Re: new line: what's the point?

From: Robin Faichney (robin@faichney.demon.co.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 06 2000 - 17:31:51 GMT

  • Next message: Joe E. Dees: "Re: new line: what's the point?"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA16191 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 6 Mar 2000 18:04:16 GMT
    From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk>
    Organization: Reborn Technology
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: new line: what's the point?
    Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 17:31:51 +0000
    X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.21]
    Content-Type: text/plain
    References: <200003052205.RAA02561@mail1.lig.bellsouth.net>
    Message-Id: <00030617395200.00458@faichney>
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    On Sun, 05 Mar 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
    >> On Sun, 05 Mar 2000, Joe E. Dees wrote:
    >> >> No, I mean that if there is no information in the absence of meaning (your
    >> >> claim), then the concept of information in the context of thermodynamics is
    >> >> invalid, so why don't you explain that to us (and, if you like, to the people
    >> >> in sci.physics)?
    >> >>
    >> >If they think so, then they're wrong; obviously the presence or
    >> >absence of information in such a context means something to
    >> >them...
    >>
    >> That is precisely the point. Your claim about information amounts to saying
    >> "this is the only way the word may be used", and it is fatuous. Moreover,
    >> physicists are not stupid, having very good reasons for using "information" in
    >> this way. In particular, there are connections between Shannon/Weaver
    >> information theory and thermodynamics, which you might find very interesting,
    >> if you ever get around to looking into it.
    >>
    >> (And, by the way, Shannon and Weaver explicitly stated that their work was
    >> *not* concerned with meaning.)
    >>
    >And they go on to say (context is important, Robin)

    Condescension is irritating, Joe. But you know that.

    > that:
    >"In fact, two messages, one of which is heavily loaded with
    >meaning and the other of which is pure nonsense, can be exactly
    >equivalent, from the present viewpoint, as regards information...To
    >be sure, this word information in communication theiry relates not
    >so much to what you DO say, as to what you COULD say.That is,
    >information is a measure of one's freedom of choice when one
    >selects a message...information is defined as the logarithm of the
    >number of choices." This is also the meaning of the term "entropy'
    >when used in information theory, Robin; high entropy = low
    >organization = low information = wide choice freedom. If there are
    >only two semantic alternatives (black and white, zero and one,
    >etc.), less information is contained and less encoding is needed...

    That's syntax, Joe, not semantics. And the rest of this is not relevant to the
    main issue, which is physical information, ie the concept in thermodynamics,
    which is inversely proportional to thermodynamic entropy. (Which is
    different from entropy in information theory, though they're related.)

    Would you say that genes are items of information, Joe?

    --
    Robin Faichney
    

    ===============================This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 06 2000 - 18:05:20 GMT