Re: [FRIAM] Uncertainty vs Information - redux and resolution
Eric, True enough. And yet, this is what Information Theory has decided to do: treat the amount of _information_ that gets realized by performing an experiment as the same as the amount of _uncertainty_ from which it was "liberated". That way, they can use entropy as the measure of both. I'm personally sympathetic to an argument that they are not equivalent. My predilection suggests that there is more value in the uncertainty that exists before the experiment than there is in the information that results afterwards. I would expect there would be others who would put more value on the "liberated" information. But I would have to put a lot more thought than I have into formalizing this. I like your observation. It opens up the possibility of re-doing Information Theory, and ending up with one measure for uncertainty and another for information. And we could finally depose the word "entropy"! Grant On 7/20/11 3:18 PM, ERIC P. CHARLES wrote: That is potentially fascinating. However, it is not terribly interesting to state that we can establish a conservation principle merely by giving a name to the absence of something, and then pointing out that if we start with a set amount of that something, and take it away in chunks, then the amount that is there plus the amount that is gone always equals the amount we started with. What is the additional insight? Eric On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 04:27 PM, *Grant Holland * wrote: In a thread early last month I was doing my thing of "stirring the pot" by making noise about the equivalence of 'information' and 'uncertainty' - and I was quoting Shannon to back me up. We all know that the two concepts are ultimately semantically opposed - if for no other reason than uncertainty adds to confusion and information can help to clear it up. So, understandably, Owen - and I think also Frank - objected somewhat to my equating them. But I was able to overwhelm the thread with more Shannon quotes, so the thread kinda tapered off. What we all were looking for, I believe, is for Information Theory to back up our common usage and support the notion that information and uncertainty are, in some sense, semantically opposite; while at the same time they are both measured by the same function: Shannon's version of entropy (which is also Gibbs' formula with some constants established). Of course, Shannon does equate information and uncertainty - at least mathematically so, if not semantically so. Within the span of three sentences in his famous 1948 paper, he uses the words "information", "uncertainty" and "choice" to describe what his concept of entropy measures. But he never does get into any semantic distinctions among the three - only that all three are measured by /entropy/. Even contemporary information theorists like Vlatko Vedral, Professor of Quantum Information Science at Oxford, appear to be of no help with any distinction between 'information' and 'uncertainty'. In his 2010 book _Decoding Reality: The Universe as Quantum Information_, he traces the notion of information back to the ancient Greeks. "The ancient Greeks laid the foundation for its [information's] development when they suggested that the information content of an event somehow depends only on how probable this event really is. Philosophers like Aristotle reasoned that the more surprised we are by an event the more information the event carries Following this logic, we conclude that information has to be inversely proportional to probability, i. e. events with smaller probability carry more information" But a simple inverse proportional formula like I(E) = 1/Pr(E), where E is an event, does not suffice as a measure of 'uncertainty/information', because it does not ensure the additivity of independent events. (We really like additivity in our measuring functions.) The formula needs to be tweaked to give us that. Vedral does the tweaking for additivity and gives us the formula used by Information Theorists to measure the amount of 'uncertainty/information' in a single event. The formula is I(E) = log (1/Pr(E)). (Any base will do.) It is interesting that if this function is treated as a random variable, then its first moment (expected value) is Shannon's formula for entropy. But it was the Russian probability theorist A. I. Khinchin who provided us with the satisfaction we seek. Seeing that the Shannon paper (bless his soul) lacked both mathematical rigor and satisfying semantic justifications, he set about to put the situation right with his slim but essential little volume entitled _The Mathematical Foundations of Information Theory_ (1957). He manages to make the pertinent distinction between 'information' and 'uncer
Re: [FRIAM] Uncertainty vs Information - redux and resolution
That is potentially fascinating. However, it is not terribly interesting to state that we can establish a conservation principle merely by giving a name to the absence of something, and then pointing out that if we start with a set amount of that something, and take it away in chunks, then the amount that is there plus the amount that is gone always equals the amount we started with. What is the additional insight? Eric On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 04:27 PM, Grant Holland wrote: > > > > >In a thread early last month I was doing my thing of "stirring the >pot" by making noise about the equivalence of 'information' and >'uncertainty' - and I was quoting Shannon to back me up. > > >We all know that the two concepts are ultimately semantically >opposed - if for no other reason than uncertainty adds to confusion >and information can help to clear it up. So, understandably, Owen - >and I think also Frank - objected somewhat to my equating them. But >I was able to overwhelm the thread with more Shannon quotes, so the >thread kinda tapered off. > > >What we all were looking for, I believe, is for Information Theory >to back up our common usage and support the notion that information >and uncertainty are, in some sense, semantically opposite; while at >the same time they are both measured by the same function: Shannon's >version of entropy (which is also Gibbs' formula with some constants >established). > > >Of course, Shannon does equate information and uncertainty - at >least mathematically so, if not semantically so. Within the span of >three sentences in his famous 1948 paper, he uses