Loet, we seem to be in agreement on Shannon and physical information, or information1. Regarding information2:
Monday, April 9, 2012, 12:08:38 PM, Loet wrote: >[Robin wrote] >> But regarding the measurement of information2, this is absolutely >> impossible! The reason is that difference2 is inherently >> subjective: > This seems too apodictic (and perhaps outdated) to me. If the > receiving (or observing) system is a human being then you are right. That was my main point. Such domains for me are the most important, though I acknowledge that "your mileage may vary" (which is of course precisely the point). > If it is a discourse which contains uncertainty, information2 may > add to that uncertainty or reduce it. This is measurable. It seems > to me that precisely here we are at the research front. But that is a very limited concept of information2. You say "we can measure information2", where in my opinion you should say "we can measure what can be viewed as information2 in certain very restricted and well defined domains". By excluding humans you lose my interest, anyway. Sorry! This is my second and therefore last list message of the week. -- Robin Faichney <http://www.robinfaichney.org/> _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
