Subject: Re: information transmission
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 99 10:34:01 -0600
From: Mark Mills <mmills@fastlane.net>
To: "Memetics List" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Alex,
>His [Shannon] theory talks about the unusual behavior of information ...
My hypothesis that 'information cannot be transmitted' is based on
Shannon. Shannon uses the term 'information' as a 'state' feature which
can be quantified as a function of potential randomness. From my reading
of Shannon, 'information' has nothing to do with context or meaning.
According to Shannon, one can quantify 'the information in' a token or
wave sequence via simple physical measurements alone. It is from this
that my hypothesis starts.
If, as Shannon suggests, information is something 'in' a token or wave
sequence, then why do we need the notion of 'information transmission,'
wouldn't 'token transmission' be more accurate?
>value can increase when it is selectively shared, that it does not
>depreciate with use (except maybe over time), and that you can give it away
>without giving it up.
This notion of 'giving it away without giving it up' is nicely explained
by using my hypothesis that information cannot be transmitted.
>INFORMATION IS DEFINED AS A DIFFERENCE IN
>MATTER-ENERGY THAT AFFECTS UNCERTAINTY IN A SITUATION WHERE A CHOICE EXISTS
>AMONG A SET OF ALTERNATIVES IN A DECISION-MAKING SITUATION,
I'm interested in where Shannon wrote this. It certainly is not anywhere
in his 1948 paper on the mathematics of communication.
> From Shannon's view,
>the matter of energy is a transmission (an acoustic wave, etc.) from one
>place to another, but at the point of "receipt" it is transformed into a
>different form of matter/energy, i.e. creation of a new form of
>matter/energy.
I'm a bit confused by 'the matter of energy.' You seem to suggest my
'recreation' model by alluding to a 'transformation' upon 'receipt.'
>Getting caught up in this tangent, if I took a piece of "knowledge" and had
>a million people recreat that knowledge, would the emergent pattern be
>related to the laws of genetic mutations, i.e., random? Have we any data
>on the statistical patterns of meme replication? And, while I'm asking,
>what are the sources of the laws of genetics (physical, chemical, etc.)?
Good. Very interesting questions.
As to 'a million people recreating,' I do think genetic logic applicable.
The opportunity for mutation is obviously high. The new generations are
subject to selection pressure. Each generation produces successive
generations. Much more could be said, but this should be enough to
sketch an answer.
As to 'statistical patterns,' Aaron has many.
As to 'the sources of the laws of genetics..', I don't know what you
mean. Please elaborate.
Mark
===============================================================
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