OK, I will post a few thoughts.
I was originally going to post to the Information Theory thread, but it fits here as well.
Information theory is in a sense in a conundrum like cosmology. Cosmology has the problem of merging the big (The cosmological theories) with the small (the quantum size of things)
Until the theories are merged, then it cannot ever be said we have a complete, consistent view of the universe. Perhaps they never will.
On the infomation side, we have two competing doctrines.
On one hand, we have the pure infrmation theory mathematicians. Shannon, Weiner, Von Neuman(sic) and others. This side is concerned about data transmission, it's content and reliability. Looking at one of the diagrams, you will see a big mess in the middle, with all sorts of references to logarithms, etc, error correcting, etc.
The ones who are actually doing the sending and receiving are almost relegated to being footnotes, casual, tiny boxes on either end. It is a tenet of mathematical info theory that the message actually contains some kind of real, relevant data, some type of universal absolute.
On the other hand, you have the cognitive theorists. Piaget, Gardner, De Bono (his work is very enlightening), and others. To these people, the important part is the persons, things, or events involved. They are deeply debated about the meaning of knowledge, how much can we trust our perceptions, and questions about whether or not our internal representations of the world can be said in some sense to match the actual world. The cognitive folks are not so interested if you get a message by letter, phone, or carrier pigeon.
Now the cognitive folks cannot stand up to the rigors of the information folks. The information folks cannot see the subtleties and apparent possible contradictions of the cognitive side.
But the cognitive folks have provided a model that can at least start to reach a middle ground.
According to them, each human brain is made up of a huge number of switches. Say, for example, you have a switch in your brain for "It's raining outside". The switch is either on or off.
Now the act of communication is defined. It is when one brain has it's switches set in a particular manner. There is then an intentional act of some type to set the switches of somebodiy elses brain in the same manner. So if I tell you "It's raining outside" and you trust me, then your switch gets set.
This is imho the part of the theory that is needed to complete it. And we have stumbled on something that gives definition to a part that is normally fluid and hard to pin down.
Meaning.
Not it can be said that there is in fact no actual content to a message propagated, no matter how complex, no matter what the information theorists say. If you put me into a room with, say, a Chinese man, and he starts reading, I have not a clue what it means, or if it's actually gibberish.
The information throy folks would say that doesn't mena the message is void, they would blame it on me for my lack of understanding.
But there is a part missing that they need to consider. If I hear something and say "I understand that", even if it is a simple binary piece of info like "It's raining outside", the message caan be said to be only a very small part of the actual message.
Because for me to understand, I need to know what rain is. I need to have a spacial sense of what is "inside" and what is "outside". Lacking these elements, then the message is gibberish.
This particular part is described well by the ideas of symbology and language, and in particular, the computing ideas of Backus-Naus Form, where successive simple definitions can lead up to extrordinarily complex models and structures.
So, in order to have "MEANING", we need both camps! We need the info theorists telling us about the content and symbology of the message. We need the cognitive theorists with their ideas of perception, knowledge, and experience.
So much for the preliminaries.
Imagine:
In some universe, for some reason that doesn't matter now, a series of radio pulses occur. They are the first 100 prime numbers in binary. The pulses repeat over and over.
Is there a message?
Here is the caveat. It's a dead universe. No life, no radios, nothing but rocks and stars and gas.
With that caveat in mind, I ask again, Is there a message?
With the subtleties and definitions, I would probably say that in this case, there IS a message, but there is NO MEANING.
Let us extend the analogy a bit more. Imagine in the same sense that this is occurring in the jungles of the Amazon, where instead of radio pulses, a Yanamamo tribesman hears the pulses as far off, distant drumbeats.
He finds it curious. But as someone who knows only "One", "Two", "Three", and "Many", he cannot make any sense or purpose of the drums.
We observe the tribesman and chortle about his ignorance.
We sit here and pat ourselves on the back, with our Nobel prizes, and our treatises, and our grants, and our glorious dinners. Our colliders, and impressive college campuses, and libraries.
I'm almost done, and not nearly as cynical as this.
Given that we maintain how we know something that the por tribesman doesn't, we are forced to face the conclusion that HE KNOWS MANY THINGS WE DON'T.
And we would be vain indeed to decry and maintain that all of his ideas about the universe and his particular brand of theology are only superstitions of a prehistoric man.
I would love to expand on this and know I left our some points, perhaps later.
We are the transmitters.
We are the receivers.
We, with our sciences and theologies, ARE THE MESSAGE.
One final thought. Betty says she has always mainteined the difference between science and theology. I have also held this to be true. Science is a valuable, but incomplete part of the whole.
Everybody gets, in my mind, way to wrapped up about intelligent design. Intelligent design implies knowledge, intent. A kind of husbandry.
But there are very good reasons to realize that time, as we normally think about it, does not exist. That the entire universe, spatially and temporally, is here, right here in my hand, right now.
And if that is so, as some super-universal being might see it, then WE ARE THE PURPOSE. WE ARE THE DESIGNERS. FOR GOOD OR EVIL, WE POSSESS THE INTENT.
definitely bookmarked for further reflection. Great read, djf. Thank you!
These people's work has nothing to do with information theory as used in communications engineering. Popular literature often has confuses these two.