Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID Basics – Information – Part II – When Does Information Arise?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In my first post I discussed the concept of information, in particular whether information is contained in a physical object by its mere existence.  In this post I would like to consider an additional issue relating to information, namely, the point at which information arises or comes into existence.

Information is often closely associated with meaning – meaning that is transmitted from a sender to a receiver.  As a result, some have suggested that information only exists when there is both a sender and a receiver who have a prior agreement about the protocols to encode the information and after there is a successful transmission, receipt and understanding of the information.

However, viewing information as existing only after it has been transmitted by the sender and received and understood by the receiver is a problematic.  Specifically, I will argue that (i) information can exist independent of a receiver and (ii) requiring successful reception and comprehension in order for information to exist results in a breakdown of definitions, absurd results, and is contrary to our real-world experience.

A Simple Example

Let’s take a simple example of information creation, transmittal and reception. Consider a individual planning and party for Friday night.  Invitations have been sent and everyone is looking forward to a wonderful party starting at 7:30 p.m.

However, during the week the planner decides to change the party to 7:30 p.m. On Wednesday she sends the following email to all of the invitees:

“Hey everybody, change of plans.   The party will start at 7:00 p.m.  Let me know if you can still make it.”

Party On!

Thankfully, all of the attendees receive the email, RSVP as requested, adjust their schedules accordingly, and arrive on time at 7:00 p.m.

If we map the process flow, we can start to get a better handle on what occurred with the information.

conception -> encoding -> transmission -> reception -> recognition -> action

First, the party planner conceived of the information she desired to convey.  Then she encoded that information in a medium, in this case in the English language by means of an electronic tool.  Then she transmitted the information.  The attendees received the information.  The attendees understood or recognized the information.  And, finally, the attendees acted on the information to produce the desired result.

It is important to note that this is a process.  As a result, it occurs, by definition, across a period of time.  The conception occurs before the encoding; the transmission occurs before the reception and so on.  The steps do not occur simultaneously, but in sequence.

As a result, we can now ask: At what point did the information arise?  In other words, at which step in the process did the information come into existence?

This Is No Party

Let’s now tweak our example and assume that instead of the happy outcome above, our party planner still hasn’t had any RSVP’s by Thursday night.  So she calls one of her friends and says, “Can you make it to my party at the new time?”  He replies, “What new time?  I’m planning on 7:30.”  “Didn’t you see my email?” the planner asks, puzzled.  “No,” he replies.

What has occurred?  It could be any number of things, but let’s run though them in order.

1. Encoded but not transmitted.  Let’s suppose our planner in fact composed the email (encoded the message), but forgot to press send and it is still in her drafts folder.  What is she going to say to her friend?  Something along the lines of “Oh, rats, it is still in my drafts folder.  I’ll send it to you right now.”  (She could of course choose a new medium in that instant and convey the information orally, but stick with me on the email example for a bit.)  Notice that, notwithstanding the passage of a fair amount of time, the planner does not need to re-encode the information.  It already exists.  She doesn’t have to write a new email, and she certainly doesn’t have to conceive of the again information from scratch.

This is an important point.  The information process consists of steps, and if a step has been completed, we don’t have to start over, but can pick up at the next step, much like a computer thread which has been put on hold by the processor can pick up again once the competing processes are finished using the resources.

The information already exists.  Objectively so.  It does not need to be recreated.

2. Failed transmission.  Alternatively, let’s suppose that our party planner confirms the email is in her sent folder and in fact was sent.  But let’s say in this case she also notices a bounceback message in her inbox and realizes she had the recipient’s email wrong.  What does she do?  She forwards the message from the sent folder to the proper address with a statement something along the lines of “Sorry you didn’t get the email earlier.  I’m resending.  It looks like I had the wrong email address.”

Again, note that the planner does not have to recreate the original message.  She does not have to create the information again.  It doesn’t have to be conceived again or encoded again.  It already exists.   All she has to do is retransmit it.

3. Failed receipt.  Let’s now assume the problem is on the receiving end.  Perhaps the attendee has an aggressive spam filter and never got the message.  Does this mean, as some have argued, that the information does not exist?  After all, it was not received and understood by a recipient.  Of course not.  And, indeed, upon checking his spam folder the recipient sees the email and reads the information – information that already existed there in his folder, he just needed to read it.

