Re: Information Paradox

On Jul 22, 4:10 am, Raving <raving.loo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 22, 3:53 am, Great Khan <oceanic_k...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jul 21, 1:51 pm, Raving <raving.loo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Quoting from Wikipedia ... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology)

[... Ontology has one basic question: "What exists?" Different
philosophers provide different answers to this question.

One common approach is to divide the extant entities into groups
called "categories". However, these lists of categories are also quite
different from one another. It is in this latter sense that ontology
is applied to such fields as theology, information science and
artificial intelligence. ...].

Soooo, how do we DEFINE 'Information', eh?
<rhetorical, circumspect 'pause'>

... Sigh.

[Stream of consciousness babble follows ...

Raving says to self -

"Think identity element...

... think 'unit'
... think 'element'
... think 'object'
... think 'word' (linguistic context)
... think 'node'
... think 'codon'
... think 'set'
... think 'gene'
... think 'meme'
... think 'instance'
... think 'thought'
... think 'atom'
... think 'concept'
... think 'species'
... think 'set'
... think 'focal awareness'

... think 'single instance' that is a member of an 'ensemble of all
instances'
applies to (thermodynamic), (quantum), (statistical), ( ( _ )
canonical) ENSEMBLES
seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_ensemble

In summary, all of the above are ALL-AS-ONE ( the "same" ) in the
following manner ....

.. a singular, isolated, self-preserving, independent ' * U * N * I
* T* '

.. a 'bit'
.. a 'byte'
.. a 'chunk'
.. a 'pinch'
.. a 'dollop'
.. a "dog's breakfast" ]

------------------------------------------

One way to ' define - describe ' INFORMATION is as ...
... an isolated, individual, freestanding ...

~~~> package
~~~> packet
~~~> object
~~~> bundle
~~~> bit
....

There is much involved ...

**Notice** These unmentioned extras are ...
....implied, assumed, implicit, ignored, unknown, exterior ...

-------------------------------------------

Specifically, consider these two qualities concerning 'INFORMATION'

1) The singular, "unitizable", object-like, package ... 'quality'
( .. as described above. )

2) The 'context' which underlies the 'unit' quality.
( Not yet, described. See below ... )

==============================================

~~~> The Information Paradox <~~~

a) 'Biological Information' (biological process motivated definition)
b) 'Physical Information' (physical science motivated definition)

... are the SAME, insofar as they both emphasize the isolated 'unit'
or ' object'.

They are at variance in the *extreme* ...

... in the 'context' which is assumed and underlies the 'unit' or
'object'.

* * *

The 'Physical Science' perspective -

"Physical Science" (for convenience, tagged as 'Physics') has defined
'Unit of Information' so as to eliminate all the IMPLIED CONTEXT.

Physicists are motivated to do this, so as to render descriptions in a
'well formulated' manner. They know to be meticulous and clear in
setting up a problem in a precise, closed form.

The physics approach is to craft the description in a manner that is
universal, timeless, unambiguous, and free of all other consideration.

Undeclared, unrecognized assumptions are perceived as being reckless,
sloppy luxuries.

O.K ... I am providing a heuristic description ( :-/ ) of 'What
physicists "do" ' (Not being a physicist myself and putting words in
their mouths, too! ;-) ) ... Regardless!

Simply, look at the various physics motivated definitions of
'Information' ( statistical ensemble ) and you ought to notice that it
is calculated to describe the situation in terms of maximum
disassembly.

The physics motivated definition/description of 'Information' strives
to make every unit of information Co-EQUIVALENT.

Defining 'Information' in this manner yields ...

a) universal, ubiquitous, timeless, unambiguous ..
b) Minimized ~~~~> implied, external CONTEXT.

* * *

The 'Biological Process' perspective -

Ironically, 'Biology' *also* strives to reduce the specificity of the
'Information packet' by offloading into implied background context!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
'Biological process' works to imbue the unit information packet with
enormous specific meaning in a minimal tokenized representation.

In fact, this is the essential description of 'Biological Process',
ITSELF!!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Example:

PHYSICS INFORMATION -

It is suggested that we exist in a reality of multiple universes.