the words >"information", "uncertainty" and "choice" to describe what his >concept of entropy measures. But he never does get into any semantic >distinctions among the three - only that all three are measured by entropy. > > >Even contemporary information theorists like Vlatko Vedral, >Professor of Quantum Information Science at Oxford, appear to be of >no help with any distinction between 'information' and >'uncertainty'. In his 2010 book Decoding Reality: The Universe > as Quantum Information, he traces the notion of information >back to the ancient Greeks. > >"The ancient Greeks laid the foundation for its > [information's] development when they suggested that the > information content of an event somehow depends only on how > probable this event really is. Philosophers like Aristotle > reasoned that the more surprised we are by an event the more > information the event carries > > >Following this logic, we conclude that information has > to be inversely proportional to probability, i. e. events with > smaller probability carry more information" > > >But a simple inverse proportional formula like I(E) = 1/Pr(E), where >E is an event, does not suffice as a measure of >'uncertainty/information', because it does not ensure the additivity >of independent events. (We really like additivity in our measuring >functions.) The formula needs to be tweaked to give us that. > > >Vedral does the tweaking for additivity and gives us the formula >used by Information Theorists to measure the amount of >'uncertainty/information' in a single event. The formula is I(E) = >log (1/Pr(E)). (Any base will do.) It is interesting that if this >function is treated as a random variable, then its first moment >(expected value) is Shannon's formula for entropy. > > >But it was the Russian probability theorist A. I. Khinchin who >provided us with the satisfaction we seek. Seeing that the Shannon >paper (bless his soul) lacked both mathematical rigor and satisfying >semantic justifications, he set about to put the situation right >with his slim but essential little volume entitled The > Mathematical Foundations of Information Theory (1957). He >manages to make the pertinent distinction between 'information' and >'uncertainty' most cleanly in this single passage. (By "scheme" >Khinchin means "probability distribution".) >"Thus we can say that the information given us by > carrying out some experiment consists of removing the uncertainty > which existed before the experiment. The larger this uncertainty, > the larger we consider to be the amount of information obtained by > removing it. Since we agreed to measure the uncertainty of a > finite scheme A by its entropy, H(A), it is natural to express the > amount of information given by removing this uncertainty by an > increasing function of the quantity H(A) > > >Thus, in all that follows, we can consider the amount of > information given by the realization of a finite scheme > [probability distribution] to be equal to the entropy of the > scheme." > > >So, when an experiment is "realized" (the coin is flipped or the
[FRIAM] Uncertainty vs Information - redux and resolution
In a thread early last month I was doing my thing of "stirring the pot" by making noise about the equivalence of 'information' and 'uncertainty' - and I was quoting Shannon to back me up. We all know that the two concepts are ultimately semantically opposed - if for no other reason than uncertainty adds to confusion and information can help to clear it up. So, understandably, Owen - and I think also Frank - objected somewhat to my equating them. But I was able to overwhelm the thread with more Shannon quotes, so the thread kinda tapered off. What we all were looking for, I believe, is for Information Theory to back up our common usage and support the notion that information and uncertainty are, in some sense, semantically opposite; while at the same time they are both measured by the same function: Shannon's version of entropy (which is also Gibbs' formula with some constants established). Of course, Shannon does equate information and uncertainty - at least mathematically so, if not semantically so. Within the span of three sentences in his famous 1948 paper, he uses the words "information", "uncertainty" and "choice" to describe what his concept of entropy measures. But he never does get into any semantic distinctions among the three - only that all three are measured by /entropy/. Even contemporary information theorists like Vlatko Vedral, Professor of Quantum Information Science at Oxford, appear to be of no help with any distinction between 'information' and 'uncertainty'. In his 2010 book _Decoding Reality: The Universe as Quantum Information_, he traces the notion of information back to the ancient Greeks. "The ancient Greeks laid the foundation for its [information's] development when they suggested that the information content of an event somehow depends only on how probable this event really is. Philosophers like Aristotle reasoned that the more surprised we are by an event the more information the event carries Following this logic, we conclude that information has to be inversely proportional to probability, i. e. events with smaller probability carry more information" But a simple inverse proportional formula like I(E) = 1/Pr(E), where E is an event, does not suffice as a measure of 'uncertainty/information', because it does not ensure the additivity of independent events. (We really like additivity in our measuring functions.) The formula needs to be tweaked to give us that. Vedral does the tweaking for additivity and gives us the formula used by Information Theorists to measure the amount of 'uncertainty/information' in a single event. The formula is I(E) = log (1/Pr(E)). (Any base will do.) It is interesting that if this function is treated as a random variable, then its first moment (expected value) is Shannon's formula for entropy. But it was the Russian probability theorist A. I. Khinchin who provided us with the satisfaction we seek. Seeing that the Shannon paper (bless his soul) lacked both mathematical rigor and satisfying semantic justifications, he set about to put the situation right with his slim but essential little volume entitled _The Mathematical Foundations of Information Theory_ (1957). He manages to make the pertinent distinction between 'information' and 'uncertainty' most cleanly in this single passage. (By "scheme" Khinchin means "probability distribution".) "Thus we can say that the information given us by carrying out some experiment consists of removing the uncertainty which existed before the experiment. The larger this uncertainty, the larger we consider to be the amount of information obtained by removing it. Since we agreed to measure the uncertainty of a finite scheme A by its entropy, H(A), it is natural to express the amount of information given by removing this uncertainty by an increasing function of the quantity H(A) Thus, in all that follows, we can consider the amount of information given by the realization of a finite scheme [probability distribution] to be equal to the entropy of the scheme." So, when an experiment is "realized" (the coin is flipped or the die is rolled), the uncertainty inherent in it "becomes" information. And there seems to be a /conservation principle/ here. The amount of "stuff" inherent in the /uncertainty/ prior to realization is conserved after realization when it becomes /information/. Fun. Grant On 6/6/11 8:17 AM, Owen Densmore wrote: Nick: Next you are in town, lets read the original Shannon paper together. Alas, it is a bit long, but I'm told its a Good Thing To Do. -- Owen On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Grant, This seems backwards to me, but I got properly thrashed for my last few postings so I am putting my hat over the wall very carefully here. I thought……i thought …. the information in a message was the number of bits by which the arrival of the mess
[FRIAM] Uncertainty vs Information - redux and resolution
In a thread early last month I was doing my thing of "stirring the pot" by making noise about the equivalence of 'information' and 'uncertainty' - and I was quoting Shannon to back me up. We all know that the two concepts are ultimately semantically opposed - if for no other reason than uncertainty adds to confusion and information can help to clear it up. So, understandably, Owen - and I think also Frank - objected somewhat to my equating them. But I was able to overwhelm the thread with more Shannon quotes, so the thread kinda tapered off. What we all were looking for, I believe, is for Information Theory to back up our common usage and support the notion that information and uncertainty are, indeed, semantically opposite; while at the same time they are both measured by the same function: Shannon's version of entropy (which is also Gibbs' formula with some constants established). Of course, Shannon /does/ equate them - at least mathematically so, if not semantically so. Within the span of three sentences in his famous 1948 paper, he uses the words "information", "uncertainty" and "choice" to describe what his concept of entropy measures. But he never does get into any semantic distinctions among the three - only that all three measured by the same formula. Even contemporary information theorists like Vlatko Vedral, Professor of Quantum Information Science at Oxford, appear to be of no help with any distinction between 'information' and 'uncertainty'. In his 2010 book _Decoding Reality: the universe as quantum information_, he traces the notion of /information/ back to the ancient Greeks. "The ancient Greeks laid the foundation for its (information) development when they suggested that the information content of an event somehow depends only on how probable this event really is. Philosophers like Aristotle reasoned that the more surprised we are by an event the more information the event carries Following this logic, we conclude that information has to be inversely proportional to probability, i. e. events with smaller probability carry more information" But it was the Russian probability theorist A. I. Khinchin who provides us the satisfaction we seek. Seeing that the Shannon paper (bless his soul) lacked both mathematical rigor and satisfying semantic justifications, he set about to set the situation right with his slim but essential little volume entitled _The Mathematical Foundations of Information Theory_ (1957). He manages to make the pertinent distinction between 'information' and 'uncertainty' most cleanly in this single paragraph. (By "scheme" Khinchin means "probability distribution".) "Thus we can say that the information given us by carrying out some experiment consists of removing the uncertainty which existed before the experiment. The larger this uncertainty, the larger we consider to be the amount of information obtained by removing it. Since we agreed to measure the uncertainty of a finite scheme A by its entropy, H(A), it is natural to express the amount of information given by removing this uncertainty by an increasing function of the quantity H(A) Thus, in all that follows, we can consider the amount of information given by the realization of a finite scheme to be equal to the entropy of the scheme." On 6/6/11 8:17 AM, Owen Densmore wrote: Nick: Next you are in town, lets read the original Shannon paper together. Alas, it is a bit long, but I'm told its a Good Thing To Do. -- Owen On Jun 6, 2011, at 7:44 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Grant, This seems backwards to me, but I got properly thrashed for my last few postings so I am putting my hat over the wall very carefully here. I thought……i thought …. the information in a message was the number of bits by which the arrival of the message decreased the uncertainty of the receiver. So, let’s say you are sitting awaiting the result of a coin toss, and I am on the other end of the line flipping the coin. Before I say “heads” you have 1 bit of uncertainty; afterwards, you have none. The reason I am particularly nervous about saying this is that it, of course, holds out the possibility of negative information. Some forms of communication, appeasement gestures in animals, for instance, have the effect of increasing the range of behaviors likely to occur in the receiver. This would seem to correspond to a negative value for the information calculation. Nick From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Grant Holland Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 11:07 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; Steve Smith Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Quote of the week Interesting note on "information" and "uncertainty"... Information is Uncertainty. The two words are synonyms. Shannon called it "uncertainty", contemporary Information theory calls it "information". It is of
