RE: [Fis] Re: about meaning (FIS)

From: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat 11 Oct 2003 - 10:19:17 CEST

Dear Loet,
Some answers to your comments

> > CM: We can agree, I feel, on the fact that differences per se are
> > not part of reality. Only what is measurable is part of reality.
> > This implies presence of Signal/Information (S/I) and of a
> > system able receive and interpret the S/I.
> > Also, linked to some engineering background, I like to
> > seperate signal (variation of energy: air vibration,
> > presence of ink, ..) from information (component of the
> > signal: amplitude modulation, shape of the ink deposit, ..).
>
> But both the signal and the information are measurable and thus part of
> reality in your definition? Albeit that they belong to different
> domains, isn't it?
>
Yes, both are measurable but they do not belong to different domains.
I is a component of S. Take as an example a radio wave that is
modulated in amplitude and in frequency. The radio wave overall is
a signal. The amplitude modulation and the frequency modulation
are two different information carried by the radio wave signal. And
if you consider alone a frequency modulated radio wave, the signal
and the information are identical.
An information is always carried by a signal (more on this in Entropy
publication "Information and Meaning"
http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e5020193.pdf)
> [...]
>
> > CM: Yes. But again, difference per se do not exist (see 1).
> > And consequently, we need to speak explicitly about S/I
> > from the beginning.
>
> Difference, however, is measurable and therefore part of reality
> according to your above definition? Otherwise, reality exists only of
> billiard balls. Since Newton we consider the observable stability as the
> result of action and reaction. Reality can be considered to be more
> dynamic like force, action, etc. Difference exists from this perspective
> because it is measurable. Otherwise, one would only be able to measure
> the fingerprints of reality.
>
Yes difference is measurable, using different measurement tools
if needed.
>
> > CM: This is the perhaps the point where, in your approach, meaningful
> > information can be differentiated from meaningless information.
> > Meaningful information exists to intiate an action that will satisfy
> > the constraint of the system. Potential information would be
> > meaningless information, and information that causes something would
> > be meaningful information. Would you agree ?
>
> Would meaningless information (e.g., noise) not exist?
>
Meaningless information does of course exists. With the MGS approach,
we say that information that has not been produced by a system
submitted to a constraint is meaningless.
And getting to your example on noise, one could say that white
noise is meaningless. But noise made by a child can be
meaningful (vs the child constraints to be satisfied).
(more on this also in the Entropy Publication)

Cheers

Christophe
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Sat Oct 11 10:20:27 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon 07 Mar 2005 - 10:24:46 CET