4. Failed recognition.  Let’s finally assume that the recipient does not speak English.  Or perhaps he saw the email and read it, but thought it was spam.  Or perhaps he thought it was relating to a different party the following week.  Does that mean the information about the parting starting at 7:00 doesn’t exist?  Again, of course not.  The recipient’s failure to properly recognize or interpret the information doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Focus On the Creator, Not the Recipient

When we closely examine the information flow process, we realize that the creation of information – the point at which it comes into existence – originates with the creator.  And it virtually always occurs before the information is transmitted, received, recognized or acted upon.  And it makes no difference whether the gap between each step is a fraction of a second or a thousand years.

Again, we can see this if we look at alternate flows that could result from a failed communication.  For example, the following is a common flow:

conception -> encoding -> transmission -> failed transmission -> retransmission -> etc.

We know this happens regularly.  And we also recognize that a failed transmission does not require (at least in the case of a written encoding like our example) that the information either be conceived anew or encoded again.  Those steps are already done.  So in the case of a failed transmission, what is it that is retransmitted?  Information, of course.  Information which, by definition, must already exist before it can be retransmitted.

Consider another common flow:

conception -> encoding -> translation and re-encoding -> transmission -> etc.

In this case, what is it that is translated and re-encoded in a different language or different medium?  The information of course.  So, by definition, the information must exist prior to the transmission and, therefore, prior to its receipt or recognition by the recipient.

Problems With the Alternative

Occasionally someone will claim that information only exists only if there is a recipient who actually receives and recognizes the information.  This view is problematic for at least the following three reasons:

First, it logically collapses and destroys the definitions of plainly understood steps in the flow process.  Specifically, if we say that information only exists once it is understood, then we are collapsing two steps into one: the receipt of information and the recognition of information.  One of the two terms is now meaningless.  In fact, it would be the case that the entire process collapses, because the information cannot be transmitted until it exists, it can’t be transmitted until it is encoded, it can’t be encoded until it is conceived.  So the idea that information exists only once it is understood by the recipient is a fundamental misunderstanding of the process flow.  It is also a conflation of the concept of communication with the concept of the information itself.  The former may require interaction of a sender and a receiver; the latter does not.

Second, it would result in a strange and absurd concept of information.  For example, even though I wrote this entire post and saved it on my hard drive prior to posting, that view would claim that none of the information existed until read by someone else, at which point presumably, all the information popped instantly into existence.  Further, a suicide note would not actually contain any information until the investigator walked in the room and read the note, at which point the information would pop into existence.  Finally, back to our party email example, if the friend were to ask over the phone, “What information are you talking about?” it would be an absurdity for our party planner to respond, “Well, since you apparently didn’t get the email, the information doesn’t exist, so there is nothing to talk about.”

Third, it contradicts our everyday real-world experience.  We all experience information creation on a regular basis.  Every time we write an email or a blog post or send a text.  We understand that it is the creative act, the mental activity of the creator, that gives rise to the information.  Whether or not some particular later step happens with that information, like re-encoding, transmission, reception, recognition and so on, it does not take away from the creative experience that produced the information in the first place.

In Summary

It has been occasionally argued that information only exists when there is a sender, a receiver, a successful transmission, and a successful reception and recognition of the information by the recipient.  We sometimes see a failed communication (at whatever step of the process) and are tempted to jump to the conclusion that because of the failed communication the underlying information does not really exist.  However, such an approach leads to a breakdown of basic definitions, absurd situations, and contradicts our real-world experience.

Information, based on everything we know and on our own real-world experience, arises as the result of a creative act or mental activity of the creator.  Once that information exists, many things can happen with it, including additional encoding, transmission, reception and recognition by a recipient.  This entire process can perhaps be appropriately termed “communication”.  The entire process, however, must not be confused with the creation and existence of the underlying information itself.

