terry,
i do not get your logic. you are asking for my thoughts:
a mathematical system can represent phenomena only if its axioms are fully
satisfied by how the phenomena behave.
using algebra, as you do, from x-y=d you conclude that the difference
between one lack of knowledge (uncertainty 1) and a (reduced) lack of
knowledge (uncertainty 2) equals an entity. in my conception of entity
(QED: having physical existence as opposed to quantities and relations),
this conclusion does not make sense to me.
please expand the complexity of your logic to address information so that it
makes sense (at least to me)
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Terence
Love
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 9:54 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: information as an entity rather than an activity
Dear Klaus,
Thank you for your messageand your patience. We seem to be thinking at odds
on this.
Thank you for sending the file on Shannon. I understand Shannon. From my
point of view, what he writes supports the position I've been presenting
-and very clearly in the file you sent me.
I feel the problem that is causing disagreement between us has two two
aspects. Its essence is conflating 'content' and 'container' - except there
are two types of 'content' and 'container' not one.
You appear to be thinking that when I suggest that theory-wise the concept
of information is an entity, this could be conflating content/meaning (the
content of the message) with the container (the message).
I'm writing about something completely different. From my perspective, it
appears you are conflating content and container. We are talking, however,
about two different types of content and container.
Take an equation: x-y=d
An example of application of such an equation is that 'x' represents one
kind of uncertainty about something, 'y' represents the level of
uncerttainty about it viewed from a different angle, and 'd' represents the
difference in uncertainty between the two. In a previous email you used
this structure to define 'information', where the parameter 'd' represents
'information'.
From my perspective, and it is reasonably conventional, 'x', 'y' and 'd' are
parameters (entities), '-' is an operator (process), and '=' represents a
particular kind of relationship.
It is in this context, I suggest in theory terms, that as a concept,
'information' ('d' as you define it) is expressed as an entity.
This is ontologically and epistemologically different, however, from saying
that the _meaning_ of the concept of 'information' is an entity. Two
different types of content and containers.
Thoughts?
Best regards,
Terry
