List,
Please allow me to respond to Loet about the definition of information
stated below.
1. the definition of information as uncertainty is counter-intuitive
("bizarre"); (p. 27)
I agree. I struggled with this definition for a long time before realising
that Shannon was really discussing "amount of information" or the number of
bits needed to convey a message. He was looking for a formula that would
provide an accurate estimate of the number of bits needed to convey a
message and realised that the amount of information (number of bits) needed
to convey a message was dependent on the "amount" of uncertainty that had
to be eliminated and so he equated these.
It makes sense to do this, but we must distinguish between "amount of
information" and "information". For example, we can measure amount of
water in liters, but this does not tell us what water is and likewise the
measure we use for "amount of information" does not tell us what
information is. We can, for example equate the amount of water needed to
fill a container with the volume of the container, but we should not think
that water is therefore identical to an empty volume. Similarly we should
not think that information is identical to uncertainty.
By equating the number of bits needed to convey a message with the "amount
of uncertainty" that has to be eliminated Shannon, in effect, equated
opposites so that he could get an estimate of the number of bits needed to
eliminate the uncertainty. We should not therefore consider that this
equation establishes what information is.
Dick
On 18 December 2016 at 15:05, Loet Leydesdorff <l...@leydesdorff.net> wrote:
> 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
>
>
--
4 Austin Dr. Prior Park St. James, Barbados BB23004
Tel: 246-421-8855
Cell: 246-243-5938
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
