Hollywood movies are usually written to evoke emotional responses from viewers, the stronger the better. Visual effects such as scenery, action as part of a story, and the looks and personality of the actors imply some moral or existential message then follow from the sum total of the two hours of imaginary life experience gained. Or maybe is it just entertainment without meaning?

A picture is worth a thousand words. When I attempt to describe a quite familiar picture or just any picture I happen to come across this old proverb proves to be convincing. Looking at it the other way isn't simple either. It might be quite a challenge to illustrate this paragraph so that any meaning can somehow be passed on to a non-English speaker.

One issue is whether there is any meaning in the passage itself without the contributions of a writer and a reader. Is there a message at all if the reader is naive to the subject and the language employed? A writer might or might not have intended to convey a message to specific or all readers. Am I just spinning meaningless words?

Information in the digital world is alluringly concrete, manageable, and purposeful, for computers that know how to write and read it, yet also for human purposes at a higher level of meaning. It would appear then that information and meaning are not simple, and I am correct in being confused. Clearly the keys I press somehow create meaning that reach your mind with the help of or perhaps in spite of the hidden electronic information that made it possible.

The best introduction available online might be
Daniel Chandler's Semiotics for Beginners

From my own perspective, I am intrigued by the philosophical differences between the approaches of Saussure and Peirce. Is meaning a fleeting thought or an object to be examined? Is information more than the vehicle for meaning?

One issue is whether there is any meaning in the passage itself without the contributions of a writer and a reader. — magritte

Probably not. But information doesn't have to be a message that's sent from writer to reader. It could just be you looking into the night sky, as if to ask: "Where is the north star?"

When you find it, you have information: it's over there. Is this semantic information?

Semantic information may or may not be linguistic. — frank

In-form-ation, as the name implies, takes on many forms. In its generic form, I call it EnFormAction.

My personal worldview is based on the concept that Generic (general, all-inclusive) Information is the fundamental element of our world. It is the basic substance of everything from Physics to Linguistics. That may sound far-fetched, but my Enformationism thesis traces Information from its source, as encoded in the Big Bang Singularity, to its biological form as the genetic code in DNA, then to the kind of conventional meaningful Information (knowledge) that resides in human brains, and finally to its current application as an abstract vessel (Shannon Information) for carrying various values & meanings in modern computers. Even physical Energy is a dynamic form of Generic Information. So, you are correct that, "information may or may not be linguistic". :nerd:

Information :
A quality of physical patterns and processes that stimulates meaning to emerge in a mind. Since it has few directly perceivable qualities itself, generic information is usually defined in terms of its context or container. Unlike colorless, odorless, and formless water though, Information gives physical form to whatever contains it. In the Enformationism thesis it is the single Substance of the whole World.
http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page9.html

Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/

So meaning comes last. — frank

The word "information" means the act of creating recognizable forms. But Shannon stripped the term of its original meaning in order to make an empty shell to contain whatever meaning we want to give it. What once was first, is now last. :smile:

Information :
* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
* For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
* When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Interesting, thanks. I'm trudging through the SEP article. It's more poetic than I thought it would be.

So the general definition of information (GDI) is:

information is data plus meaning

Semantic information is made of data, and diaphoric definition of data (DDD) is:

A datum is a putative fact regarding some difference or lack of uniformity within some context.

This definition can be further analyzed. The first component is data de re. This entity is a product of inference. We see ourselves as information systems. This implies an external source for the ground of experience. So we're talking about proto-epistemic data which we think of as a lack of uniformity. We can't give an example of this kind of data because it's uninterpreted.

So the general definition of information (GDI) is: — frank

Here's my own personal general definition of Information :

Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".

I also distinguish Semantic Information from Shannon Information :

Information :
* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
* For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
* When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). — Gnomon

Although Shannon's work was specifically about transmission of information through communications systems.

My personal worldview is based on the concept that Generic (general, all-inclusive) Information is the fundamental element of our world. — Gnomon

Again, I'm questioning whether information can be regarded as 'an element' on the basis that it's not 'elementary'. What is elementary are, for instance, the periodic table of elements, because they're the fundamental varieties of atomic matter that are found in nature. But information doesn't have a generic form, for it has to specify something, or mean something, in order to be 'information'. A random sequence of letters or numbers doesn't constitute 'information', so what could 'generic information' possibly mean?

