Must information contain what it displays [or informs]?

Must information contain what it displays [or informs]?

A simple question really; why do we think that information doesn’t contain all it yields? So an electrical signal must contain all the qualities its product denotes, and I can’t see how there can be exceptions. If the signal was e.g. a replication of a filmed orchestra playing a Shostakovich symphony say no’s 2, then it must contain everything that is, such to be able to replicate it at the other end.

The question concerns what that content is, and i’d begin by asking if the qualities of the said orchestra are >within< the absolute context of the physical medium? The electrons moving up and down forming a pattern do not contain the expressed qualities of the orchestra. However, we know that when the physical information happens, the respective qualities will ensue.

This means…

a. qualities/qualia are magically manifest upon request [denoted by physical info].
Or
b. qualities are copied and stored, then played back when the physical info manifests them. This specifically means that is occurring in a non-physical informational kind of way, the recording isn’t physically happening [as that would be observable physical info].
Or
c. the qualities of things are within the context of physical info [the whole orchestra is >in there<].
ci.

My conclusion is; that physical information is the go-between for the transferral of qualia/qualities [both mental and non-mental e.g. light/colour], as well as its own causal vehicle*.
That the real world does contain both the physical and qualitative components.
That reality is recording and storing everything in existence.
That qualities like ‘you’ ~ the experiencing consciousness, are not physical and yet pertain to the physics as above*. That means you can’t die, and that you exist in an ethereal world as well as the everyday world.

_

Your argument has a false premise, so I didn’t bother analyzing the rest.

Information does not have to contain all it yields. Compression techniques allow packets to be sent containing half-formed henids. These half-thoughts, these henids, are then translated using machine code into higher level code.

Thus, using a translator/expander/pattern generator at the end of the line, small mini data consisting of encoded information can be transformed into complexities.

Compression reduces quality on images, if you remove physical info then you change the packet. Compression only works in pure data terms when a different way of archiving or file format is found. That simply means there was bloated packaging and not that you can magic a full body of info from a half body.

Two hunters are in a forest. One hunter points behind the other, jabbing his hand wildly. The first hunter interprets this, before turning, as there is a threat behind him. He knows to being moving, while twisting his head to see what the threat is - bear, falling tree, wild boar, etc. - adjusting his movements when the specific threat is identified. The second hunter contained already much of the information. He also contained information about what the other hunter did not mean, even though he had never seen this gesture made by another hunter. I think that language, takne in the broad sense, can elicit more information than it contains because people already havek knowledge inside them. This is true for verbal communiation also, with can just as the non verbal have gestural and context related abilities. Abilities, rather than information. Any time this kind of issue comes up I refer to The Conduit Metaphor, an essay about how the metaphors we generally use about language and information, are taken as metaphysical truths, when in fact they are just one aspect of language use, effects…

biolinguagem.com/ling_cog_cu … taphor.pdf
We think of language, often, as containing information, that it enters a conduit between people. But this is simply one model/metaphor. REddy proposes at least one other model.

You are speaking of the properties of language, where I am here more thinking of the parallel between actual physical info and the qualities or mental qualia [which I think are the same]. What something >means< is subjective and perspective based, where info of e.g. music as electrical signals and sound-‘waves’ is not.

Yes but that’s just like how art can have many meanings, it is us adding info. It seems to me that you either magic something out of the air, or the info must contain >> what it, itself IS.

Wanna here some crazy shit… some people state that under hypnosis they can see what’s written on the back of a cigarette packet, which they can only see the front of. Consider all observers and ask is the world also an observer? If so then you and the other hunter are both in the world observers eye as if like in a game world. In that case the back of the cigarette packet is within the informational context of the world observer, I dont mean that as if the world is like a person looking at everything, as that requires singular perspective, and the world = the universal observation.

So get this for even more crazy shit :slight_smile:… if technology could view the information in the worldly observation, say through quantum entanglement + quantum computer, there would be no reason to give restriction upon the range of possible views. Just think about that for a minute! Like in the movies when you get the greek gods have a magic eye that can zoom into any location, well it would be like that. We will be able to look at other planets etc.

i am suprised you haven’t heard of lossless comprehension techniques then, png. is one of them.

consider an 16x16 monochromatic pixel image

now, you could send 16x16 pixels through the data stream, that’s 256 bits.

Or you could, instead of using 256 bits, use the english language and form a code. 2610^25 > 4096.
You’d only need the code to be 16 letters long, because 26
10^15 >16*10^15
On the receiving end, the computer deciphers the code. It has a database for a map to decipher the algorithm. This takes some processing power, but the actual data transfer between online code is increased.

For example, in netcode, you could store the 360 degree rotations into a byte. How when bytes are only 0-255 integers?

By using a special code. Bytes lower than a value are divided by 10. Bytes within a certain range are divided by 9. Bytes with a certain range are divided by 8. And so forth.
So if you wanted to store a rotation of 296 degrees, youd divide it by 20. That’s 9.8. That’s category 8, 9 dec8.
Add it by 258. 9.8+258=209.8 Then you remove the decimal and send it as 209
The recieving computer knows it is 209.8 because it is category 8. Category 8 numbers have a decimal of 8 attached.
Then you subtract it by 25*8 and get 9.8. Then you multiply it by 20. 296 degrees. Viola.

