Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA03027 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 8 May 2001 20:12:55 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 14:15:28 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Information Message-ID: <3AF7FF80.106.3BDEF5@localhost> In-reply-to: <3AF5ECA7.4F801F8A@wehi.edu.au> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 7 May 2001, at 10:30, wilkins wrote:
> Robin Faichney wrote:
> >
> > The term "information" is used in common language with a
> > wide variety of meanings, ranging from instruction and data
> > to knowledge itself. Despite repeated warnings by
> > specialists, these other meanings tend to impede our
> > understanding of "information" in the technical sense. [see
> > below]
> >
> > On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 11:11:07AM +1000, wilkins wrote:
> > > Robin Faichney wrote:
> > > >
> > > ....
> > > > According to Roy Frieden, the laws of physics are generated by
> > > > the attempt to minimize the difference between an entity or
> > > > system's own, physical information, and the information that
> > > > physicists can obtain about it. This account does not get
> > > > awfully technical, at least as regards physics---we've just gone
> > > > as deep into Frieden's work as we're going to go---but this
> > > > distinction he draws is vital: between physical information,
> > > > which exists for its own sake, and the more usual sort,
> > > > information that's about something. (From
> > > > http://www.ii01.org/physics.html)
> > >
> > > It seems to me there are really only four relevant sense of
> > > "information" here:
> > >
> > > 1. the Fisher Information account of measurement that Frieden
> > > proposes
> >
> > Fisher information, as the New Scientist article puts it, captures
> > how much information you can squeeze out of a physical system. What
> > Frieden has shown is that using Fisher information (I) and the
> > information inherent in the system (J), the laws of physics can be
> > derived. So I think "the Fisher Information account of measurement
> > that Frieden proposes" is misleading. J is information as the
> > concept occurs in thermodynamics, i.e. a measure of the structure of
> > matter, and that is, in one sense at least, more fundamental than
> > Fisher information.
>
> A friend is doing his PhD on Freiden, which is why I know his work.
> The NS article was very vague and according to my friend, the critical
> measure *is* I, because J is inaccessible (a bit like Chaitin's Omega,
> but for distinct philosophical reasons). I is what is known in
> statistics as the Cramer-Rao Bound - the likelihood of an accurate
> measure. > > >
>
Bingo! J is inaccessible, like Kant's noumenon or Sartre's en-soi
or Husserl's ding an sich; if it were accessible, it would be I. It is
the information that would be available if Heisenbergian restrictions
did not apply - but they do; it is therefore an abstract ideal
construct, having no observable or testable real, concrete,
empirical referent. Thus, it is very strange for someone to claim to
be able to calculate the disparity between J and I, for that is quite
simply claiming to be able to calculate the disparity between the
knowable and the unknowable.
And, BTW, Dretske's KNOWLEDGE AND THE FLOW OF
INFORMATION is a good book, one I have recommended here
before.
===============================================================
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 : Tue May 08 2001 - 20:16:35 BST