Information Theory

[HasMat]

There are several threads on this forum that I think would benefit from a widely accepted understanding of information theory (language/meaning, morality, theism).

 

One definition I found on the internet of information is: what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.

 

My definition of information: context and content. Example of context is "english dictionary". Example of content is "dog".

 

In information theory the quantity of information can be encoded in both the dictionary and the content.

 

If you work out with your buddy that the safeword "September 11th, 2002" means you are being held hostage, then that string of letters has its own dictionary entry.

 

As the size of a dictionary approaches infinity, a single bit of content becomes able to encode infinite information. That is not the most efficient way to encode data, unless that single bit is very commonly used in communication. But it is still possible.

 

What this means is that physical signals can be informationally represented as anything else. Up can be down, black can be white. In a purely physical world none of these perspectives or dictionaries have any more validity than any other.

 

The theory of relativity says that anything can be represented as something else given the right frame of reference. Occam's razor says we should prefer the less complex explanations with the smallest dictionaries. Fair enough, but preference is prerogative. Libertines may want to have sex with their dog. Preference is not a strong enough organizing principle to convert a physical signal into an absolute truth. Preference doesn't get you from "I don't like sex with dogs" to "Nobody should have sex with dogs".

 

To me the great challenge is converting viewpoint invariant interpretation of information into meaning. I see this as the overarching thread missing across this forum.

 

We have language to propagate mechanistic physical signals, but for it to become something more than a mechanism it needs a wall to bounce off.

[Koroviev]

Great point, and thanks for bringing it up. The first thing that comes to my mind is is that not what the dictionary is for? We can converse just fine using prior knowledge and context clues but once our "meaning" of a word becomes contradictory we need an objective (or at least generally accepted) third-party understanding. This doesn't mean the dictionary is law and in the context of the conversation there can be an understanding of a "new" meaning, but in order to effectively communicate that idea with others you either have to return to the commonly accepted (dictionary) meaning or redefine it up front.

 

I'm not sure if that's way off base or even makes sense, definitely have to do more research into information theory myself.

[bugzysegal]

There are several threads on this forum that I think would benefit from a widely accepted understanding of information theory (language/meaning, morality, theism).

 

One definition I found on the internet of information is: what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.

 

My definition of information: context and content. Example of context is "english dictionary". Example of content is "dog".

 

In information theory the quantity of information can be encoded in both the dictionary and the content.

 

If you work out with your buddy that the safeword "September 11th, 2002" means you are being held hostage, then that string of letters has its own dictionary entry.

 

As the size of a dictionary approaches infinity, a single bit of content becomes able to encode infinite information. That is not the most efficient way to encode data, unless that single bit is very commonly used in communication. But it is still possible.

 

What this means is that physical signals can be informationally represented as anything else. Up can be down, black can be white. In a purely physical world none of these perspectives or dictionaries have any more validity than any other.

 

The theory of relativity says that anything can be represented as something else given the right frame of reference. Occam's razor says we should prefer the less complex explanations with the smallest dictionaries. Fair enough, but preference is prerogative. Libertines may want to have sex with their dog. Preference is not a strong enough organizing principle to convert a physical signal into an absolute truth. Preference doesn't get you from "I don't like sex with dogs" to "Nobody should have sex with dogs".

 

To me the great challenge is converting viewpoint invariant interpretation of information into meaning. I see this as the overarching thread missing across this forum.

 

We have language to propagate mechanistic physical signals, but for it to become something more than a mechanism it needs a wall to bounce off.

I'm not sure special relativity states anything can mean anything else.  I think it very specifically talks about space/time being relative to speed of the observer and the relation of that speed to the speed of light. That being said...the idea that the world is just information is a type of mathematical realism that is highly contentious. We don't need to go to a dictionary to see what a word means, infinite or otherwise. if you want to know the meaning of a word, look how it's used. Meaning is use.