I like Claude Shannon's take on information and it gibes with what @unenlightened once edified me on. The intriguing coincidence of having invited a Buddhist Wayfarer and an unelightened to a conversation is unintended.

Shannon believed that information is anything that stands out - the more novel, the more unexpected, the more shocking something is, the more information there is. This understanding of information squares with what @unenlightened once said viz. that to make universal claims has a downside to it viz. the loss of meaning: if everthing is red then redness becomes meaningless - redundant and useless. A quality chosen must be able to bring out differences between things in the world and only then can meaning or use arise. Similarly, if everything is uniform, proceeding as per preset laws/plans, information content is very low. The moment plans go awry or laws are violated, there's a spike in information.

if everthing is red then redness becomes meaningless - redundant and useless. — TheMadFool

So the meaning of red contains its negation.

Data, if defined as a basic lack of uniformity is the beginnings of meaning, or it's at the core of meaning; it's the grain of sand in the meaning oyster.

Although Shannon's work was specifically about transmission of information through communications systems. — Wayfarer

Yes, but the meaning of those transmissions is extracted from the digital code by the mind of the receiver. As philosopher Edward Feser noted : "Shannon was concerned with information in a syntactical rather than semantic sense". Syntax is the formal structure (grammar) of information transmission, and the vehicle or carrier of Meaning (Semantics). Syntax is like Morse code, which is nothing but conventionalized dots & dashes. Those abstractions have no specific concrete meaning until extracted by a conscious mind, trained to interpret the code. A biological analogy is the chemical arrangement of DNA, which is inert & meaningless, until interpreted by transcription factors into proteins. :smile:

Again, I'm questioning whether information can be regarded as 'an element' on the basis that it's not 'elementary'. — Wayfarer

Information is not found in the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements. And Shannon didn't think of Information as elementary or fundamental. It was just a useful tool for his engineering purposes. But physicists are now coming to the conclusion that quantum scale Information is the fundamental "substance" of physical reality. It's a Primary Substance in the Aristotelian (ousia ; essence)) sense, and the Universal Substance in the Spinozan (God-Nature) sense. Physicist Paul Davies proposed "grounding [natural] laws . . . in information considered as the 'ontological basement' level of physical reality". This unconventional view of immaterial Information --- as the basic element of Matter, Energy, and SpaceTime --- is not yet accepted by all scientists, but it is an idea on the leading edge of scientific progress. :nerd:


Is Information Fundamental ? : https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/

Is information the only thing that exists? : Physics suggests information is more fundamental than matter, energy, space and time
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431191-500-inside-knowledge-is-information-the-only-thing-that-exists/

Is Information Fundamental? : Could information be the most basic building block of reality?
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/information-fundamental

The basis of the universe may not be energy or matter but information : In this radical view, the universe is a giant supercomputer processing particles as bits.
https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/the-basis-of-the-universe-may-not-be-energy-or-matter-but-information

to make universal claims has a downside to it viz. the loss of meaning: — TheMadFool

Yes. It's well-known in philosophy that Universals and Generals are abstract and non-specific, hence lacking in concrete specified meaning. But that very abstract universality of Shannon's code (1s & 0s) is also its power. The two-digit code can carry any of zillions of possible meanings. But the specific intended meaning must be interpreted by a trained mind similar to that of the encoder. :smile:

For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

John Searle's Critique of Computer Cognitivism : "if left un-interpreted the symbols will not carry semantic information".

Shannon believed that information is anything that stands out - the more novel, the more unexpected, the more shocking something is, the more information there is. — TheMadFool

BUT, this is not philosophy, it’s data science, about transmission of data through electronic media. Out of his theory grew the algorithms for data compression. I’m sceptical of the way it’s been generalised as a general theory of meaning. At best it generates suggestive analogies.

Thanks for those refs, I notice Paul Davies is mentioned there, and I’m reading Demon in the Machine. But I still say the idea of ‘generic information’ is self-contradictory. Information has to specify something or inform something specific. It’s like the equivalent of Aristotle’s ‘prima materia’ which is a metaphysical idea, not something that exists in reality.

For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness — Gnomon

Right - an important point.

When science scans the universe for SETI, then it’s looking for the biochemical signature of life (or signals sent by an advanced culture). Nothing has been found to date. But the point is, during this search the instruments collect billions of terrabytes of data, none of which contains information specifically denoting the existence of life.

The ‘information signature’ which is associated with life is morphological - it is information that gives rise to biological forms. So in relation to living organisms, information is significant because it is what is managed and transferred by DNA/RNA. That is the ‘signature’ that SETI is looking for.

