Dear John,

thanks for reading my essay. I will go through yours and leave you a comment if i have something to say about it.

Cheers,

Flavio

Flavio,

Re "Information is a well defined mathematical concept (defined by Shannon and others) and I used it in that sense in my essay", Author Flavio Del Santo replied on Mar. 11, 2020 @ 20:58 GMT:

Your "information" actually represents information about information; it is higher-level information. Higher-level because logical steps have to be taken to derive your so-called "information", as well as mathematical calculations. Your "information" cannot be a foundational basis of anything.

The actual foundational information in the world seems to be fully categorised: categories like mass, charge and velocity, which exist in fixed relationships with other such categories. Your/ Shannon "information" is a derived category of information, with associated numbers (that can seemingly only be derived by entities that have a capacity to perform logical steps as well as do mathematical calculations).

Mass is a category of information; velocity is a category of information; but you and Shannon and Shawn and others are in effect saying that information is a category of information. See the problem? The problem is the inappropriate labelling of a CATEGORY of information with the label "information".

    Dear Flavio,

    Now do you see? When I said that the essay was interesting, I wasn't kidding around! :D

    - Shawn

      P.S. So what I'm trying to say is that there are many existing and potential categories [1] of information in the world. Shannon "information" is seemingly one of these categories of information . But Shannon "information" shouldn't be called "information" because it is only one of many existing and potential categories of information.

      Lorraine

      1. Not Platonic categories, but categories that exist from certain points of view, where categories are built out of logical analysis and/or mathematical relationships involving other such categories. E.g. mass and velocity are categories.

      We call it data, and data about the data is called metadata.

      - Shawn

      Dear Carlo,

      thank you so much for your kind appreciation of my work!

      All good wishes,

      Flavio

      Dear Flavio,

      Thank you for a well-written and highly accessible essay. I particularly appreciate your historical perspective on classical indeterminism.

      I totally agree with your distinction between empirical observations, which only address finite-resolution states, and the "orthodox" interpretation, which assumes that variables (e.g. coordinates of position and momentum) are infinitely precise. As I emphasize in my essay, PIP describes a conceptual model and interpretation of physical reality, based on assumptions that cannot be empirically verified.

      You note that the orthodox interpretation of classical mechanics is causal and deterministic. Causality implies that cause precedes effect in time, i.e. time asymmetry. Time asymmetry, along with determinism, is typically (I suspect necessarily) attributed to an initial low-entropy low-probability state. The origin of an exceptional low-probability initial state, one that has deterministically led to the current universe including this essay and response, is problematic. In addition, a deterministic model cannot formulate a definition of entropy as a fundamental property of state. This makes the asymmetrical increase in entropy a property of perception, rather than an objective property of nature. A much simpler and objective explanation for time asymmetry is irreducible indeterminism, as you propose. Determinism is not empirically necessary, and indeterminism is a far more reasonable, and objective, explanation of time asymmetry and causality.

      Your alternative conceptual model, FIQ-based Interpretation, is very similar to my alternative conceptual model, DCM. Both replace infinite precision variables with finite precision variables. In DCM, I relate finite precision to a new physical property of state, ambient temperature. Ambient temperature is based on the recognition that absolute zero does not exist and no system is perfectly isolated from its ambient surroundings. The universe's background microwave radiation permeates all of space and it defines a positive ambient temperature for the universe as a whole.

      The DCM defines irreducible objective randomness by the partition function of statistical mechanics, evaluated at the ambient temperature (see end-note 7 in my essay, and "reinventing time" reference). It is immediately evident that that the PIP and the orthodox interpretation represent a special case, in which the ambient temperature is assumed equal to absolute zero. Absolute zero, however, is an unattainable idealization and does not exist in physical reality.

      You conclude that no experiment will ultimately discriminate between determinism and indeterminism. While I agree that there will always be some wiggle room for anyone who wants to maintain determinism, the cost is abandoning objective time asymmetry and causality or asserting that the universe's evolution is nothing but the playing out of fate for an exceptionally crafted, and unexplained, universe.

      Harrison

        Shawn,

        As a former long-time computer analyst and programmer, I can tell you that "data" and "metadata" are pretty well meaningless labels. You, being a software developer, would understand this. "Data" and "metadata" don't get to the essence of what information is.

        "Shannon information" is a category with associated numbers that does not define information, and does not get to the essence of what information is because there are plenty of other existing and possible somewhat similar categories and associated numbers.

        It is not necessary to define information; but it IS necessary to say that information is a thing that can only be represented with categories and numbers, where categories are understood to have an internal relationship structure.

        Dear Harrison,

        thanks so much for your kind comments. I could not agree more with your sentence: "Determinism is not empirically necessary, and indeterminism is a far more reasonable, and objective, explanation of time asymmetry and causality."

        I will study more in detail your DCM, and comment in your page, if I can.

        Best wishes,

        Flavio

        Dear Lorraine,

        The entropy is the average information per datum. It's perfectly well-defined. If the datum's states are all equiprobable, then the entropy simplifies down to log(num states)/log(2) = num bits.

        - Shawn

        Flavio and Shawn,

        "Information entropy" is not "information" in the same sense that "car speed" is not a "car".

        "Shannon information" is about the probability or surprisal value of information: it is not the actual information.

        Symbolic representations of information are not information: they are symbols.

        It is important to refrain from muddying the waters when it comes to the subject of information: words which mean one thing should not be redefined to mean another thing.

          Dear Shawn,

          I'm questioning definitions of information; I'm not questioning your knowledge of these definitions. I have (accidentally) replied below.

          Lorraine

          Dear Lorraine,

          It's a physics essay. We are talking about information theory, not the lay, dictionary definition of information.

          Basically, I say data, metadata. You say information, 'metainformation'. Where do data fit into your model? Or are data and information the same thing?

          - Shawn

          Flavio and Shawn,

          I'm questioning accepted definitions of information; and I'm questioning your logical abilities.

          If you do physics or anything else, you need logic. This is the logic of it:

          "Information entropy" is not "information" in the same sense that "car speed" is not a "car".

          "Shannon information" is about the probability or surprisal value of information: it is not the actual information.

          Symbolic representations of information are not information: they are symbols.

          Is it any wonder that people are confused about information when both of you blindly and unthinkingly accept illogical definitions of information that muddy the waters for everybody?

          Dear Flavio and Shawn,

          I'm questioning the accepted definitions of information; and I'm wondering if you have ever questioned the logic of these definitions. I would think that it is abundantly clear that the accepted definitions of information are completely illogical:

          "Information entropy" is not "information" in the same sense that "car speed" is not a "car".

          "Shannon information" is about the probability or surprisal value of information: it is not the actual information.

          Symbolic representations of information are not information: they are symbols.

          Is it any wonder that people are confused about what information is, when the above illogical definitions of information are guaranteed to muddy the waters for everybody? The problem is that the label "information" is illogical: other words need to be found to describe these categories of information. Physics needs clear and logical concepts, or it will continue to confuse itself about the issue of information.

          Dear Lorraine,

          Don't get too upset... you're part of the majority.

          - Shawn

          Dear Flavio and Shawn,

          As I am trying to explain, the issue is NOT me or "the majority". I doubt "the majority" is even slightly interested in this issue. But I have been interested in this issue, ever since I studied Information Science at university.

          The issue is that, in both physics and computing, "information" is not a clear, unambiguous or logical concept. And one cannot solve this problem by imposing a mathematical concept or mathematical definition onto the issue. The mathematical concept/ definition does NOT solve the "information" problem.