Shannon's model (information theory, successful communication) can be and is applied to molecular biology without having to first identify the origin of information (successful communication) in the cosmos. The mathematical model applies to each instance; it doesn't matter which message came first. There is as yet no known naturalistic origin for information in the cosmos.
Likewise, Einstein's theory of relativity is applied without having to first identify a naturalistic origin of space/time. A four dimensional space/time continuum is a postulate to special relativity. His theory is self-contained.
And likewise, even though there is no known naturalistic origin for inertia in the cosmos, Newton's theories apply to each instance of the phenomenum.
Unlike disciplines of science where physical causality and an arrow of time prevail and therefore raise the issue of origins, mathematical models often address organizations and systems as logically self-contained.
Rosen's model is like that, he entails final cause in a circular organization without addressing origins or time. Indeed, Rosen cites the Fibonacci series as one of the few exceptions where the future can be known in the present. And so his model closes the loop, entailing final cause instead and thereby, obviating the arrow of time.
My favorite example is Max Tegmark's level IV parallel universe wherein that which exists "in" space/time is a manifestation of mathematical structures which actually do exist outside of space and time. Origin of the mathematical structures are irrelevant to the model. It is self-contained. Indeed, it is the only closed cosmology known to me. And it is closed precisely because it is radical mathematical Platonism.
In all of these things, as a Christian I rejoice because I see them as God's copyright notice on the cosmos - the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics (Wigner, Vafa et al.)
But they are math, not theology. They don't need to address origins and they don't.
The second issue you raise, metainformation, is related not to the mathematics of successful communications (Shannon) but rather to the content of the message itself which is something completely irrelevant to Shannon's model!
This is why on previous threads I summarily rebuked Alex Williams' (et al) narrative. They rudely diss Shannon for not addressing the content of the message itself which is something a universal mathematical model must never do. If it did, it would not be portable among knowledge disciplines.
Message content goes to complex systems theory (or literature, video entertainment or whatever is being transmitted) - not communications (information) theory.
Or to put it another way, the very same computer can be used for child's play one minute, bookkeeping the next, serious writing the next, science research the next, etc. The very same computer can transmit Scripture and pornography. The content of the message being transmitted over its circuitry is irrelevant to the computer itself.
Metainformation speaks specifically to temporal displacement, that the biological entity does maintenance and repair before it has the awareness or intelligence to anticipate the need.
It is more appropriately addressed in the interdisciplinary investigation of complex systems theory.
Unlike the models previously addressed the theory involved is not self-contained. Again, complexity is measured either by least time or least description. Arguably, Rosen's model could fall under least description. But Williams' is obviously in the least time corner because in metainformation, physical causation is set on its head: effect>cause instead of cause>effect. That is what I mean by temporal displacement.
And again, as a Christian, I immediately rejoice over God's copyright notice on the cosmos.
Nevertheless, temporal displacement is not theology. Geometric physicists (Vafa, Wesson, et al) would point out that temporal displacement (including violations of Bell's inequalities at distance or quantum entanglement, superposition, etc.) could point to additional expanded temporal or time-like dimension(s.)
There are many questions I strongly believe science will never be able to answer to most people's satisfaction. Nevertheless, they are still "on the table" for future researchers, e.g.
wow- gonna have to read more thoroughly when I get hte chance- lotsa stuff to ponder-
to start though- first question- is Shannon theory ‘information theory’? or is it theory about communication of informaiton? As you said, it doesn’t quess where info comes from, or what it consists of, but rather describes how it is communicated? Or am I misunderstanding it a bit?
This is why on previous threads I summarily rebuked Alex Williams' (et al) narrative. They rudely diss Shannon for not addressing the content of the message itself which is something a universal mathematical model must never do. If it did, it would not be portable among knowledge disciplines.
Yes, it bothered me too that Alex Williams did that. I thought he was dissing Shannon for not doing something completely extraneous to what Shannon's main purpose was, a theory of successful communications per se — that is, something quite independent of any particular message content. It was to describe the "medium," not the "messages." And it has been amazingly successful in doing just that.
Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for this marvelous essay/post!