So you now just compressed 360 degrees into a 255 byte integer system without any data loss.

I am a genius, i know. You can thank me for lag free gaming from now on.


rationalskepticism.org/post43288 … on#p432884

Ultimate Philosophy 1001

That’s just multiplying in binary, the computer knows that if you upsize say an imagine, from 1024 to 4096 that function duplicates the pixel info from the given data. Then many other kinds of maths and filters can be use to apparently grow an image from virtually nothing. That is specifically utilising additive methods of continuously adding information, and is not the same as info replicated or recorded on a one to one basis.

Further, the argument here is stating; that information must contain all which can be derived directly from its source. Your example is an act of >producing< information in an additive way, my argument concerns the exact replication of all derivative informations.

You do point out an interesting thought, where reality could be a mass of additive algorithms and contain no original ‘material’.

Naturally if we do that we arrive back at square one, where we are stating that the qualities of things are magically produced as if a by-product of physical info. So qualities like sound, colour and light are made magically whenever the information to produce it occurs. One reality we call physical manifest something which is not real?

Surely we have to say that those algorithms and patterns must contain the things extrapolated from them.

surreptitious57
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post432884.html?hilit=Shannon#p432884

that thread is attempting to say that all information is the same, yet symbols reflect a meaning are not the same as physical inf. an observation in the macroscopic and a valuing as intellectual function again at the macroscopic, is not categorically the same as e.g. atoms and photons, which are information in the first party and not the third! I don’t know why philosophy stumbles so much over this.

_

No it is not and the difference between the two major types of information theory is clearly stated
With Shannon there is meaning contained within the information but with Kolmogorov there is none

So Shannon for example could be a set of written instructions while Kolmogorov could be just an empty piece of paper
They both contain information but only one of them contains information that is actually conveying a specific meaning

Meaning=function=purpose = agent smith.

i think the question boils down to, must information contain what it displays in consciousness.

Light information seems rather straightforward…it is what it is.

But music and feelings…I think music, it all boils down to music.

Thought is sound, rendered in the mind. Not audio waves but signals. When we hear music we do not always think, because this is the same mental channel as the music channel in our minds. Thought is music. Music feels good, so my guess is that music simply feels good is an absolute truth.

Basically, I have to think about this more…I know music is a massage, and massage is a certain order of frequencies, and Tesla said frequencies are the key to understanding the universe…but why frequency causes a massage, why curvy maths inherently feel good, why waves inherently feel good, atoms sloshing and moving around…I cannot say.

Take DNA: the genotype in no way contains the phenotype; the same gene codes for different things, depending on the context of its environment.

The result of any informational process depends on the reader as well as the information.

Dats what I saying.

I would say that information, the in-forming, the making of form, is entirely an issue of the thinking intelligence involved in the act. To say that something “contains information” is to say that an intelligence has the opportunity to derive, deduce, or construct knowledge from the thing. A thinking being creates the in-form-ation from an opportunity. To the physical reality, there is no such thing as information.

You’re clearly someone of great wisdom and insight :stuck_out_tongue:

Information in the sense of the OP title is more general than that, I think; DNA contains information. It didn’t suddenly acquire information upon the evolution of intelligence, it’s a physical arrangement that has predictable “meaning” to other physical arrangements. I agree that it’s an abstraction from physical relations, though. Many people would argue that ‘thinking’ is the same.

The information of mental facts is a lot more complex and nebulous. The fact that I visited the Queen at Buckingham Palace yesterday at noon already ‘contains’ the fact that I didn’t watch the sun go down over the South China sea or walk on the moon yesterday, by derivation/deduction/construction. In that sense, my answer to the OP remains “no”.

I understand what you have said, but listen to it. You are saying that an object contains what isn’t in it: “the information of what isn’t there”. A person must deduce what isn’t there from what IS there.

How does the process of visiting the Queen know of TV sets?? Does it also know of computers? Future events? Conversations between space aliens?

It is merely a matter of language, but it seems inappropriate to assign attributes of knowledge to objects because that can get very, very misleading (and has many times in the past).

Only_Humean

that’s true, and it is also true that when you make a machine you don’t classify it by the products it makes, a machine that makes a chair does not have the function that chairs have, and so forth. The machine specifically does work by its information, that it can make things which don’t work by that info, is the whole way we get from singularity to us, information diversifies.

Its in the outputting and receiving of information [subjectivity] that makes information diversify into and from instruments [all of nature are instruments].

The question remains; does an electronic or other sound signal contain everything the orchestra produces? A microphone is only listening to the music, it isn’t seeing it and so does not contain the whole orchestra. Yet that also is not the issue I am attempting to get at is if the world does know all informations, and so all info exists. The back of the cigarette packet you can’t see is known to nature, therefore it is plausible that connecting communicatively between many info sources is possible; given that the premise that information does have all its qualities/qualia is true! e.g. does light contain colour and brightness.

It means many many things if true, suddenly we don’t live in a world of the same realities and illusions as we have now.

James

e.g. does light contain colour and brightness?

That’s like valuing compared to mathematical values, information does not require consciousness nor even intelligence. ‘to inform’ is to bring forth the information collected and to deliver that.