RE: [Fis] A definition of Information

Dear colleagues,
 
I would like to make a few points:
 
1. In response to my mail about the mutual information in three
dimensions, I received an email from Aleks Jakulin who has published
with Ivan Bratko an interesting paper entitled "Quantifying and
Visualizing Attribute Interactions: An Approach based on Entropy," at
<http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.AI/0308002> http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.AI/0308002
. His "interaction information" (McGill, 1954) is the same as the mutual
information in three dimensions, but one can perhaps argue about the
sign (plus or minus). These authors also provide a nice overview of a
relevant literature.
 
In my opinion, the alternation of the sign is nice from an evolutionary
perspective because it indicates the negative operation of selection.
While selection can be considered as a negative operation, selection of
selection can lead to stabilization or second-order variation. In
Aleks's application, the approach is from the (potentially virtual) top
and then the sign is in the other order.
 
2. It seems to me that providing meaning to information can be
considered as a function of the system over its own time axis (clock).
The operation of providing meaning can also be differentiated in terms
of different codes used. Providing meaning first assumes an internal
axis along the time dimension, but this can be volatile if not
stabilized in next-order codifications of the operation. The different
(system-specific) codes can be expected to lead to different
frequencies. Particularly useful in my opinion was:
 
Smolensky, P. (1986). Information Processing in Dynamical Systems:
Foundation of Harmony Theory. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland & t.
P. R. Group (Eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing (Vol. I, pp.
194-281). Cambridge, MA/ London: MIT Press.
 
3. I understand the discussions about Pierce if I use the schema from
Leibniz. Firstness then corresponds with vis viva (living force). The
vis viva is made contingent when stabilized in the res extensa or the
res cogitans, in different monads. This is probably Secondness. The time
axis within the monads then generates Thirdness? Is this understanding
correct? Pierce's title with the word "Monist" can hardly be incidental.
 
In Leibniz's theory, however, the vis viva (or Firstness) is given in
God's creation by the revelation. Of course, one may wish to beleive
that firstness is given, but after the reflexive turn it seems to me
that it is theoretical construct. Thus, it is grounded (ontologically)
in scientific discourse and therefore has epistemologically the status
of a hypothesis. I agree that we need this type of a hypothesis:
communication is not only formal (except in the mathematical theory of
communication), but also substantive. The specification of the firstness
("what is communicated when the system communicates") provides the
information with specific meaning.
 
For example, if molecules are communicated, one expects the system to be
alife (Maturana). If meaning is communicated, one expects the system to
be a mind or a discourse (Luhmann). Chemical reactions, for example,
communicate by exchanging atoms or subatomic particles.
 
I would like to hear whether this interpretation of Pierce is correct.
 
With kind regards,
 
 
Loet
  _____

Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
 <mailto:loet@leydesdorff.net> loet@leydesdorff.net ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/

 
 <http://www.upublish.com/books/leydesdorff-sci.htm> The Challenge of
Scientometrics ; <http://www.upublish.com/books/leydesdorff.htm> The
Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society
Received on Fri Mar 19 20:15:18 2004