—–

 

Nota Bene

Astute readers will note that I have not spent much time in the above essay distinguishing between the first two steps of the process: conception and initial encoding.  It is quite clear that following the initial encoding the information exists and at that point we can do anything with it that we can normally do with information: re-code, transmit, receive, and so on.  This latter point is the focus of the above essay, as I am intending to combat the idea that information only exists after a successful communication event has occurred between parties.

What is less clear is whether we should define information as coming into existence at the moment of conception or at the moment of initial encoding.  I think there are some interesting arguments on either side, and perhaps that can be explored in a future post.

Comments
...false information is not a genuine type of information. - Information: A Very Short Introduction
How much less then is "meaningless information" a genuine type of information? But, otoh, in what sense can Shannon information be false?Mung
April 4, 2014
April
04
Apr
4
04
2014
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
WLOG The LOG of W Simple, really. ;)Mung
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
Hi Eric ... agreed. An instance of information need not be received/understood in order to be information, but must be demonstrated in order to be confirmed as information. A subtle but important distinction.Upright BiPed
March 31, 2014
March
03
Mar
31
31
2014
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
UB @53: Thanks for your thoughtful comments, as always. I would agree that a protocol is necessary for the encoding (and, therefore, communication) of information. I was focusing on the following nuances: 1. Information need not be recognized and understood (or even received) by a recipient in order to be information. Rather, it arises (and exists) as a result of the activity of the initiator/sender. We need to distinguish between our discovery of information (yes, including its protocols) and the information's objective existence. 2. Information clearly exists (and therefore has arisen) by the time it is encoded (yes, with protocols). There are good arguments that information exists prior to encoding, and I think Allen made a good point on that front in 33 above. I appreciate your insistence on thinking about the protocols and the symbols and the semiotics. Those aspects make clear what I was attempting to describe on the other thread: namely, there is no evidence that there are any symbols or protocols or semiotic aspects involved with a rainbow, a rock rolling down a hill, in Saturn's rings. The existence of symbols and protocols is a good litmus test, if you will, for whether we are dealing with information or not. In the case of these natural objects -- by their mere existence -- the answer is no.Eric Anderson
March 31, 2014
March
03
Mar
31
31
2014
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
KF, I agree. What is important (from my perspective) is to recognize that any arrangement of a representation must have a complimentary arrangement of a protocol in order to bridge and preserve the necessary physical discontinuity between the arrangement of a medium and its functional effect within a system. That's a mouthful, but it is accurate and necessary all the same. (btw, you lost me on "WLOG") :)Upright BiPed
March 31, 2014
March
03
Mar
31
31
2014
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
UB, such protocols can be expressed in the configurations and processes of a system, as in how a microprocessor is organised to fetch, decode and execute sequences of instructions stored as bit patterns. At the same time, configuration in itself can hold info-bearing capacity without it being used to store messages, and functionally specific configuration implies associated info that is in effect a digital blueprint. Think here of first, a CD that is "empty" then has on it some DWG format files for a system. This, BTW, is part of why I point out that analysis on strings is WLOG. KFkairosfocus
March 31, 2014
March
03
Mar
31
31
2014
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT
Allen: There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of tablets with linear A script. If reception and decoding of a message is necessary for the content of that message to qualify as information, then there is no information in linear A. This is, of course, absurd. Ergo, reception and decoding of a message is NOT necessary for the content of that message to qualify as information. Eric: Exactly.
Eric, you and I have been in agreement on so many facets related to information, this probably does not rise to the level of needing a clarification. But at the same time, I do not wish to be misunderstood. In my earlier post I stated that a claim of something being information - without a protocol to substantiate that claim - is an "empty claim". I stand by that statement. Without a protocol to actualize a proposed instance of information into a functional effect, we could not distinguish any proposed arrangement of information from any other arrangement of matter. In the case of linear script A, we had a massive foundation of information surrounding that artifact, not to mention hundreds of examples of it. In short, we already knew that a protocol existed for this undeciphered language, and we knew we simply didn't yet know it. To my mind, that is a far cry from not knowing if a protocol even existed, or if a particular