But is it meaningful to consider the structure of inorganic matter in terms of ‘information’? Science has long since come to understand the atomic weight of the elements in the periodic table, which constitutes information about the nature of the elements. But is it meaningful to represent the elements as being actually ‘composed of information?’ Even if everything about the elements could be represented mathematically - and mathematical physics has many gaps in its accounts - is it true to say that this mathematical information is the substance from which the elements are constituted? That’s what I am dubious about.

I wonder if ‘information’ has been singled out as a fundamental concept because of the shortcomings of materialist ontology; something always seems to be missing, maybe we can designate that something ‘information’? After all, there is a subject called ‘information science’, this is more scientifically appealing than ‘mind’ or ‘spirit’.

(Actually I have a ref to provide also, Marcelo Barbieri, What is information?. The point about his paper is defining ‘information’ in respect of biological science in particular, which provides a scope that I think is missing in many of these other discussions.)

But I still say the idea of ‘generic information’ is self-contradictory. Information has to specify something or inform something specific. It’s like the equivalent of Aristotle’s ‘prima materia’ which is a metaphysical idea, not something that exists in reality. — Wayfarer

That's exactly the point of the Enformationism thesis. Generic (general, universal, creative) Information is Meta-physical. But it has the power to transform into Physical things,including living things --- just like Energy --- and like Plato's Forms. This radical notion is explained further in the thesis and the blog. The "specification" is in the Intention. And in Evolution, the fittest physical form is "selected" (specified) from among a random assortment of potential forms. Natural Selection is an algorithm. :smile:

EnFormAction is not a physical force, pushing objects around. It’s more like Gravity and Strange Attractors of Physics that “pull” stuff toward them. It is in effect a Teleological Attractor. How that “spooky action at a distance” works may be best explained by Terrence Deacon’s definition of “Absence”.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

Evolution Algorithm :
A genetic algorithm is a search heuristic that is inspired by Charles Darwin's theory of natural evolution. This algorithm reflects the process of natural selection where the fittest individuals are selected for reproduction in order to produce offspring of the next generation.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=natural+selection+algorithm

The ‘information signature’ which is associated with life is morphological - it is information that gives rise to biological forms. — Wayfarer

That invisible intangible Energy can somehow transform dead matter into living beings is well known. Many ancient traditions have postulated some kind of Vital Force or Chi or Prana or Soul. Since these "energies" have not been found by Physical Science, the names must refer to some Meta-physical power. In the Frankenstein novel, even the raw power of lightening was imagined as the vitalizing force. But nobody knows exactly how the "mechanism of organism" works. It seems to be related to the phase change from a collection of parts, to a single unified organic biological Whole.

I can't specify all the transitional steps from Matter to Life to Mind, but it seems to be merely a highly-evolved kind of Phase Transition --- like liquid to gas to solid. Terrance Deacon uses terms like "Morphodynamics", "Teleodynamics", & "Emergent-dynamics" to describe some of the higher-level phase transitions.

To clarify, I don't consider EnFormAction to be a magical force, but it is meta-physical in the sense that the origin of natural Energy is unknown, and is assumed to exist eternally, like Plato's Forms. :nerd:

Terrance Deacon : . . . phase transition between morphodynamics and teleodynamics . . .
https://informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/deacon/

Meta-Physics :
* "Physics" refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. "Meta-physics" includes the properties, and qualities, essences, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form; purpose; cause); physics is the product (shape; stuff; effect). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Morphological : relating to the form or structure of things.
Note -- EnFormAction is Morphological.

(Actually I have a ref to provide also, Marcelo Barbieri, What is information?. — Wayfarer

Barbieri : What is not clear, however, is the ontological status of information,
The "ontological status of information" is the subject of the Enformationism thesis.

I’m reading Demon in the Machine. — Wayfarer

FWIW, my review of Paul Davies' book :
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page6.html

Barbieri : What is not clear, however, is the ontological status of information. — Gnomon

Well, all due respect, I don't think you've really clarified it. But then, it's a very deep question.

Did you notice the brief discussion of Hubert Yockey in that paper?

FWIW, my review of Paul Davies' book : — Gnomon

Good review - and I must finish reading it myself.

// there's a lot in that review that I agree with, and I'm generally sympathetic to your project//.

