4 ms·

Pretty much gibberish. No operational definitions, lots of floating abstractions, with some falsehoods thrown in (starting with the description of Shannon as ob

Pretty much gibberish. No operational definitions, lots of floating abstractions, with some falsehoods thrown in (starting with the description of Shannon as obscure!) Deutsch is a very clever guy, but to say "no one but a fool would bet against the notion that something could become important" is vacuous as well as pompous. I could become Pope--you cant prove I won't--but that is hardly a bet worth taking. Laws that govern laws are interesting, and symmetries that require information conservation would also be interesting, and in fact the paper in question (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1405/1405.5563.pdf http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1405/1405.5563.pdf) looks interesting. The write-up unfortunately is not.

andybak 12y ago
He describes Shannon as 'unsung' not 'obscure' and I think there's some validity to that. I grew up reading about the incredible scientific developments - especially on the theoretical side - that happened throughout the 20th century and Shannon's name was often mentioned but it was always in passing (and sometimes with a subtle hint that he didn't really grasp how broadly applicable his ideas were). It wasn't until I read about his life and work directly that I learnt that this picture was rather inaccurate.
- maroonblazer 12y ago
  Is there a particular book/biography on Shannon you'd recommend? I've not found anything that looked particularly definitive.
  - andybak 12y ago
    I can't for the life of me remember what it was I read now. I thought it might have been David Deutsch's 'Fabric of Reality' or some similar bit of broad, sweeping, pop-science but I can't find my copy right now to check. (However that's a great book if you want a bluffer's guide to Popper ;-)
vixen99 12y ago
I'm sure the journalist in question who should learn not to write gibberish, ensure he's inserted his operational definitions and check his prose for floating abstractions is properly put to rights! I guess you weren't referring to the actual paper since it can hardly turn out to be interesting and gibberish at one and the same time.
- ithkuil 12y ago
  Since both outcomes are possible, by following the constructor principle, the paper will be in a superimposed quantum state of interesting at gibberish. And it will collapse in one of those states when somebody (knowledgeable in the field) reads it. EDIT: the analogy is broken on purpose, to cause a logical paradox

andybak 12y ago

He describes Shannon as 'unsung' not 'obscure' and I think there's some validity to that. I grew up reading about the incredible scientific developments - especially on the theoretical side - that happened throughout the 20th century and Shannon's name was often mentioned but it was always in passing (and sometimes with a subtle hint that he didn't really grasp how broadly applicable his ideas were). It wasn't until I read about his life and work directly that I learnt that this picture was rather inaccurate.

maroonblazer 12y ago
Is there a particular book/biography on Shannon you'd recommend? I've not found anything that looked particularly definitive.
- andybak 12y ago
  I can't for the life of me remember what it was I read now. I thought it might have been David Deutsch's 'Fabric of Reality' or some similar bit of broad, sweeping, pop-science but I can't find my copy right now to check. (However that's a great book if you want a bluffer's guide to Popper ;-)

vixen99 12y ago

I'm sure the journalist in question who should learn not to write gibberish, ensure he's inserted his operational definitions and check his prose for floating abstractions is properly put to rights! I guess you weren't referring to the actual paper since it can hardly turn out to be interesting and gibberish at one and the same time.

ithkuil 12y ago
Since both outcomes are possible, by following the constructor principle, the paper will be in a superimposed quantum state of interesting at gibberish. And it will collapse in one of those states when somebody (knowledgeable in the field) reads it. EDIT: the analogy is broken on purpose, to cause a logical paradox