----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:kjellman@dsv.su.se>Arne Kjellman
To: <mailto:karl.javorszky@chello.at>Karl Javorszky ;
<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>fis
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 10:52 AM
Subject: [FIS] Comment to Karl's reply to Andrei
Comment on Karl�s reply to Andrei:
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.
AAAA: I guess you here claim you are a realist that has a real (true?)
understanding of information. A bold claim for being a realist to my mind!
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).
AAAA: Well here you make a dualistic statement and immediately accepts the
realist model of speaking and thus assumes the validity of realism � which
is an illegal position attempting to criticize monism or even science.
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).
AAAA: If you try to defend realism this is a �wise� and probably necessary
assumption � however if you try to advance science beyond it state of
present paradoxes this is a devastating assumption.
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;
AAAAA: This is why you cannot understand my position: I have never claimed
that the �outside� never exists � my claim it is illegal to �speak about�
it simply because we cannot feature it in words. �Whereof one cannot speak,
thereof one must be silent� ::Wittgenstein.
* 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.
AAAAA: Agree!
We disregard the logical diversity of the impressions we process.
By Darwin's laws, (AAAA: here you are a realist again!) 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.
AAAA: Agree!
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!
AAAA: It�s a choice simply � we can analyse the background as well � I agree!
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.
AAAAA: I do not know about the D-based counting system (reference?) but I
follow your thoughts. Apart from the divergence mentioned below I think SOA
could benefit from using such a system of quantification.
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.
AAAAA: And here you slips � not in interpreting the D-based counting system
� but in its application. You here fail to take the step necessary that
overthrows the realist�s belief system :: The fire you talking about � and
the domain which you apply your counting system is your personal EXPERIENCE
� not some imaginative reality. This is the only valid use we can make of
an IS-operator (Is-predicate).
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.
AAAAA: However there is a more urgent and pressing need for using
probability calculus � this is a way we can provide the LAWS OF EVOLUTIONS
OF EXPERIENCE that are used to predict future happenings.
Finally to my mind you have still some crucial steps to take in order
suggest a useful model of information. You must let go your realist
conviction.
Best Arne
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Fri Oct 27 11:13:46 2006
