Dear Pedro,
Somehow my post on the definition of information did not find its way into
the FIS group. I am repeating it here in hope that you find it interesting
enough to include. A little presentation on this subject, merely a joke,
may be found at
<http://www.patronov.net/research/topics/diec.ppt>http://www.patronov.net/research/topics/diec.ppt
.
A definition of a concept is expression of its meaning through other
concepts. When we set up a logical system, some concepts have to be defined
axiomatically, and other are expressed throug them. Typically we all
(especially when we try to construct definitions) remain within the old
Marxist-Berkelian paradigm of material and ideal. For example the phrase
"information is physical" relates information to the matter, as physical and
material are, in fact synonims.
What if we try to build on the axiomatic definition of information
instead?Then
Information is the primary entity of the world.
All the entities in the world are information entities. All the processes
are information processes.
Physical is the aspect of information perceptible sensually (i.e. through
vision, hearing, etc).
Ideal is the aspect of information that is perceived rationally.
The material world is the totality of physical aspects of all information
entities,
the material projection of information.
The ideal world is the world of ideas, the totality of ideal aspects of all
information entities.
Interaction never exists without conveying information (say, about the
interacting objects)
Information is never transmitted without interaction.
Example. A book is information entity. The paper and ink color, the feel of
the cover, etc are perceived directly via senses and are material aspects of
the book. The contents of the text, the ideas conveyed by the book, the
publisher's data are ideal aspects.
It looks much more economic this way, as it turns out that matter is much
simpler to define through information than the other way around. Same with
ideal. And what is the "Principle Question of Philosophy" (of what is
primary - material or ideal) becomes perfectly dialectically eliminated in
the goegelian sense.
If the answer is difficult then the question is wrong. Those who work with
physics know the problem of expanding a plane wave into spherical harmonics
as an example of converting a simple and clear object into a very complex
and obscure structure because of wrong choice of basis.
Yours sincerely,
Igor Rojdestvenski
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:marijuan@unizar.es>Pedro Marijuan
To: <mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>fis@listas.unizar.es
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Re: What is the definition of information ? (fis
teamworkship!)
Dear Hans and colleagues,
I quite agree with the suggestion. Actually it dovetails with previous
comments by Michel's, Soeren's and other parties. Maybe this advocacy on
dedicated teamworkship is a sign of maturity in our common enterprise...
In practical matters, let me suggest that you three (and a few others)
could have some private exchanges on how to organize the task, at least
during some initial steps. Also, given that during the Paris conference
there were informal conversations among some parties on launching a
"natural computer science" team (and some other party was trying to promote
a "sustainable development" team too), there seems to be the need to create
a new platform, sort of a web log, to collectively lodge these potential
projects. In a few weeks, the institute I am currently working in (I3A),
will offer us one log platform for housing these tentative teams (at no
cost). So, the present discussion list and the existing web pages, could
have a nice and scholarly complement.
Starting dedicated teamworkship, in whatever areas, may bring substantial
advantages, if properly organized. Recently I have read about the need of
three kinds of scientists: explorers, organizers, and administrators
(institutionalists). Definitely, our band of "lonely explorers" has now
crossed some threshold and needs some starting into those organization and
institutionalization dimensions.
all the best
Pedro
At 10:26 06/09/2005, you wrote:
>...or should we aspire to elaborate a clearer vision of the whole problem?
>
>Dear Pedro -- wouldn't it be exciting if a useful definition, or a program
>of definitions, could come out of this collective, open process? It would
>be something new in science, and very appropriate in the computer age.
>
>Around 1850 there were at least twelve people who proposed something
>resembling the law of conservation of energy, but of course they didn't
>communicate much. But they were zeroing in on the same goal. Maybe now
>is the time for that to happen with the concept of information.
>
>Cheers,
>Hans
Received on Tue Sep 13 12:12:46 2005
