Info and Physics

In reply to Edwina Taborsky who wrote:

>No, your understanding of the Peircean triadic process is not correct.
>The triadic process is not a serial, cumulative action, but a kind of
>moebius strip interlinked action. So, one can't say that the
>energy/matter in an existential phase which is called The Immediate
>Object is completely lacking in information because that phase
>doesn't exist in an isolate form. Yes, in itself, we can say that the
>phase is pure sensate data and without meaning ...which is to say, it
>does not exist as 'informed matter'....but the phase doesn't exist by
>itself.

>Notice also what you have said...which shows how unclear the term of
>'information' is. You state that "information is in the domain of the
>Sign, and meaning (meaningful information) is in the domain of the
>Interpertation.... Prior to the interpretation, there is only
>information (meaningless information) which is the domain of the Sign.
>I think that the multiple uses of 'information' are unclear in the
>above quote. Furthermore, I don't see how one can have 'meaningless
>information'.

>Why do you say that 'information is in the domain of the Sign'? The
>Sign is the Representamen, and is the whole set of relations of the
>whole semiosic process. It operates as a communal code...and I would
>define its content as 'knowledge' rather than information. It is most
>certainly not 'meaningless'.

>My use of the term 'information' is not that of Shannon. That is, when
>I use the term 'information', I consider that it has meaning. What is
>matter that has not yet been interpreted? It is data, signal. In
>Peirce's terms, it would be the Dynamic Object and the Immediate
>Object. The former is external to your system; the latter has been
>internally accepted by your system but can dissipate rapidly unless it
>is 'understood' and transformed into information (Interpretant).

Thanks for your correction of my understanding of the Peircean
triadic process.

Comming to meaningful/meaningless information, I understand
your preference in using the term "information" as meaningful.
But I feel the Shannon aspect cannot be neglected when talking
about "information". Millions of persons use the term with
the Shannon background (i.e. meaningless information).

And this is why I feel it is important to keep available both
readings of the term, with as clear as possible an
identification of the type used. To this end, usage of
expressions like "meaningless information" or "meaningful
information" is a solution. And trying to modelize how
meaningless information can generate meaningful
information is a subject of interest which brings to the
notion of "meaning generator system".

As already written, it is possible to propose a model based on
a meaningless information incident on a system submitted
to a constraint. If the meaningless information received
by the system has some connection with the constraint of
the system, then the system will generate a meaningful
information that will be used by the system to satisfy it's
constraint.
This approach allows to define a Meaning Generator System.
More on this in FIS 2002 "Information and Meaning".

Regards

Christophe Menant
Received on Sun May 26 22:09:53 2002