So the meaning of red contains its negation. — frank

If everything were red, its opposite wouldn't be something not-red but would be nothing. An intriguing implication of this would be the possibility that what we regard as things and whose opposite we consider is nothing may have opposites that are things themselves. Like red objects have non-red objects, things may have non-things but note, as non-red objects aren't nothing and are themselves [i[things[/i], these non-things aren't nothing.but are things too.

Imagine a universe A in which all things are red contained within a universe B that contains, in addition to the red things of universe A, blue things too. For a person living inside universe A, not-red is equivalent to nothing for all things are red but for a person in universe B, not-red isn't nothing, not-red is blue. Similarly, in our universe, what we treat as things may actually have opposite not-things in a universe that contains our own but aren't nothing. Just as the not-red in universe A is nothing for an inhabitant of universe A but the not-red is blue for a person living in universe B, what we treat as nothing in our universe may be something in another universe, one that contains our universe as a subset.

Data, if defined as a basic lack of uniformity is the beginnings of meaning, or it's at the core of meaning; it's the grain of sand in the meaning oyster. — frank

BUT, this is not philosophy, it’s data science, about transmission of data through electronic media. Out of his theory grew the algorithms for data compression. I’m sceptical of the way it’s been generalised as a general theory of meaning. At best it generates suggestive analogies. — Wayfarer

To both of you

Well, look at it this way. Suppose there are three people X, Y and Z. X has no information at all on both Sunday and Monday i.e. X's information = 0 bits on Sunday and 0 bits on Monday. Y has 5 bits of information on Sunday and 5 bits of information on Monday and Z has 5 bits of information on Sunday and 8 bits of information on Monday. X has no information i.e X has 0 bits of information from Sunday to Monday. Y has 5 bits of information on Sunday but on Monday Y still has only 5 bits of information. Y's information on Monday (5 bits) - Y's information on Sunday (5 bits) = 0 bits. X's information on Monday (0 bits) - X's information on Sunday (0 bits) = 0 bits. In other words, uniformity/constancy in information over time is equivalent to having no information at all. Z, on the other hand, because of a discontinuity in the general pattern, has a net information of 3 bits (8 bits on Monday - 5 bits on Sunday) over a time period of 2 days (Sunday to Monday).

Consider now the most common method of assigning meaning, genus-differentia definitions. First, a background pattern (uniformity) is established with the genus and then a specific set of differentia (breaks in the pattern) are chosen to pick out the class/object thus defined.

Shannon believed that information is anything that stands out - the more novel, the more unexpected, the more shocking something is, the more information there is. This understanding of information squares with what unenlightened once said viz. that to make universal claims has a downside to it viz. the loss of meaning: if everthing is red then redness becomes meaningless - redundant and useless. — TheMadFool

The more complex something is, the more information there is.

If information only exists in minds and data exists everywhere else then meaning would be arbitrary and imaginary. If there are reasons some data exists, then those reasons would be the meaning of the data. Those causal relationships are already there prior to some mind apprehending them. So information appears as data when the causal relationship is not apprehended, and it appears as information when it is apprehended.

When science scans the universe for SETI, then it’s looking for the biochemical signature of life (or signals sent by an advanced culture). Nothing has been found to date. But the point is, during this search the instruments collect billions of terrabytes of data, none of which contains information specifically denoting the existence of life. — Wayfarer

Correction. They collect billions of terabytes of information, but none of it pertains to the existence of extra terrestrials, or was CAUSED by extra terrestrial activity. It was still caused so there is information there in the data, just not the type of information NASA is looking for.

The more complex something is, the more information there is. — Harry Hindu

That's what Richard Dawkins believes. Did you read his book, The Devil's Chaplain? In it he suggests a simple test for complexity - if the number of words required to describe X (information) is more than the number of words required to describe Y (again information) and provided the descriptions are at the same level of complexity/organization, X is more complex than Y.

f information only exists in minds and data exists everywhere else then meaning would be arbitrary and imaginary. If there are reasons some [sic] dara exists, then those reasons would be the meaning of the data. Those causal relationships are already there prior to some mind apprehending them. So information appears as data when the causal relationship is not apprehended, and it appears as information when it is apprehended. — Harry Hindu

You seem to have something going on with causality from what I've gathered from your posts. What is it about causality that interests you? Anyway, you mean to say that information is data understood (apprehended)? Pray tell, what is data then as information seems to supervene on data.

