TPF : What is Information?

[Gnomon]

↪Pop

The definition of information in this sense is: information enables the interaction of form. or Information = evolutionary interaction [/unquote]

That definition is getting close to what I call EnFormAction, which is the causal & organizing agent of Evolution. That creative force is what was called "the Will of God" in the Bible, or "Logos", by Plato, or "First Cause" & "Prime Mover" by Aristotle, or "Natural Law" by Deists. Like the "Energy" of modern Science, it is known, inferred, only by its effects in the real world. And yes. EFA both causes all interactions, and directs them toward some ultimate destination.

Of course, since motivating & organizing "Cosmic Destiny" is randomized by Entropy (disorganization), each information processing (or integrating) agent in the world has some degree of Free Will (Choice within Chance). Unfortunately, that freedom from Destiny also allows for the physical & emotional suffering of those agents. Why? Maybe it's a test, similar to that argued by Jewish & Christian & Islamic theologians. But, I doubt that it's a test of long-suffering loyalty to the inferred-but-unseen deity, as assumed by those apologists for the Problem of Evil. That would be plain perverse.


EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Divine Will) of the axiomatic eternal deity that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite source of possibility. AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_of_God

EnFormAction :
* Metaphorically, it's the Will-power of G*D, which is the First Cause of everything in creation. Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", so EFA is the general cause of everything in the world. Energy, Matter, Gravity, Life, Mind are secondary creative causes, each with limited application.
* All are also forms of Information, the "difference that makes a difference". It works by directing causation from negative to positive, cold to hot, ignorance to knowledge. That's the basis of mathematical ratios (Greek "Logos", Latin "Ratio" = reason). A : B :: C : D. By interpreting those ratios we get meaning and reasons.
* The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

[BAblogger]

new thread
The Definition of Information
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/596934

I have no problem with the equivalence of matter and information. However I see no advantage in this assumption. What is the practical consequence? . . . To define the term "information" I suggest to with "Information" contained in propositions. . . .
As far as I understand your thoughts move in an area between questions of quantum mechanics and neuro physiology, between structuralism and neo positivism. Even in a more modest area a clarification of the terms would be necessary. — Mersi

Claude Shannon narrowed his definition of "Information" down to one specific "practical consequence" : either a communication of Information conveys (certain) meaning from sender to receiver, or not (uncertain). But that is just one of many ways to define the term. Pop has developed a more philosophical way to approach the problem of understanding what Information is, in more general terms : "Information is the evolutionary interaction of form, or Information = evolutionary interaction, explains the role of information in our lives." Unfortunately, that definition may be a bit too broad for those who don't grasp the Idealized meaning of "interaction of form". Many posters on this forum don't give credence to Plato's notion of abstract eternal Forms, as the essence of concrete space-time Things.

So, the problem with a comprehensive definition of "Information" is that it is all-of-the-above, and more. I call it a ShapeShifter, because Information takes different forms, depending on the context. In a computer, it can be reduced down to abstract mathematical symbols : 1 or 0, all or nothing. On the other hand, you mentioned that you have "no problem with the equivalence of matter and information". But what does that abstract equation imply about the real world? In what sense are Matter and Information the same thing? To clarify that claim of multiple identities, I would add a third entity : The Matter, Energy, Information Equivalence. The original referent, of the verb "to inform", was to the invisible & intangible contents of a human mind (meaning). But Shannon gave it a mathematical & physical interpretation similar to the quantum collapse of an abstract & random waveform into a specific concrete particle of matter. However, by comparing the uncertainty of randomness to Entropy, he brought-in a connection to abstract causal Energy, which we infer from its effects on Matter.

Therefore, a complete definition of "Information" must cover all of those technical & scientific concepts, along with the philosophical notions of "aboutness" & "meaning" & "cybernetics". In its causal energetic form, I spell it : EnFormAction (the power to cause change in form). Only when you understand the ubiquity of Information in the real and ideal worlds, will you be able to see the manifold practical and philosophical "consequences" of Information, as Spinoza's "universal substance" of the world.


The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
Here we formulate a new principle of mass-energy-information equivalence proposing that a bit of information is not just physical, as already demonstrated, but it has a finite and quantifiable mass while it stores information.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

Matter, Energy, Information :
Unpublished until now, this essay was written in 1969. It takes up the ancient concept of form, in order to interpret the contemporary concept of information and to develop a unified concept encompassing both biology, as understood cybernetically, and physics, as the theory of decidable alternatives
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 03668-7_11

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

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".
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

[BAblogger]

He is wrong!! information is not equal to consciousness. Information is the interaction of information, which when integrated becomes consciousness. — Pop

Yes. It's understandable that some might define Information in terms of Consciousness. But they are not the same. And the difference makes a difference in understanding. Information is what we are conscious of : aboutness, relationships, meaningful patterns, structure. In its native "wild" form, Information is meaningless potential, metaphorically equivalent to the static voltage of a battery, compared to the flowing amperage of an electrical circuit. Only when the circuit is complete (whole, unified) is it capable of doing work (energy ; useful relevant meaning).

