[Fis] Re: Post-concluding remarks:Realism/anturealism: Laws of nature?[Fis] Re: Post-concluding remarks:Realism/anturealism: Laws of nature?
From: <karl.javorszky@chello.at>
Date: Thu 26 Oct 2006 - 14:29:16 CEST
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.
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.)
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
_______________________________________________
|
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 on Thu 26 Oct 2006 - 14:32:27 CEST