3 ms·

People often think that Information Theory provides an answer, but it doesn't really enlighten us about what information is and what its nature is. Information

People often think that Information Theory provides an answer, but it doesn't really enlighten us about what information is and what its nature is. Information theory provides a definition. That definition turns out to be an extremely useful abstraction in a lot of mathematical theorems, and to some extent matches the intuitions we have about information. If there's a problem with the definition, and it doesn't match up with your idea of what information really is, then it's easy to come up with new definitions; if they're useful, they might even take off. But it's very hard for a field to answer questions like "what is X, and what is its nature?", because it's not clear what kind of answer would suffice, for any value of X.

jamesrcole 15y ago
It provides a measure of quantity, not a definition of what it is. I don't think this is a matter of definition. Here's an analogy. Back before we had an understanding of matter in terms of atomic details (or anything deeper than that), people could have disputed about what is a liquid and what is a solid and what is a gas. Different people might have given different definitions of these in terms of qualities that differentiated them from each other ("solids maintain their shape", "a gas does not weigh much" etc). But we now know that this question was not a matter of definition but a matter of understanding what was actually going on underneath the phenomenal appearances. Understanding what a liquid is not a matter of definition, it's a matter of understanding how the phenomena actually works. And in this case we have even been able to show the categories we thought existed weren't even literally different categories. Returning to the question of what information is, the idea that it's just something to be defined in one of a number of ways is an assumption.
- jaekwon 15y ago
  I could ask you what matter is, what an atom is, or what space / time are, and I wouldn't be satisfied with your definition of matter -- no matter what. I just assume that our universe is running in a Turing machine, and that all laws are derived mathematically. I bet we could find simple emergent computational phenomena that model the laws of relativity. It's simpler than trying to work backwards like you, and it lets me sleep at night. It's programs and programmers all the way down. Or up, if you're Kardashevly inclined. The neat thing about information is that it can probably pass through boundaries of cosmological scale. The neat thing about intelligence is that it emerges, and that it wants to pass through boundaries of cosmological scale. I feel that general / special relativity has something to say about this -- that these laws permit some sort of communication across scales, and that the universe is but a bunch of astronomers and molecular physicists nerding it out. The photons that are helping you read this text is actually composed of subatomic Voyager Golden Phonograph Records with Carl Sagan's signature on each one. Billions and billions of them, into a sea of intergalactic neurons causing a glorious dawn of awakening in your head. - copyright 2012 Jae Kwon
  - jamesrcole 15y ago
    I could ask you what matter is, what an atom is, or what space / time are, and I wouldn't be satisfied with your definition of matter. I've said it plenty of times already in this thread, but I do not think questions of "what is X" are answered by giving a definition. The are empirical questions, and your job is to try and figure out as best you can how the details work. Reality chooses what the answers are, it's not a matter of you choosing the definition you like.
    - jaekwon 15y ago
      I agree with you, but I'm suggesting that on the other end of the axis, away from empirical observation, is our ability to use information to affect destiny and cosmology in a grand (or not so grand) scale. I doubt that reality exists independent of intelligence, which makes reality a difficult beast to understand, like a naturally intractable problem. And if you insist on observing empirically, you're just collapsing cosmological scale invariant alternatives, but you can never figure it out completely. In fact it probably just keeps getting more complex as you keep trying, even considering the occasional unifying theories. Anyways, I agree with everything that you've said, I just don't believe we can fully know how the phenomena actually works -- there are infinitely many ways in which it could work, all the time. To observe phenomena empirically in order to figure out how things further work, is to further isolate your existence into a remote section of the possible universes (and sometimes open your known universe up to new opportunities). I prefer to spend my time making reality rather than being chosen by it, which feels more like an active enterprise. In the end it doesn't matter. Have faith in science, or your ability to shape your world, or whatever that engages your computer noggin. :) -- copyright 2012 Jae Kwon

jamesrcole 15y ago

It provides a measure of quantity, not a definition of what it is. I don't think this is a matter of definition. Here's an analogy. Back before we had an understanding of matter in terms of atomic details (or anything deeper than that), people could have disputed about what is a liquid and what is a solid and what is a gas. Different people might have given different definitions of these in terms of qualities that differentiated them from each other ("solids maintain their shape", "a gas does not weigh much" etc). But we now know that this question was not a matter of definition but a matter of understanding what was actually going on underneath the phenomenal appearances. Understanding what a liquid is not a matter of definition, it's a matter of understanding how the phenomena actually works. And in this case we have even been able to show the categories we thought existed weren't even literally different categories. Returning to the question of what information is, the idea that it's just something to be defined in one of a number of ways is an assumption.

jaekwon 15y ago
I could ask you what matter is, what an atom is, or what space / time are, and I wouldn't be satisfied with your definition of matter -- no matter what. I just assume that our universe is running in a Turing machine, and that all laws are derived mathematically. I bet we could find simple emergent computational phenomena that model the laws of relativity. It's simpler than trying to work backwards like you, and it lets me sleep at night. It's programs and programmers all the way down. Or up, if you're Kardashevly inclined. The neat thing about information is that it can probably pass through boundaries of cosmological scale. The neat thing about intelligence is that it emerges, and that it wants to pass through boundaries of cosmological scale. I feel that general / special relativity has something to say about this -- that these laws permit some sort of communication across scales, and that the universe is but a bunch of astronomers and molecular physicists nerding it out. The photons that are helping you read this text is actually composed of subatomic Voyager Golden Phonograph Records with Carl Sagan's signature on each one. Billions and billions of them, into a sea of intergalactic neurons causing a glorious dawn of awakening in your head. - copyright 2012 Jae Kwon
- jamesrcole 15y ago
  I could ask you what matter is, what an atom is, or what space / time are, and I wouldn't be satisfied with your definition of matter. I've said it plenty of times already in this thread, but I do not think questions of "what is X" are answered by giving a definition. The are empirical questions, and your job is to try and figure out as best you can how the details work. Reality chooses what the answers are, it's not a matter of you choosing the definition you like.
  - jaekwon 15y ago
    I agree with you, but I'm suggesting that on the other end of the axis, away from empirical observation, is our ability to use information to affect destiny and cosmology in a grand (or not so grand) scale. I doubt that reality exists independent of intelligence, which makes reality a difficult beast to understand, like a naturally intractable problem. And if you insist on observing empirically, you're just collapsing cosmological scale invariant alternatives, but you can never figure it out completely. In fact it probably just keeps getting more complex as you keep trying, even considering the occasional unifying theories. Anyways, I agree with everything that you've said, I just don't believe we can fully know how the phenomena actually works -- there are infinitely many ways in which it could work, all the time. To observe phenomena empirically in order to figure out how things further work, is to further isolate your existence into a remote section of the possible universes (and sometimes open your known universe up to new opportunities). I prefer to spend my time making reality rather than being chosen by it, which feels more like an active enterprise. In the end it doesn't matter. Have faith in science, or your ability to shape your world, or whatever that engages your computer noggin. :) -- copyright 2012 Jae Kwon