Likewise, only when integrated into a holistic concept, does information become conscious meaning-or-value-or-significance to the "first person" observer. In terms of quantum physics, an observation extracts information (energy, mathematical values, personal values), which causes the metaphorical "collapse" (manifestation) of an uncertain state into a certain value, such as a vector (position + direction). So consciousness is about information, but is not information per se. You could say that Consciousness is the transformation of Potential information into Actual meaning. Or perhaps, Consciousness is the integration of an amorphous pattern (discrete parts) into a meaningful pattern (a whole concept or image).

PATTERNICITY
http://enformationism.info/gnomon/Image ... attern.JPG

[BAblogger]

I would disagree that it is invisible and intangible, I would say information has its neural correlates. — Pop

Yes. The physical "correlates" are visible & tangible. But what does the "meaning" look & feel like? Generic Information takes many different forms, some physical and some metaphysical (mental). I think it's important to emphasize that, in it's meaningful form, Information is immaterial. That's not woo-talk though, because Energy is the same. No-one has ever seen Energy, they only see its Effects on Matter. For example, light rays traveling in dark empty space are invisible, and only become visible when they interact with the chemical Rhodopsin in the eye, thence conveyed to the "neural correlates". If a spacewalker is looking perpendicular to the beam of photons, he will see nothing. Only by putting his eyes directly in the path of the ray does he "see the light".

BTW, I finally got the Patternicity image for my previous post. It's an illustration of the distinction between random background information, and ordered meaningful foreground information. My browser was getting 404 and 403 errors, and it took a long time to realize that the browser was at fault. Fortunately there was an alternative. Like many-faceted information, there's more than one way to "skin a cat" (local idiom).


Information philosophy considers a material object as an "information structure," from which the immaterial information can be abstracted as meaningful knowledge.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/ ... formation/

[Gnomon]

I wanted to emphasize that information is physical in the sense that it causes our brain patterning to change. — Pop

Certainly, Information has physical effects, but like Energy it has no detectable physical properties (color, size, density). Energy was originally defined as the "ability" or "capacity" to do work, or to cause change in physical things. But Ability and Capacity are qualitative potentials, that have no Actual quantitative substance. However, in a philosophical (metaphysical) sense, Information is the "substance" (i.e. essence ; form) of reality. Aristotle was more of a "realist" than Plato, whose Ideal Forms existed in a non-physical Potential state, until realized into physical Actual things. Of course, that's an abstract philosophical distinction, which may not appeal to some folks.

Even Aristotle made a distinction between "universal" forms and "specific" things. So, his notion of Essential Substance is essentially the same as Plato's Ideal Forms. Philosophically, Universals are Holistic, while Individuals are Particular. Our five senses perceive Individuals, while only the sixth sense of Reason can detect Universals (commonalities, inter-relationships). Such distinctions have been controversial between philosophers even before Plato and Aristotle. That's because only Particulars are Real (empirical ; objective ; quanta ; photons), while Universals are Ideal (debatable ; subjective ; qualia ; redness).

Personally, I resolve such either/or debates with my BothAnd principle. So, you could call me a Pragmatic Idealist. For me, Information exists in both physical and meta-physical forms.

Ideal Forms are Universal :
Aristotle distinguishes between “substantial” and “accidental” forms. A substantial form is a second substance (species or kind) considered as a universal . . . . Matter, not form, is the principle of individuation.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ar ... etaphysics

Universals are a class of mind-independent entities, usually contrasted with individuals (or so-called “particulars”), postulated to ground and explain relations of qualitative identity and resemblance among individuals. . . . Realists endorse universals. Conceptualists and Nominalists, on the other hand, refuse to accept universals and deny that they are needed. Conceptualists explain similarity among individuals by appealing to general concepts or ideas, things that exist only in minds. Nominalists, in contrast, are content to leave relations of qualitative resemblance brute and ungrounded.
https://iep.utm.edu/universa/

Qualia ; Quale :
Latin term for immaterial properties, such as color & shape, of physical objects. Usually contrasted with Quanta, referring to unique things that can be counted. Qualia are subjective aspects of sensory perceptions (e.g. redness), as contrasted with the presumed objective existence of material things. Yet, all we ever know of real things is the mental images created in the mind, in response to sensory stimuli, not the things-in-themselves.
1. Qualia are metaphysical Properties considered apart from physical Things. Properties are mental attributions or essences (e.g colors), rather than physical sensations (e.g vibrations). Mathematical relationships (ratios) are virtual properties.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page17.html

Pragmatic Idealism :
This term sounds like an oxymoron, combining practical realism with otherworldly fantasy. But together they describe the BothAnd attitude toward the contingencies of the world. Pragmatic Idealism is a holistic worldview, grounded upon our sensory experience with, and knowledge of, how the mundane world works, plus how Reality & Ideality work together to make a single whole. As a personal philosophy, it does not replace scientific Realism — and doesn't endorse fantasies of magic, miracles & monsters — because every thing or fact in the “real” parts of the world is subject to logical validation or empirical testing prior to belief.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page17.html

Do you know much about Cybernetics? It seemed to start with a bang, but then fizzled out, any idea why? — Pop

Yes. At the early stages of the Information Age and Computer Era, Cybernetics was a novel concept, which took a holistic approach to all processes. But, like computers themselves, that notion has become commonplace, and hence has lost its novelty, but not its utility.

