsic, objective property, or it is subjective and "requires a brain"...you've never really explained the context of this discussion, and we're not privy to what went on on your other forum, so you might want to clarify a bit!

 

2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2, :hihi:

Buffy

[Zythryn]

In my opinion, information is what the brain interprets from the input recieved from the senses.

[wigglieverse]

In my opinion information is independent of both Brain or Entropy

OK, so would you say that information (messages) are something static, like words on a page in some book somewhere? (say it's a book that's been lost in some forest).

the properties that the channels cannot convey but which are still available - metainformation.

If the channel doesn't allow or convey something, it isn't available, so it isn't a message, or information, is it?

[hallenrm]

So which is it? As far as I can tell, you've expressed two contradictory opinions here! Either information is an intrinsic, objective property, or it is subjective and "requires a brain"...you've never really explained the context of this discussion, and we're not privy to what went on on your other forum, so you might want to clarify a bit!

 

2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2, :)

Buffy

 

Information that may be conveyed from one object to another, is subjective it depends on the nature of both the object that conveys the information and the one that can receive it. I never said that all information "requires a brain"; perhaps it is true in case the receiver of the information is a human being. But, in my opinion, information that is available and is conveyed by various objects, is not subject to the presence of an organism that has a brain:)

 

I hope, I am fairly clear and the information I want to convey is getting conveyed to you:)

[hallenrm]

OK, so would you say that information (messages) are something static, like words on a page in some book somewhere? (say it's a book that's been lost in some forest).

 

No, all that I can assert is that a message at a particular moment in the context of a particular pair of transmitter and receptor is static.

 

If the channel doesn't allow or convey something, it isn't available, so it isn't a message, or information, is it?

 

Yes, it is not an information for the object that is designed not to receive that particular kind of minformation, just like a television cannot receive all information that a mobile phone can:)

[Buffy]

Information that may be conveyed from one object to another, is subjective it depends on the nature of both the object that conveys the information and the one that can receive it.

Got it. You're using the the "information is subjective" definition. This discussion then has absolutely nothing to do with Information Theory. That's not a problem in itself, it just wasn't clear to me!

I never said that all information "requires a brain"; perhaps it is true in case the receiver of the information is a human being. But, in my opinion, information that is available and is conveyed by various objects, is not subject to the presence of an organism that has a brain:)

"Subjective" implies "interpretation" while a "human brain" may not be "required," subjectivity implies some sort of "intelligence" to do the "interpreting," wouldn't you agree?

I hope, I am fairly clear and the information I want to convey is getting conveyed to you:)

I must admit, so far, I'm getting more and more confused: I think you need to explain in *much* more detail!

 

Grown-ups never understand anything for themselves, and it is tiresome for children to be always and forever explaining things to them, :)

Buffy

[wigglieverse]

all that I can assert is that a message at a particular moment in the context of a particular pair of transmitter and receptor is static.

Would you agree with something like: photons are the "messages" we get from the quantum world, which we "convert" into "information" in our brains.

 

or that a single photon (with no polarisation or entanglement, say the gamma ray in the box in Schrodinger's thought experiment), cannot be a message?

It can only confirm itself (i.e. that there is a channel, but no messages yet, like a 'ping', from the external world, and in fact, no expectation of anything further)?

[hallenrm]

Would you agree with something like: photons are the "messages" we get from the quantum world, which we "convert" into "information" in our brains.

 

I would rather say there is information in each and every photon. That a brain may construe it as a particular bit of information, is another matter.

 

or that a single photon (with no polarisation or entanglement, say the gamma ray in the box in Schrodinger's thought experiment), cannot be a message?

It can only confirm itself (i.e. that there is a channel, but no messages yet, like a 'ping', from the external world, and in fact, no expectation of anything further)?

 

As asserted above, that's not my assertion!

 

I must admit, so far, I'm getting more and more confused: I think you need to explain in *much* more detail!

 

I shall attempt to do so, in due course of time:)

[Tormod]

If the channel doesn't allow or convey something, it isn't available, so it isn't a message, or information, is it?

 

That's the entire point of metainformation in this scenario - it is made up by the interpreter based on bias. So the information provided is never the same as the information that is consumed - if there is a sentient recipient involved.

[wigglieverse]

I would rather say there is information in each and every photon.

k, one at a time.

What is this information in "each" photon. Where is it? what do you 'see' when photons impinge on your retina?

the information provided is never the same as the information that is consumed - if there is a sentient recipient involved.

This is the idea of expectation, uncertainty and noise. Characteristic of a channel.

[wigglieverse]

Information and its measurement are a projection of a (human) neurobiological system. Information is always uncertain. There is no such thing as “complete” information. The existence of an "ontic", or ontologic, i.e. (of) itself, external objective universe, projecting information in our direction is a given.

