Dear Marcus and colleagues, I've watched the video and I have some remarks that I hope will contribute to an improvement and clarification of ideas. I must confess I found the video a bit dense and difficult to understand at some points. I suppose that it would helped that more examples were cited as sometimes the entities named are difficult to grasp.
The remarks are the following: - In the examples that concerns with metadata definition how does a map constitute metadata? Shouldn't it be the legend of the map? The same for the alphabet. - How to justify the Darwinian hypotheses of information building? If delta z is to be understood as a 'fitness' or 'cost function' in an Darwinian process, should we interpret 'meaning' as quantifiable? Why a Darwinian process and not other? - What should be the relation between 'role' and eventually 'model' in the explanation of the entropy gap and Information building? I suppose 'role' has to do with the function of the deltas but shouldn't 'model of the world' be more appropriate? - How do you justify the implicit assumption that there should be a continuity between 'direct' versus 'indirect' roles in the reduction of the entropy gap and building of Information? - I found the explanation for the composition of the different entropy components, at the end, very difficult to understand. I suppose examples would helped very much. In which concerns the definition of Bateson as "the difference that makes a difference" I never heard comments about a distinct approach that employs instead of 'difference', simply "relation between data". Take for example two points in space, one definition of 'line' or any other geometric figure is something that relates those points. Take two letters of the alphabet, one definition of word is something that relates those letters. More complex concepts are always something that relates less complex concepts, in a nested infinite (and networked?) space. If this relations are mentally established they can after be named (by association with a word) and after they can also be shared. Could this open process of order building also fit as theory of Information? Thank you for your comments. Kind Regards António Fonseca
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis