Interesting...but the assumption is that data only becomes information when it is transmitted from one source to another. But information 'intelligence' can be derived from without.
On Jun 4, 2011 4:54 PM, "Lonnie Clay" <claylon...@comcast.net> wrote: > Wonderful to hear from you einseele, especially on this topic! > > Information in isolation, taken out of context one bit at a time, is > incompressible, and often binary. However, even a simple yes/no DOES have > context because it is subject to the experiential base of the receiving > awareness/computational entity. So *I* maintain that information is ALWAYS > compressible until it reaches a critical limit of uncertainty based upon > each unique receiver's experiential base. > > The question then devolves to "How many receiver's sensoriums do I desire to > attain comprehension of my message?" That depends upon objectives of the > sender. Furthermore, the question arises as to the impact of > miscommunication upon those who are not the objectives of a particular > message's transmission dispersal. Interception of messages outside the > transmitter's intended routing list is so common as to be taken as a given. > *I* maintain therefor that the optimum composition strategy for messages > MUST include as a PRIMARY objective the goal of making messages not only > incomprehensible outside of the routing list, but also contain content such > that each intercepted message will be DISCARDED as "nonsense" by > interceptors outside of the routing list of intended recipients. By > following this precept there is little harm which will occur due to messages > scattered freely to the public, such as my messages on the internet... > > I estimate that limited comprehension of the surface text of the above > statements can be attained by 1% of the population. Deeper understanding of > the implications can be attained by 0.1% of the population. Since it is > intuitively obvious to those who have provided intelligence tests to me, > that due to my scoring at the 0.1% level of intelligence on a consistent > basis that my intelligence must be at the 0.1% level rather than (for > example) at the 1 per billion level, then there can't possibly be anything > even deeper to be discerned. However, I note that sometimes *I* surprise > even *myself* by how cute or clever I have been in past postings. > > What might those further hidden meanings be? *GOD* only knows LOLOL... > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > On Saturday, June 4, 2011 4:35:29 AM UTC-7, einseele wrote: >> >> Which is the compression limit >> Physics teaches that such limit is mass >> >> So the question is. Which is the limit for information compression. >> >> The answer to this question is about information itself. >> >> If information cannot be compressed beyond certain limit, then >> information has mass. >> >> If information can be compressed limitless, then information does not >> consist of a mass, therefore is not compressible. >> >> I believe this is the case, and the next question should be. >> Well, if information has no mass, what are we compressing in its >> place, and where and what is information. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/Yk9CSUlkeWF6SzhK. > To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