arrangement of matter was merely an undeciphered language. If, however, linear script A was a chance finding of perhaps a single shard of rock with an interested set of unknown patterns scratched into its surface. Who is to say those patterns contain information? No one. That was my point. Without a protocol to establish function from an instance of information, calling it information is an empty claim. That, of course, can be mediated by an intelligent investigator who has substantial foreknowledge of the presence of a protocol for a language which he or she does not yet understand, or, as in the case of code-breaking or the Voyager Record you mention, the investigator has every reason to believe there is information in the arrangement of a medium - if he can just find the protocol to decipher it. Again, this has little to do with having no earthly idea if an arrangement was information or not.Upright BiPed
March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT
UB @36 and 37: I think your focus on protocols is important. Any encoding must use protocols in order to successfully encode. We usually think of the use of protocols as an integral part of the encoding process, but you are right to focus on it separately. The encoding is done at the source end, and is not dependent on whether the receiving end ever gets the message or, even, if the receiving end knows the protocols. Quite often the protocols can be discovered by an intelligent receiver, without there being any kind of mutual agreement beforehand on what the protocols are. Such is the case with previously-unreadable ancient documents or ruins, as well as code breaking. There are even some cases (the Voyager Golden Record being a prime example) in which the sender knows the receiver doesn't know the protocols, but using basic logic can communicate the protocols themselves. Or perhaps we would say, using what are hoped to be very simple and basic universal mathematical and logical protocols, the more involved and detailed protocols for further communication can be learned by the intelligent receiver. In the case of automated systems (including biological cellular systems), the protocols are not discovered by the rest of the system like they could be by an intelligent receiver, but are built into the workings of the system up front.Eric Anderson
March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill @33:
There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of tablets with linear A script. If reception and decoding of a message is necessary for the content of that message to qualify as information, then there is no information in linear A. This is, of course, absurd. Ergo, reception and decoding of a message is NOT necessary for the content of that message to qualify as information.
Exactly.
While it is difficult to clearly separate these two steps, it seems likely to me that the “heavy lifting” of “encoding” actually happens during “conceptualization.” It’s all right there in the noodle. The rest is just scribbling.
This is an interesting point. I guess there are actually two steps occurring in the mind: (i) conceptualization, and (ii) initial encoding. What I was trying to capture with my "encoding" step was the actual reduction to a physical medium. You are quite right, however, that the reduction to a physical medium is at some level just a physical result of a mental encoding that has already been done -- either the press of a key or the stroke of a pen. I do think it is important, in either case, to distinguish the conceptualization from the encoding (even if much of the latter occurs in the mind). I think there are good examples where we are able to observe/experience/cogitate about something, but are not able to articulate it. As adults we can experience this quite acutely when learning a foreign language. Many other times when we are "at a loss for words" also can be examples. Children regularly experience this when they simply have not learned the word yet for a particular object, or emotion, or experience. While it is true that going through the process of encoding/articulating our thoughts can help us circle back and refine, improve, rework those thoughts, we should not conflate the later articulation with the preceding thoughts themselves. The occasionally-heard admonition from our high school English teacher that "if you can't write it, then you aren't really thinking it" simply is not true. They are two separate steps.Eric Anderson
March 30, 2014
March
03
Mar
30
30
2014
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
Allen MacNeill:
Eric Anderson, I would like to continue this exploration, but this thread seems to be dying. If you would like to “continue the conversation” you can email me at (replace the 8s with spaces in the following string and then say the result out loud): ay8dee8em8six8at8cornell8dot8ee8dee8yoo
Anyone else find this humorous in light of Upright Biped's earlier comments? Here we have Allen attempting to communicate some information via symbolic representations to Eric and establishing the protocol for the interpretation of the data using a set of symbols and representations and a protocol assumed to be already understood by Eric.Mung
March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT
...since MTC is a theory of information without meaning (not in the sense of meaningless, but in the sense of not yet meaninful), and since [information - meaning = data], 'mathematical theory of data communication' is a far more appropriate description of this branch of probability theory than 'information theory'. [my emphasis - not in original]