 

We assume that something doesn't disappear when we aren't looking at it. How can we explain time or any other measurement, as other than our own mapping of this information; that we accept is out there, outside of our brains? Information in a brain isn't like words on a page, or photographs -snapshots in a drawer.

 

It takes energy to maintain a memory --a certain configuration, or structuring of neural 'nodes' in some kind of network; the 'memory' itself, (all memory) is maintained at a cost; there is the entire subset of neurotransmitters, co-enzymes, ribosomal units, amino acids, Na+ and Ca++, and so on: the mesomorphic background. Every cell and support cell, the whole brain, effectively, is involved in some sense for every single 'memory' (actually more a 'replay', of something, like a chunk of 'solid-state' memory, or part of a reel of movie film).

 

External 'information': the thing we observe, becomes something that is a reflection of the (not static) external world and the way it changes. This reflection fades, eventually, unless it's recorded: either very 'vividly' when it's 'made' -this kind of 'visionary' memory is long-lasting, and seems more stable (has a lower entropy, i.e. a higher Shannon certainty)-

or 'refreshed' periodically, we need to review (bring into immediate 'memory-space') our knowledge of some method, if we don't use it. This 'short-term' kind of memory is for 'recent' historical events in our experience.

 

Measurement is memory, and memory needs (to be) change(d all the time).

[hallenrm]

That's indeed a very interesting discourse wigglieverse but ypur opinions do not match mine. For me, information is a characteristic of each and every particle of the universe, just like energy :D

[Doctordick]

It is nothing more than one of that massive collection of words we use to communicate ideas. If we can't get agreement about what we are talking about when we use the word "information", I would say "we don't know what we are talking about!" :) :) (That is sort of true by definition isn't it?) :D

 

Now, since I talk about information all the time (i.e., what we know or think we know) I feel it behooves me to at least clarify what I have in mind when I use the word. Well, I come from the position that I don't exactly know what “information” is but it certainly has something to do with what I know or at least think I know. Now that sounds very familiar; what is it that I do not know which constitutes the basis of what I think I know? Oh, I remember, that is what Kant was talking about when he used the word “noumenon”

 

Personally, I like this comment, “Nietzsche and later philosophers argued that the noumenon is of an utterly indeterminate nature and that any discussion that does not treat it as such cannot, in fact, be a discussion of the noumenon.” At least that is what I see standing behind my thoughts.

 

In other words, “information” is, by my definition, itself “noumena”. What you guys are all talking about are hypotheses put forth in an attempt to solve the problem of explaining these things: i.e., you are trying to explain what information is so that you can understand when you are dealing with information and when you are not. What you are failing to comprehend is that understanding and knowing are different things! You can know things without understanding them but understanding something you do not know is a fundamental contradiction in terms.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[wigglieverse]

you are trying to explain what information is so that you can understand when you are dealing with information and when you are not.

No, there is no time when you are not 'dealing with' information.

Except when you die.

What you are failing to comprehend is that understanding and knowing are different things!

How are they different, though?

Isn't comprehending, understanding, and knowing the same thing, just three different sounds?

understanding something you do not know is a fundamental contradiction in terms.

How about math that lets you 'assume' things? You know what an inductive step is, right?

information is a characteristic of each and every particle of the universe, just like energy

Yes, it can be 'measured' this way. But where are these 'particles', we can't see them.

Our model of light, and the way we 'see' things is based on tiny little packets of energy. What we see is what happens when lots of these photons get absorbed by electrons -in pigments, inside structures in retinal cells. When a certain threshold of these pigments has absorbed a photon, an electric signal 'fires'. We don't 'see' any single photons. We can look at a 'drawing' of a model of light, but what we see is the effect of thousands of them, millions, in fact, for any sort of 'discrete' thing to be seen.

[Rade]

...understanding something you do not know is a fundamental contradiction in terms.

Not sure I agree. If I hear someone say, The Sky is Blue, I know neither what the sky really is, nor what the color blue really is, yet I have complete (100%) understanding of what someone is trying to explain to me when they say, The Sky is Blue.

 

In other words, “information” is, by my definition, itself “noumena”

As I understand Kant, the human mind is like a radio, and the noumena are the set of all that can be thrown at the mind from outside the mind (let us not deal here with his idea that the mind can throw things at itself). And some things bounce off the radio and do not interact with it, some break it, and some (certain wavelengths) are transformed into sound. And, like the radio, the mind can only make sense of a limited set of the noumena of otherwise meaningless data that enters it via perception, and what it does store becomes information.

 

So, while I agree with your suggestion that information is derived from noumena, I do not think that all of the noumena of Kant are by definition information, which is another way of saying that information does not equal noumena. To have information requires a "transformation"--such as the process called "forming a definition", which is why I like better your suggestion that "information is exactly what you define it to be". Perhaps there is "potential" information found within all noumena, is this what you are saying ?