[Gnomon]

I don't agree. The electron and proton in formation have a physical effect. Energy has detectable properties. The frequency of a photon can be measured. Gravitons curve spacetime. — Rstotalloss

I agree with your first statement. But not with the second. Can you give an example of an Energy "property" that is not known by its secondary "effect" on matter? Effects are caused by an outside force. But Properties are inherent in the object observed.

One Effect of light energy is Color, but color is not intrinsic to photons -- it is a noumenon in the mind of the observer, and is mediated by the structure of the physical object. It takes two to make an observable, measurable property : energy plus matter.

So, Electrons, Protons, and Information have physical effects, but noumenal (metaphysical ; mental) Information has no physical properties : it's colorless, odorless, and shapeless. This is an example of Kant's ding an sich, which some people can't wrap their minds around. Phenomenon versus Noumenom is an ancient philosophical conundrum.

Noumenon :
In philosophy, a noumenon is a posited object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception. The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to any object of the senses.
Wikipedia

Ding an sich :
(in Kant's philosophy) a thing as it is in itself, not mediated through perception by the senses or conceptualization, and therefore unknowable.

[Gnomon]

concept of holism, self organization, and then later to the Enactivist view of subject / object, amongst many other things. — Pop

I was not familiar with the term "Enactivism", although I think you have referred to it before. To me, it seems to focus on the two-pronged Informative power of EnFormAction : the ability to create both physical (things) and meta-physical (ideas) Forms. Information is both the physical structure of Material objects and the rational structure of Meaningful ideas.


Enactivism is a position in cognitive science that argues that cognition arises through a dynamic interaction between an acting organism and its environment. ... this domain does not exist "out there" in an environment that acts as a landing pad for organisms that somehow drop or parachute into the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enactivism

[Gnomon]

It's not that we form mental images of objects and that we don't have access to the objects themselves. That's a kind of logical empiricism that would make my loved ones very unreal indeed. The situation can be compared with that of math in physics. The "shut up and calculate" attitude says that we will never know the objects an Sich. But the math is merely descriptive. It describes some objective properties. Math is merely a mental construction that we project upon the physical universe. The formalist approach is untennable. The intuitive approach bears fruit. — Platoon

Yes. The intuitive understanding of objects is that of naive Realism. And normally, it "bears fruit". But optical Illusions and drug-provoked Hallucinations bear bad fruit. What you "see" ain't always what is out there.

What is formalist approach? :
Formalism may be defined as a critical approach in which the text under discussion is considered primarily as a structure of words. That is, the main focus is on the arrangement of language, rather than on the implications of the words, or on the biographical and historical relevance of the work in question.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -20768-8_2
Note : sounds like Postmodernism to me. No relation to Enformationism.

[Gnomon]

What's naive about it? — Jeunesocrate

Do you think that Idealists are uninformed, irrational, or biased?

Naïve realism :
In social psychology, naïve realism is the human tendency to believe that we see the world around us objectively, and that people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFv ... sychology)

[Gnomon]

Photons and gauge fields in general are pure energy. — Jeunesocrate

What are the intrinsic physical properties of "pure energy" fields? As noted below, they are imaginary abstract models of hypothetical (immaterial) mathematical "structures". In Architecture school, I built models of buildings that were not-yet-real, and never became real. Their only reality was in their effects on the observer, who might decide to construct a full-scale model.

Those "naive" (pretend) models had some superficial (virtual) resemblance to a real building, but were not suitable for occupancy. They were useful only for thinking and planning for the real thing. So, in what sense is a quantum field real? It affects matter, but is not itself matter, being merely a mental construct. Scientists detect the effects of those ghostly fields with their instruments, but not the field an sich. Likewise, ghost hunters with gadgets search for physical effects of nearby ectoplasm, which they imagine as a pure energy field. But, as far as I know they have never "seen" a ghost with their eyes, only with their imagination.

I don't believe in ghosts, and I don't believe in quantum fields, which like building models are merely useful illustrations . But I can observe the effects of those imaginary objects on believers. At least, the concept of fields is useful for guiding scientists in their mathematical manipulations. Unlike ghost theory, quantum theory sometimes actually leads to real results in the material world. In magic, physical effects are identified with non-physical causes. And in mathematics, physical effects are identified with virtual causes.

Pure Energy : uncontaminated with gross matter.

Quantum fields are composed of particles. Okay, virtual particles,
https://www.quora.com/If-the-quantum-fi ... ld-made-of

Virtual : not real ; not actual ; quasi-real
"not physically existing as such"
"being such in essence or effect"
.
In theoretical physics, quantum field theory (QFT) is a theoretical framework that combines classical field theory, special relativity and quantum mechanics.[1]: xi  QFT is used in particle physics to construct physical models of subatomic particles and in condensed matter physics to construct models of quasiparticles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory