Dear James and colleagues,
Weaver (1949) made two major remarks about his coauthor (Shannon)'s
contribution:
1. the definition of information as uncertainty is counter-intuitive
("bizarre"); (p. 27)
2. "In particular, information must not be confused with meaning." (p. 8)
The definition of information as relevant for a system of reference confuses
information with "meaningful information" and thus sacrifices the surplus
value of Shannon's counter-intuitive definition.
information observer
that integrates interactive processes such as
physical interactions such photons stimulating the retina of the eye,
human-machine interactions (this is the level that Shannon lives on),
biological interaction such body temperature relative to touch ice or heat
source, social interaction such as this forum started by Pedro, economic
interaction such as the stock market, ... [Lerner, page 1].
We are in need of a theory of meaning. Otherwise, one cannot measure
meaningful information. In a previous series of communications we discussed
redundancy from this perspective.
Lerner introduces mathematical expectation E[Sap] (difference between of a
priory entropy [sic] and a posteriori entropy), which is distinguished from
the notion of relative information Iap (Learner, page 7).
) expresses in bits of information the information generated when the a
priori distribution is turned into the a posteriori one . This follows
within the Shannon framework without needing an observer. I use this
equation, for example, in my 1995-book The Challenge of Scientometrics
(Chapters 8 and 9), with a reference to Theil (1972). The relative
information is defined as the H/H(max).
I agree that the intuitive notion of information is derived from the Latin
"in-formare" (Varela, 1979). But most of us do no longer use "force" and
"mass" in the intuitive (Aristotelian) sense. J The proliferation of the
meanings of information if confused with "meaningful information" is
indicative for an "index sui et falsi", in my opinion. The repetitive
discussion lames the progression at this list. It is "like asking whether a
glass is half empty or half full" (Hayles, 1990, p. 59).
This act of forming forming an information process results in the
construction of an observer that is the owner [holder] of information.
The system of reference is then no longer the message, but the observer who
provides meaning to the information (uncertainty). I agree that this is a
selection process, but the variation first has to be specified independently
(before it can be selected.
And Lerner introduces the threshold between objective and subjective
observes (page 27). This leads to a consideration selection and
cooperation that includes entanglement.
I don't see a direct relation between information and entanglement. An
observer can be entangled.
Best,
Loet
PS. Pedro: Let me assume that this is my second posting in the week which
ends tonight. L.
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