But is it meaningful to consider the structure of inorganic matter in terms of ‘information’? Science has long since come to understand the atomic weight of the elements in the periodic table, which constitutes information about the nature of the elements. But is it meaningful to represent the elements as being actually ‘composed of information?’ Even if everything about the elements could be represented mathematically - and mathematical physics has many gaps in its accounts - is it true to say that this mathematical information is the substance from which the elements are constituted? That’s what I am dubious about. — Wayfarer

"Information" Is an ambiguous term which allows the modern materialist, or physicalist, through the use of illusion, to escape the need for God in metaphysics. It is directly related to time in the second law of thermodynamics, and this allows the premise that if there is time, there is information. The problem though is that under this definition "information" is necessarily the property of a system, as entropy is defined as the property of a system. If the metaphysician ignores this fundamental requirement of "information", one can also ignore the fact that a "system" is an artificial thing with definite boundaries. The boundaries of "the system" in this modern form of metaphysics will be the beginning and ending of time. But as you can see this is a sort of logical incoherency, an epistemological trick, because the proposal is to assume that something with unknown boundaries must have actual boundaries. The illusory assumption therefore, is that we can start from the premise that the boundaries are known, as is necessary to describe this "system", and proceed using the "system" which we describe from this premise.

That's exactly the point of the Enformationism thesis. Generic (general, universal, creative) Information is Meta-physical. But it has the power to transform into Physical things, including living things --- just like Energy --- and like Plato's Forms. — Gnomon

This is a very good example of how the ambiguity of "information" allows a metaphysician to avoid the need for God. Since the second law of thermodynamics describes entropy as increasing while time passes, the beginning of time is described as the most highly informed, or organized state. This allows that the information can pass into any other possible highly organized states as time passes and the system entropizes. The premise that the system starts from the highest possible state of organization allows that the system transforms itself into other highly organized states through random changes of entropization. But we ought to see through this smoke and mirrors illusion, to realize that this is only possible because the most highly organized state possible is premised as the beginning state. And of course such a beginning state could only be created by an omniscient Being. So the premise that information is fundamental, implies that God is even more fundamental. But this implication is simply ignored or denied by the informationist.

Well, all due respect, I don't think you've really clarified it. But then, it's a very deep question. — Wayfarer

As you said, the ontological status of "Information" is a complex topic with many aspects. In order to understand my personal attempt at clarification, you'd have to read the whole Enformationism thesis. Some may find it tedious and irrelevant to science, but I think it's a novel, even radical re-interpretation and consilience of the original meaning of "Information" as Knowledge in a mind, and the new concepts of "Information" as an abstract code, and as the essence of causal Energy : the ability to enform, :smile:

Consilence : agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects, especially science and the humanities.

Did you notice the brief discussion of Hubert Yockey in that paper? — Wayfarer

Yes. I think he's missing the key point of the Enformationism thesis : that information is not just a carrier of Data, but of Mind and Life. How do you think DNA information can enform not only proteins, but put them together into a living body? As a god-fearing person might ask, "at what step in the development of an embryo is the Soul imparted?" Maybe the potential for Life & Mind was in there from the beginning as Intention or Purpose or Teleology. :cool:

So the premise that information is fundamental, implies that God is even more fundamental. But this implication is simply ignored or denied by the informationist. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. I was led by my exploration of the Enformationism thesis to conclude that something like a Divine Creator -- or First Cause of our space-time sequence of secondary causes -- is reasonable to assume; perhaps even necessary to believe. But the very generality & universality of Information in the real world, does not specify any particular traditional deity concept. Nor does it imply any humanoid characteristics, such as motherly love or fatherly commandments.

That's why, in my thesis and blog, I refer to the Enformer by many names, including the deliberately non-specific term "G*D". I take the necessary existence of The Programmer as an axiom in my worldview. But even more fundamental than a creative Prime Cause is the eternal power to exist, which I call BEING. Yet I don't have any reason to expect the Designer of Evolution (The Lawgiver) to make an exception to the universal rules of Nature, for poor little me. I also don't see any evidence of a revelation, apart from that which Science uncovers, to any particular tribe of humans.

So all those Metaphysical roles affect me in a philosophical way, but not in any particular physical difference or emotional charge. Like the Supreme Being of Deism, my G*D does not not intervene in the implacable automatic execution of the Evolutionary Program. Hence, while I am sympathetic to traditional notions of Supernatural Gods, I don't have any motive to worship or pray-to that Universal Agency. Enformationism is a philosophical worldview, not a romantic religion. :cool:

PS___I assume the "informationist" you refer to is restricted to the technical mechanical Shannon interpretation, and omits the Bayesian criterion, which includes a parameter for personal beliefs and opinions.

