Dai --
{phenomenon 1}
{phenomenon 2} --> {Phenomena 1 & 2} ---> {phenomena 1.2,3}
{phenomenon 3}
The process from left to right is generalization.
‘Information’ IS a generalization.
generalities form the substance of philosophy. Info happens to a case
of generalization which can be mathematized, which in turn allows
it to be generalized even more.
So, what’s the problem?
STAN
On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Dai Griffiths
<dai.griffith...@gmail.com <mailto:dai.griffith...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Information is not “something out there” which “exists”
otherwise than as our construct.
I agree with this. And I wonder to what extent our problems in
discussing information come from our desire to shoe-horn many
different phenomena into the same construct. It would be possible
to disaggregate the construct. It be possible to discuss the
topics which we address on this list without using the word
'information'. We could discuss redundancy, variety, constraint,
meaning, structural coupling, coordination, expectation, language,
etc.
In what ways would our explanations be weakened?
In what ways might we gain in clarity?
If we were to go down this road, we would face the danger that our
discussions might become (even more) remote from everyday human
experience. But many scientific discussions are remote from
everyday human experience.
Dai
On 20/12/16 08:26, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A distribution contains uncertainty that can be measured in terms
of bits of information.
Alternatively: the expected information content /H /of a
probability distribution is .
/H/is further defined as probabilistic entropy using Gibb’s
formulation of the entropy .
This definition of information is an operational definition. In
my opinion, we do not need an essentialistic definition by
answering the question of “what is information?” As the
discussion on this list demonstrates, one does not easily agree
on an essential answer; one can answer the question “how is
information defined?” Information is not “something out there”
which “exists” otherwise than as our construct.
Using essentialistic definitions, the discussion tends not to
move forward. For example, Stuart Kauffman’s and Bob Logan’s
(2007) definition of information “as natural selection assembling
the very constraints on the release of energy that then
constitutes work and the propagation of organization.” I asked
several times what this means and how one can measure this
information. Hitherto, I only obtained the answer that colleagues
who disagree with me will be cited. JAnother answer was that
“counting” may lead to populism. J
Best,
Loet
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loet Leydesdorff
Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>l...@leydesdorff.net
<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/>http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty, SPRU,
<http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of Sussex;
Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>,
Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,
<http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;
Visiting Professor, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University
of London;
<http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en>http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en
<http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en>
*From:*Dick Stoute [mailto:dick.sto...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, December 19, 2016 12:48 PM
*To:* l...@leydesdorff.net <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>
*Cc:* James Peters; u...@umces.edu <mailto:u...@umces.edu>; Alex
Hankey; FIS Webinar
*Subject:* Re: [Fis] What is information? and What is life?
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 <mailto: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. JThe 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 <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
<http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
--
4 Austin Dr. Prior Park St. James, Barbados BB23004
Tel: 246-421-8855 <tel:%28246%29%20421-8855>
Cell: 246-243-5938 <tel:%28246%29%20243-5938>
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
<http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
--
-----------------------------------------
Professor David (Dai) Griffiths
Professor of Education
School of Education and Psychology
The University of Bolton
Deane Road
Bolton, BL3 5AB
Office: T3 02
http://www.bolton.ac.uk/IEC
SKYPE: daigriffiths
UK Mobile+44 (0)7491151559 <tel:+44%207491%20151559>
Spanish Mobile:+ 34 687955912 <tel:+34%20687%2095%2059%2012>
Work:+ 44 (0)7826917705 <tel:+44%207826%20917705>
(Please don't leave voicemail)
email:
d.e.griffi...@bolton.ac.uk <mailto:d.e.griffi...@bolton.ac.uk>
dai.griffith...@gmail.com <mailto:dai.griffith...@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
<http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
