Re: Theory of Information.

Dear Colleagues:

This message attempts to tie together several dangling threads of
relations generated in earlier discussions. I respond to Soren, Ted,
Pedro and Rafael.

Soren: Thank you for your thoughtful response on your views of the
place of information. We agree that a connection exists among the
concepts of communication, information, meaning and semiotics. Let
us look deeper than a concept of connection and ask about the
possibility of relationships among these concepts and what we would
expect for a conceptual theory which addressed these relationships.

What would generate coherence among such concepts?

   These four concepts stem from four different roots - although one
could argue that "meaning" and "semiotics" are not so distant from
one another.
A coherent theory of information should address these four concepts
as well as existing theories of science - commensurate with the
pre-existing theories of force, mass, space, time, molecular biology,
medical diagnosis and therapy, arts and language and so forth.

What would be a criteria for theoretical distinctiveness?

Communication is remarkable for its distinctive forms and
consequences. On the other hand, as we have searched for the essence
of information, we have cycled back to mathematical representations
and upward to cultural significance. I remain puzzled by our
inability to identity and agree upon the essential qualities of
information.

The issue of (bio)semiotics opens another avenue which we scarcely explored.
Currently, two primary sets of symbols are used in the natural
sciences. One set of symbols uses logical and mathematical symbols.
The chemical symbols, the other set of symbols used for the partially
abstract natural sciences, are used in molecular biology and form a
basis for the synthesis of biomolecules and biological signalling
processes, both internally within the organism and between the
organism and its ecoment. If (bio)semiotics is to become established
as a source of description of biological and biomedical information,
how will it establish coherence with either of the two existing
symbol sets? Would a biosemiotic symbol set bridge the relations
between chemical symbols and mathematical symbols? A daunting
challenge... What would motivate the creation and acceptance of a
third symbol set for biosemiotics?

The issue of meaning may be the most difficult. Indeed, it is so
intertwined with emergence, history, philosophy, cultural structures
and related concepts that...???

Ted:

The suggestion of focus groups has potential from my perspective.
Examination of the options of relations among focus groups could be a
starting point.

Pedro:

A message via surface mail was sent.

Rafael:

Your response on your views of the self of time was carefully
articulated but I remain skeptical. The abstractions of time and
space and mass are continuous variables, images of our conceptual
domains, as Max Jammer well articulates. These concepts work
together in quantitative structures to bring coherence to physical
measurements. I remain puzzled on how these concepts relate to the
logic of chemical or biological processes.

My closing remark would be simple:

Coherence within nature is constructed from choices among
correspondence relations within nature. What forces of nature guide
the choices of the communities seeking coherence?

Cheers

Jerry LR Chandler
Received on Sat Feb 1 04:48:27 2003