Information" Is an ambiguous term which allows the modern materialist, or physicalist, through the use of illusion, to escape the need for God in metaphysics — Metaphysician Undercover

No. It's not.

First, I'm not a materialist. Second, I'm not trying to escape the need for anything except unnecessarily complex assertions using terms that you don't even understand what they mean, and can't be consistently or properly be used.

It is directly related to time in the second law of thermodynamics, and this allows the premise that if there is time, there is information. The problem though is that under this definition "information" is necessarily the property of a system, as entropy is defined as the property of a system. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, causality is related to time, however I don't see how it follows that that would mean it is a property of a system. Again, here you are using words that are vague or superfluous. "God" and, "time" are two examples. What is "time"? Isnt time just another word for change? Is change fundamental, or is the substance that changes fundamental? Can you assert that one is more fundamental than the other? Does it even make sense to separate one from the other?

You seem to have something going on with causality from what I've gathered from your posts. What is it about causality that interests you? Anyway, you mean to say that information is data understood (apprehended)? Pray tell, what is data then as information seems to supervene on data. — TheMadFool

What interests me is how effects are about their causes and how causes are about their effects. It is also interesting to note that every effect is also a cause of some subsequent effect and that all effects carry information about all prior causes.

The division between data and information is epistemological, just like order and chaos. They are distinctions made based our current understanding of some process. An understood process appears orderly and contains information, while a process that is not well understood appears as random data.

What interests me is how effects are about their causes and how causes are about their effects. It is also interesting to note that every effect is also a cause of some subsequent effect and that all effects carry information about all prior causes. — Harry Hindu

Yes, I agree with you. To the extent that I'm aware, this comes from my acquaintance with detective work, the effect contains telltale signs of the cause. How else is a detective supposed to operate? Working backwards from the crime scene to the crime itself is how a detective earns his keep. Note, however, that you used information in a sense that suggests that it has to do with more than just causality. If the two were identical you wouldn't/shouldn't have said, "...all effects carry information about all prior causes", right? I would like you to expand on the non-causality aspect of information.

Yes, I agree with you. To the extent that I'm aware, this comes from my acquaintance with detective work, the effect contains telltale signs of the cause. How else is a detective supposed to operate? Working backwards from the crime scene to the crime itself is how a detective earns his keep. — TheMadFool

Yes, that is an example that I like to use, too. I also like to use the example of a tree stump with tree rings. The tree rings carry information about the age of the tree. The tree rings were caused by how the tree grows throughout the year. The meaning of the tree rings is not in the mind of an observer. It is in the process that created the tree rings. This implies that meaning and information exists independent of observers and their minds.

Note, however, that you used information in a sense that suggests that it has to do with more than just causality. If the two were identical you wouldn't/shouldn't have said, "...all effects carry information about all prior causes", right? I would like you to expand on the non-causality aspect of information. — TheMadFool

What I mean is that information is that relationship between cause and effect. Causes and effects are epistemological snapshots of the entire process. Causes and effects are the objects and events that we talk about.

Our words are caused by our ideas and our intent to communicate them. That is what some string of words mean. Meaning and information are the same thing. So you could say that meaning is the relationship between cause and effect, too.

Here's another angle to information. In information space there are six dimensions:

1. What?
2. Where?
3. When?
4. Who?
5. Which?
6. How?
7. Why?

Each object/phenomenon/event is a point in this information space defined by the values of these six dimensions.

No. It's not.

First, I'm not a materialist. Second, I'm not trying to escape the need for anything except unnecessarily complex assertions using terms that you don't even understand what they mean, and can't be consistently or properly be used. — Harry Hindu

So, let me give you an example of the ambiguity then.

The more complex something is, the more information there is.

If information only exists in minds and data exists everywhere else then meaning would be arbitrary and imaginary. If there are reasons some dara exists, then those reasons would be the meaning of the data. Those causal relationships are already there prior to some mind apprehending them. So information appears as data when the causal relationship is not apprehended, and it appears as information when it is apprehended. — Harry Hindu

See the ambiguity in your usage? You start out by saying information is in the complex thing. Then you end up saying that this is really "data", and it only appears to be information when apprehended by a mind. So which is it, is information in the thing as what we call "data", or is it how the data appears to the mind when apprehended? You do understand that there is a difference between these two don't you? And to switch back and forth is to equivocate.