Information: A Very Short Introduction, p 44 MTC - The Mathematical Theory of Communication (aka Shannon Information) The author of this "very short introduction" is Luciano Floridi who is also the author of The Philosophy of Information.Mung
March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
Allen MacNeill:
But does this mean that someone/something “conceptualizes” the meaningful information encoded in DNA prior to it being encoded in the form of RNA, transmitted to a ribosome (successfully or not) and translated into a polypeptide (successfully or not)?
That was done for the originally designed organisms and then it was all inherited from there. It's like computer programs- programmers don't need to accompany each and every computer.Joe
March 29, 2014
March
03
Mar
29
29
2014
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
Allen, Upright Biped responded to you in posts @35 and @37. Feel free to post one or more responses. I called out failures in your position in Eric's first thread, which you also declined to address. If you don't feel comfortable posting arguments here at UD, then don't. But don't pretend there are no counter-arguments. Take the phrase "meaningless information." Is that even intelligible? Yet you appear to be wedded to the concept. If not, why not?Mung
March 28, 2014
March
03
Mar
28
28
2014
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
Allen MacNeill:
I will not ever respond to any comment which contains any reference to my person (or anyone else’s).
If it is not your person who is making the claims you make, who is? If we are to address the claims you make without reference to your person, how should we do so? Petulant much (not referenced to your person)?Mung
March 28, 2014
March
03
Mar
28
28
2014
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT
Allen, the thread would not "be dying" if you would engage those who disagree with you. Suck it up, mate.Mung
March 28, 2014
March
03
Mar
28
28
2014
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
Eric Anderson, I would like to continue this exploration, but this thread seems to be dying. If you would like to "continue the conversation" you can email me at (replace the 8s with spaces in the following string and then say the result out loud): ay8dee8em8six8at8cornell8dot8ee8dee8yooAllen_MacNeill
March 28, 2014
March
03
Mar
28
28
2014
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
UB #36 No need to thank me. I should be thanking you! Just keep on posting and helping others understand the fundamentals of semiotic systems and why the DNA molecule is a pertinent example of such a system, period. I am a computer scientist by trade and absolutley love this topic.aqeels
March 26, 2014
March
03
Mar
26
26
2014
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
Oh sure, I can form a lump of clay into a recognizable shape, but how do I form a mind!?Mung
March 25, 2014
March
03
Mar
25
25
2014
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
Mung: In reality, the word "information" comes from the latis "informare", which means "to give a form". So, probably, the original sense indicates exactly the process by which a designer gives a specific form to the designed object. In that sense, it is the object which is "informed", rather than the receiver of the information, although obviously in the more general sense it has acquired the meaning of "giving a form to the mind", "educating", and obviously transmitting the information to the receiver. But, if we stick to the original sense of "giving a form", everything becomes more clear.gpuccio
March 24, 2014
March
03
Mar
24
24
2014
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
I will argue that (i) information can exist independent of a receiver and (ii) requiring successful reception and comprehension in order for information to exist results in a breakdown of definitions, absurd results, and is contrary to our real-world experience.
But of no one is INFORMED, why call it information at all?Mung
March 24, 2014
March
03
Mar
24
24
2014
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
Environmental information def = two systems a and b coupled in such a way that a's being (of type, or in state) F is correlated to b being (of type, or in state) G, thus carrying for the observer of a the information that b is G The correlation follows some law or rule.
Information: A Very Short Introduction If it didn't follow some law or rule, would it mean anything to the observer? If it has no meaning to the observer, dose it "carry" information? Or is it precisely because there is a law or rule that the observe can glean information about b by observing a?Mung
March 24, 2014
March
03
Mar
24
24
2014
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
Eric @31: Thanks for the reply. I had intended the quantum mechanics description as an analogy for the decision making process. I find it interesting, however, that the field of quantum cognition has had success in using quantum mechanical models to predict certain human behaviors. (It's certainly debatable what level of quantum processes are possible in a warm brain!) Taking a step back, I also wonder if the multiverse is best understood as existing conceptually in the mind of God. The one universe we experience today is the one He chose and spoke (information) into existence.dgw
March 24, 2014
March
03
Mar
24
24
2014
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
