Graham Wyatt wrote:
> I struggled with this for a while, discovered that my everyday interpretation wasn't adequate, and eventually found the following,
> which is reputedly from the Oxford Dictionary of Computing:
>
> "Formally, and especially in science and engineering, information is whatever contributes to a reduction in the uncertainty of the
> state of the system..."
>
> This rang bells for me because it seems that the only way that information could result in the reduction of uncertainty is if it
> contains meaning. I am not able to explain why, but it seems that this way of expressing it provides some sort of bridge between my
> everyday understanding of the meaning of the word and the engineering sense.
I see your point. Nonetheless, it still seems to me that "order/disorder" are still more adequate concepts to deal with information
(according to its classical definition). Notice that in the passage you quote information is used with the dual meaning wrt the one I
mentioned. That is, if a system has high entropy (high information) ["my" meaning] it requires much information to reduce uncertainty on
its state ["your meaning"]. (Of course the two meaning are just two sides of the same coin). If the system has little order, you have to
analyse and get to details to describe/communicate its state. On the other hand, if the system has more order/structure, you can use
synthesis and describe it just as precisely with less "bits" (*but*, complicating the "meaning" of bits, i.e., the interpretation
process that attaches meaning to them. Bitmaps versus image compression, e.g., jpegs, that require order).
> > You probably mean that the ultimate rationale for the theory was that of enabling the communication of some kind of meaning.
>
> Exactly that. Otherwise, why bother. It interesting to think that all of this complication is designed to carry this precious cargo
> without damaging it, but no consideration is given to its nature.
>
> > I wasn't aware you were trying to elaborate a MOQ theory of information, otherwise I would have let the details aside and just say
> that MOQ isn't expected to replace science or technology (is it?)
>
> Neither was I. The idea just came out as I was typing, and I liked it so I thought I would leave it there. I don't think I am trying
> to do any such thing. I am just trying to understand these things a little better because it came as a shock to realise that I didn't
> understand them at all.
>
> But I have to ask: Is it such a ridiculous idea? My interest in the MOQ is that I think that it might be useful - that if it
> provides a better explanation of the way things are we should be able use that explanation to do things better. If it really is a
> better explanation then I would expect to be possible to apply it to any area, particularly science and technology.
Sorry for the sarcasm in my message. I use sarcasm just because it seems the easiest way round my problems with English, and I
shouldn't.
IMO, the MOQ tells us that no static pattern *is* reality. It doesn't attack science per se, it rather it warns us that a slice of
reality is left out from science's domain due to the very definition of science. It also warns us that this slice isn't less real than
the "objective" slice, and that we *know* this (ZAMM). So I see MOQ as a possible source of theories that complement science, tackling
the untackled. It is a metaphysics powered by the idea that the meta- is something we perceive as clearly as the -physics, and attacking
the "western common sense" that relegates the "meta-" to subjective speculation.
In the case of information theory (as is), it is "just" *mathematics*. Information theory defines information. It deals with a model and
thereby addresses all aspects of the world that fit the model. Unlike physics, the model is carved in stone, and not expected to match
some previously perceived aspect of the world. It is rather the other way round, and this is, again, because information theory is
mathematics. Like I wouldn't expect MOQ to modify geometry, I don't expect MOQ to modify information theory.
You seem to suggest that we could rethink information theory by going back to the rationale for the map and start anew there (and you
consistently label IT as "engineering" rather than mathematics). I think this is interesting, but the problem is that the object and
purpose of such a new theory, to me, are obscure as much as the object and purpose of the classical IT are clear. This was the source of
my "sarcasm". It is *not* ridiculous; it is heavily under-defined and vague.
I have the feeling I disrupted the flow of the thread. Sorry for that. I will be happy to sit back and see what happens.
All the Best,
Andrea
-- Andrea Sosio P&T-TPD-SP Tel. (8)9006 mailto: Andrea.Sosio@italtel.itMOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:45 BST