Yes, causality is related to time, however I don't see how it follows that that would mean it is a property of a system. — Harry Hindu

I wasn't talking about "causality", I was talking about "information". Why change the subject? The second law of thermodynamics stipulates a direct relationship between entropy and time. Further, entropy is a defining feature of information theory through the concept of "uncertainty". So we have a direct relation between information and time, through the concepts of uncertainty, entropy, and the second law.

And, "entropy" is by definition the property of a system. It refers to that system's capacity to do work. Any system loses its capacity to do work, as time passes, simply as a function of time passing. That's how the possibility of a perpetual motion machine is ruled out. The system loses its capacity to do work, because energy is actually lost from the system, but there is "uncertainty" as to exactly what happens to that energy, it simply cannot be accounted for within the system. But the first law of thermodynamics stipulates that energy must be conserved, so the uncertainty as to what happens to that energy is expressed as a loss of information. If we assume a closed system, and maintain the first law, then energy which can be accounted for is information, and energy which cannot be accounted for is entropy.

Again, here you are using the word, "time" inappropriately. What is, "time"? Isnt time just another word for change? Is change fundamental, or is the substance that changes fundamental? Can you assert that one is more fundamental than the other? Does it even make sense to separate one from the other? — Harry Hindu

I don't see how any of this is relevant. I used "time" in the way that it is used in the second law of thermodynamics. Any other way that "time" might be used is irrelevant and a distraction.

Yes, that is an example that I like to use, too. I also like to use the example of a tree stump with tree rings. The tree rings carry information about the age of the tree. The tree rings were caused by how the tree grows throughout the year. The meaning of the tree rings is not in the mind of an observer. It is in the process that created the tree rings. This implies that meaning and information exists independent of observers and their minds. — Harry Hindu

Nothing to add/subtract although the most pressing concern regarding information being sought, given the teleological slant of many of our predecessors, seems to be WHO...is...behind...all...this? [the questioner takes his last breath, his eyes glaze over, and then his body goes limp]

information is that relationship between cause and effect. — Harry Hindu

Well, that doesn't seem to be all that helpful if you don't mind me saying so. Why have a word "information" supposedly an attempt to invent an entirely new concept category if it ultimately boils down cause and effect? We already have the notion of causality, right? If information is simply the relationship between cause and effect, then why all the hullabaloo?

Too, what exactly do you mean by "relationship" between cause and effect. The only relationship that exists between these two is causality. Are you suggesting information = causality? If you are then that brings us back to the question I asked, what's the point of the whole exercise of inventing the word "information"?

Nothing to add/subtract although the most pressing concern regarding information being sought, given the teleological slant of many of our predecessors, seems to be WHO...is...behind...all...this? [the questioner takes his last breath, his eyes glaze over, and then his body goes limp] — TheMadFool

I don't understand the question. "WHO" is behind what?

Too, what exactly do you mean by "relationship" between cause and effect. The only relationship that exists between these two is causality. Are you suggesting information = causality? If you are then that brings us back to the question I asked, what's the point of the whole exercise of inventing the word "information"? — TheMadFool

Yes, causality = information = meaning. However, I don't understand your aversion to synonyms. Do you not use some words interchangeably? Also, I think "information" provides that sense of aboutness that "causality" does not seem to imply.

See the ambiguity in your usage? You start out by saying information is in the complex thing. Then you end up saying that this is really "data", and it only appears to be information when apprehended by a mind. So which is it, is information in the thing as what we call "data", or is it how the data appears to the mind when apprehended? You do understand that there is a difference between these two don't you? And to switch back and forth is to equivocate. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. I said that the more complex something is, the more information there is. There is information in simple systems, just not as much as in complex systems. The system being the causal process that leads to the effect that we are talking about.

Information is the relationship between causes and their effects. Apprehending that relationship is the act of syncing our knowledge with the way things are. Many people use the term information interchangeably with knowledge. If you have knowledge, you have information. We have terms that have more than one definition, so I don't understand this sudden aversion to different words meaning the same thing, or words that have more than one definition. It would only matter if the definitions contradicted each other, and they don't.

I wasn't talking about "causality", I was talking about "information". Why change the subject? — Metaphysician Undercover

I wasn't. They are the same thing.