So far I do not see any disagreement in this account in either the paradigm of evolutionary biology or intelligent design. But does this mean that someone/something “conceptualizes” the meaningful information encoded in DNA prior to it being encoded in the form of RNA, transmitted to a ribosome (successfully or not) and translated into a polypeptide (successfully or not)?
Again, any conceptualization of a representation without protocol is empty (i.e. there is no "meaning" in a representation without a protocol to establish its "meaning"). Both are required to bridge the necessary discontinuity between representations and their physical effects. They are required to bridge it while they simultaneously maintain it, otherwise, the system will not function. The organization of such a system creates the contextual (systematic) regularities that we call "relationships" (i.e. the genetic code). Also, let us not forget that systems of translation such as that found in genetic translation also require an entirely separate (unrelated) set of protocols to establish the dimensional operation of the system itself, and the origin of that dimensionality is (again) not derivable from the material make-up of the system. As before, without this, the system cannot function.Upright BiPed
March 23, 2014
March
03
Mar
23
23
2014
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT
aqeels, Your comment on the previous thread warmed my heart in many ways. I thank you, as I thank the other pleasant comments made on my behalf.Upright BiPed
March 23, 2014
March
03
Mar
23
23
2014
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT
Allen,
... transmitted and decoded by a receiver (again, it matters not if such a receiver actually receives such a message, or even exists). To put it as succinctly as possible: Conceptualization and encoding of meaningful information is a purposeful act.
A couple of short comments... The act of encoding an instance of information is often (but not always) the purely chemo-mechanical result of a pre-existing organization. The conceptualization of that organization is not derivable from the material make-up of the system, or from its proximate material cause. This is to say that the conceptualization of a sensory organ (i.e. an eye, producing information by mechanical means) cannot be derived from the material make-up of that organ, or from the translation of the DNA that was its proximate cause. Also, without a material protocol to actualize any given instance of information into a physical effect, we would not be able to identify any particular arrangement of information from any other arrangement of matter. We would be entirely blind to it. I say this to balance the comments here which seem to downplay the importance of the protocol. Information without a protocol is an empty claim. Protocols first? Representations first? Irreducible complexity is an intractable fact prior to the organization of the first living cell on earth; prior to the onset of Darwinian evolution. It is required to bridge the necessary primordial discontinuity allowing information and the translation of information to exist at all. With that, we can return to your comment that "Conceptualization and encoding of meaningful information is a purposeful act" and we can ponder if this is not a purposeful act in and of itself. And we can ask the obvious question: to what do we owe the purposeful act of using representations and protocols to achieve physical effects not derivable from matter? - - - - - - - - - Allan, I did not know you were facing health issues. I stand with the others here in wishing you all the best results in your challenges.Upright BiPed
March 23, 2014
March
03
Mar
23
23
2014
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT
It has also not escaped my notice that it is impossible to discuss any of these concepts without reference to the concept of purpose (i.e. teleology). Meaningful information, unlike the "meaningless information" that is expressed in the form of noise (approximated by Shannon as "entropy") is encoded for a purpose: to be transmitted and decoded by a receiver (again, it matters not if such a receiver actually receives such a message, or even exists). To put it as succinctly as possible: Conceptualization and encoding of meaningful information is a purposeful act. Furthermore, it matters not if the message is written in linear B, musical notation, or a linear string of nucleotides in DNA. The meaning of meaningful information comes into existence during the acts of conceptualization and encoding (and in that temporal order. So far I do not see any disagreement in this account in either the paradigm of evolutionary biology or intelligent design. But does this mean that someone/something "conceptualizes" the meaningful information encoded in DNA prior to it being encoded in the form of RNA, transmitted to a ribosome (successfully or not) and translated into a polypeptide (successfully or not)? Aye, there's the rub... En garde, mon ami!Allen_MacNeill
March 23, 2014
March
03
Mar
23
23
2014
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
