Vedr.: RE: Realism and Information

Now this discussion goes deeper into the relation between meaning and information, and Andrei and I seem to be more on the same track, that information - in Shannon's sense - can me seen as the quantitative aspect of meaningful messages. But does it make it less meaningful talking about information without meaning in the physio-chemical world as one aspects of the description of the organization processes of life? Such a use seems to be the general way to use it also for the Wienerians. But they then forget to talk about meaning.

I feel more and more that one of our purpose could be to classify all the different approaches, definitions of information and their consequenses to make the positions more clear. Part of that could be a working towards the minimum requirement for defining a concept of information. Both Wiener and Shannon reflected too little on the metaphysical backgrounds for their conceptualizations and that has created a lot of misunderstandings about the subject area of different conceptions of information.

S�ren Brier

http://www.flec.kvl.dk/personalprofile.asp?id=sbr&p=engelsk

Ed. of Cybernetics & Human Knowing

http://www.imprint-academic.com/C&HK

>>> abir.igamberdiev@risoe.dk 19-12-01 12:34 >>>
I would like to agree with James Barham and acknowledge that information is
intrinsically related to life processes. Information is what can be
transmitted as encoded message. Without encoding (semiotic stucture) we
cannot transmit anything. Encoding appears with life and information
transmittance corresponding to this event appears with life. But strongly
opposing paninformationist and pansemiotic approach I could consider
evolution of the Universe as referring to the generalized observer that
gathers information reflecting physical picture.

Observability itself selects criteria for existence e.g. by defining
fundamental constants of nature. Actually we are discussing Pythagorean
paradigm but strong Pythagoreism must be ruled out: the Cosmos organized by
number appears as a result of observability, of applying Logos to it. This
is what life is doing: it selects possible criteria for existence and thus
evolves. But these criteria are objective in the sense that more general
they are, more common for all they are. Final complete free observability
will be a criterion that establishes and explains parameters of physical
world itself. If this can be regarded as paninformationist and pansemiotic
view, it is in quite different, non-classical and non-mechanistic sense. The
same opposite sense will have also the selectionist principle.

Observation also introduces non-equilibrium in the world. To observe
something is possible by disturbing it, by acting and selecting some finite
features. E.g. we should impose light to something to see it and this is
very essential on microscales. Thus such concepts as enthropy and
negenthropy (corresponding) to information are applicable only to external
mechanistic description. They do not clarify the meaning of information. We
can clarify what is information only within the framework of reflection and
encoding appearing within observation/quantum measurement.

Andrei Igamberdiev