This assertion is derived, in part by determining the quantity of
unique, enumerable, coexisting, quantum mechanical states in the
universe of such possibilities.

Each quantum mechanical state is a unit which is supremely devoid of
implied 'context'.

BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION -

What does 'One Dollar bill, USD' mean?

It's just a small piece of paper which is rendered even more useless
by having greenish ink applied to both sides.

The worth of a dollar bill is NOT is the physical object ... commonly
recognized as a non counterfeit $1 USD bill ...

Rather, that piece of paper serves as a token, stand in representation
of ALL-that-is-appreciated-and-assumed concerning the reduced,
tokenized representation ( i.e. the actual dollar bill ) itself.

The reduced, simplified focus ( the $1 bill ) provides an essential
'tag' for a huge, implied, background context.

The implied context is immense.

==============================

Thus ....

The definition of 'Physical Information' strives to reduce external,
contextual, considerations.

The definition of 'Biological Information' strives to maximize ( or
strongly relies upon ) external, contextual, considerations.

It would be difficult to create a more striking, 'dialectic'.

I've just gotten a call from the Talk.Origins Betazoid, we are now
aware of the loon's mental capacity. A transcript:

"It appears to be . . . a young teenager! Or at, intellectually
speaking. Quite arrogant in fact, and awfully full of himself. I can
only wonder how he fits that ego in with his misunderstanding of the
English language. I'm also sensing . . . bullshit. Not just shit on
cars or guns, but lots and lots of bullshit! He seems to be full of
nothing but shit!"

I can only guess that if tricorders were real too, they could only
record that Raving is actually a being made up entirely of shit. The
first shit based organism: A cornerstone in evolutionary biology! How
can a being of pure shit like Raving survive? Oh, that's right: He
won't. He'll eventually find out that his 'philosophical smart-assims'
are nothing more than 100% bullshit and grow up.

If anything, going off and boasting about your philosophical B-U-L-L-S-
H-I-T is a good indicator that you're a troll and/or kid and ought to
be confined to the painful side of a can of whoop ass right about now.

It's all bull shit, Khan. You got that right.

'tunnel vision' ~~~> Bull shit.

Ignorance is your prerogative. Feel free to yank your own chain.

Stay in the tunnel, if you so wish. Live your life, there. It is
warm and comforting.
... There is no harm in doing that sort of thing.

If you are happy that way, then all the more power to you. At least,
you have found yourself and are satisfied. That the *best* that any
person can hope for in life.

Speaking for myself personally, I care about discovering what I take
for granted.
.. but that's "me". It is not necessarily you. YMMV

And I'm supposed to believe that you're witty and Jesus like because
you can barely write the illusion of a coherent message?

You're still a twit, Chinese proverb impersonations or not. I've seen
more helpful on REAL fortune cookies. Better yet, they're useful in
that I can eat them. Henceforth, I sincerely believe you ought to do
what you can for mankind to the best of your ability and grind
yourself up into the nasty wafer crap they use in fortune cookies. At
least than we may collectively ponder on your present idiocy with
delightful irony.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Information Paradox
    ... philosophers provide different answers to this question. ... 'Unit of Information' so as to eliminate all the IMPLIED CONTEXT. ... physicists "do" ' (Not being a physicist myself and putting words in ... Not just shit on ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT: Harry Potter...
    ... meaning your imagination had concocted for it. ... You have proven only you're total inability to use context. ... with an attempt to get a retard to grasp that frozen fertilized ovum are ... Given that you're a complete shit for brains, I didn't have a lot of hope. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: OT: Harry Potter...
    ... It was the absolutely correct definition. ... Connotation and Denotation matter, as does context. ... You're a lying sack of shit. ... Your capacity for brain-dead bullshit knows no bounds. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: OT: Harry Potter...
    ... Connotation and Denotation matter, as does context. ... You're a lying sack of shit. ... premise may consist of a supposition OR an established fact. ... You shit for brains. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
    ... >>>Yes, yes, but what do they mean after you have defined the context? ... what physicists learn to become physicists is ... (That is why mathematics ... What would contradict what founding principles? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)