I would like to consider more deeply the assertion/hypothesis that there does not need to be a receiver/decoder for information (including meaningful information, or EA's "information 2") to exist (from a metaphysical/ontological standpoint). My wife, a classicist/philologist by training, with a specialty in ancient Mediterranean religions, pointed out that there are three written languages with somewhat similar characteristics in the ancient Mediterranean. They are commonly known as "linear A", "linear B," and "linear C." Linear B is a syllabic script that was used for writing Mycenaean Greek, the earliest attested form of Greek. Linear B predates the Greek alphabet by several centuries. It is descended from the older Linear A, an undeciphered earlier script used for writing the Minoan language. For the purposes of this discussion, I will leave out consideration of linear C, as it (like linear A) remains untranslated. [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_b for more on the following, including references] Like the Chinese ideograms I mentioned in an example in the previous thread, Linear B consists of a combination of syllabic and ideographic signs. These ideograms or "signifying signs" symbolize objects or commodities. They have no phonetic value and are never used as word signs in writing a sentence. The meaning of both linear A and B were lost as a result of the fall of Mycenaean civilization during the Bronze Age Collapse. The succeeding period, known as the Greek Dark Ages, provides no evidence of the use of writing. Neither linear A nor linear B could be translated for several thousand years, until linear B was deciphered by Michael Ventris and John Chadwick between 1951 and 1953. As the result of Ventris and Chadwick's work, tablets written in linear B can now be translated, but linear A remains undeciphered, with no real hope of deciphering it in the foreseeable future. Although some of the ideograms in linear A seem similar to those in linear B, attempts to use the same values for linear A result in unintelligible gibberish. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of tablets with linear A script. If reception and decoding of a message is necessary for the content of that message to qualify as information, then there is no information in linear A. This is, of course, absurd. Ergo, reception and decoding of a message is NOT necessary for the content of that message to qualify as information. By the same line of argument, the information content of tablets written in linear A are almost certainly meaningful information, despite our inability to translate it. The same could be said of the information content of DNA prior to April, 1953. We couldn't read it, but the molecular genetic machinery of cells could. Going to a deeper ontological level, it is also clear from our own experience that, prior to writing down either linear A or B (or any other written language), we must first formulate the concepts to be encoded in writing. We do this partially in words and partially in non-verbal concepts, both of which must be translated into symbols (i.e. EA's "conceptualization" and "encoding" steps prior to transmission. While it is difficult to clearly separate these two steps, it seems likely to me that the "heavy lifting" of "encoding" actually happens during "conceptualization." It's all right there in the noodle. The rest is just scribbling. Scribbling and bibbling, bibbling and scribbling. Ergo, the crux of the problem of determining the origin of meaningful information lies in the process of conceptualization. I'm looking forward to EA's discussion of that process, which I assume is coming up next.Allen_MacNeill
March 23, 2014
March
03
Mar
23
23
2014
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
gpuccio @23:
Much of the ambiguity here comes from not distinguishing between the cognitive effect (the receiver has a definite cognitive experience evoked by the material object) and the usefulness of that cognition (is it interesting for the receiver? does the receiver already knows that?).
Good point. The cognition occurs, even if it has already occurred before and if the information isn't "news."Eric Anderson
March 23, 2014
March
03
Mar
23
23
2014
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
dgw @14:
Until the host reaches a decision all of these alternative start-time concepts are viable, much like collapse of a wave function. At the point of decision, the information exists and is now available for the subsequent steps of encoding and transmission.
I'm not sure how much quantum mechanics we should bring into it, but I like your colorful description. :) Incidentally, this reminds me of the anti-ID argument that sometimes pops up that "improbable things happen all the time." I discussed one specific example here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-and-statistical-coincidences/#comment-491067Eric Anderson
March 23, 2014
March
03
Mar
23
23
2014
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
groovamos @12:
Since the weather station is reading random variables, and the corrupting noise causes random errors, can these random errors be information?
I agree with gpuccio @13. The noise is noise. Otherwise, we end up with a strange situation in which we are defining "information" to be both the information and the noise. That is precisely why we have separate terms. However . . . If we were measuring a transmission system for the purpose of determining the noise level of the system, then that noise could itself be a data point for the information we are interested in: namely, how much noise does the system have? But that is a special case in which we are purposely trying to get information about the noise, so to speak. In general, I would agree with gpuccio that the noise should not be treated as information. ----- BTW, wow, great game! (UNC vs. Iowa State) Strange ending, though.Eric Anderson
March 23, 2014
March
03
Mar
23
23
2014
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply