[Fis] Re: Post-concluding remarks:Realism/anturealism: Laws of nature?

Dear Andrei and FIS,

please allow me to ask you not to include this person in your statement " we do not have at the moment the real understanding of information. It is always reduced to the definition of probability, through entropy. "

I publicly state - and probably this is the best podium to state this - that I do have at the moment the real understanding of information.

You make a logical error by stating that the idea of information is always reduced to the definition of probability, through entropy.

Let us separate the idea of information from its appearances (like the idea of fire to one burning fire). The idea of information is that - due to a small inexactitude in the folding of one- into moredimansional metrics - there is a basic flaw in our counting system, if we try to use it to understand outside reality (which you have wisely assumed to exist). As long as we regard our rational system of counting in itself, like a measurement instrument on the shelf of the laboratory, it is error-free, tautologic and exact. As soon as we try to use it to count and measure the outside, we run into difficulties.
Dealing with these difficulties, one can have following startegies:
* assuming that the outside does not exist at all: Arne's position, rejected;
* saying that we do not understand it: your position, rejected;
* checking the measurement instruments: my position, useful.
Our measurement instruments count solely and only on units that are similar to each other. We disregard the logical diversity of the impressions we process.
By Darwin's laws, we are rewarded (by increased chances of reproduction) if we recognise the similar in a multitude which has properties of similarity and dissimilarity. We perceive the similar before a background of dissimilarity. That our nervous system is built like this should not discourage us from investigating the properties of the background, too. We are like moths being attracted to the light (of similarity) and I am a moth which says: dark can have differing degrees. Wont we count the degrees of dark? The answer, usually, is: what, dark! Dont you feel the truth? It is light that attracts us!
So, the dialogue does get a bit tedious.
Unfortunately, diversity is NOT exactly the opposite of similarity. One can count in units of diversity. One can build a counting system based on units of diversity. This D-based counting system neatly interacts with the traditional, similarity-based counting system, generating lots of what people call "natural constants" along the way.

So, the idea of information is deeply understood to mean the average difference (torsion, slack) between counting systems, where one counting system is based on axiomatis similarity of units, and the other is based on axiomatic dissimilarity of units. (This is like saying that the basis of our spatial seeing is the distance between our eyes and that we have two eyes.)
The realisation of information is best observed by assuming probabilistic models of distribution of this bias.

So, please exclude me from your sweeping statement "we don't understand what information is", and thank you for the opportunity to add to your statement "we assume it to be a concept of probability theory" the clarification, that realisations of the slack showing itself under some circumstances can well be modeled by using methods of probability theory.

There is a small inexactitude in the measurement instrument (because it is only one of two oculars). This inexactitude blurs the vision. Information is not in the visual picture where it can be caught or declared to be statistical phenomen: information is the inexact nature of a mono-logical describing system. The inexactitude adds up and loses the picture, making us belkieve that the picture is blurred. The blurs can be discussed by means of probability theory, but a better idea is to use the other half of the stereo-logical description tool, too, and the vision will be beautiful.

Karl

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu Oct 26 14:32:27 2006