It is the action of successful communication, not the message itself. The message could be Shakespeare's Hamlet, an invoice, DNA, etc. It makes no difference to the model.
[[It is the action of successful communication, not the message itself.]]
Which is what I thought- Information theory is soemthign different than Shannon theory I beleive? so back to the original point I brought up
“Wouldn’t information theory necessarily be ID (unless one tries to argue that nature somehow creates information/metainformation?”
Lower info can arise I guess by pure happenstance- accidently (although certainly not as efficiently and complexly as Macroevolution would have demanded), but metainformation certainly can’t arise naturally, and would need an intelligent designer to design it per species in such a way as to keep species fit and thriving (I think informaiton theory entails both lower info and metainfo If I’m not mistaken?)
I suppose one coudl study metainformation without having to infer a Designer, but the need for one woudl still be there- I can’t see any way around it really- Information theory has to start at the beginning- origins
[[it doesn’t matter which message came first.]]
Not when discussing the communication of the message, no. But when discussing the origin of the message, it needs to either be examined in a stepwise fashion, or from the initiation point- since we know metainformation must exist first to keep all lower info in concert in species, it begs the question, who or what was the designer
[[mathematical models often address organizations and systems as logically self-contained. ]]
This is interesting, and brings up the ‘closed loop’ hypothesis of Rosen again This organization, and self containment again beg the question- how did they get that way- who or what designed it to be self contained- Mathematics studies what is contained, but info theory studies, or should study how the closed, self-contained systems, became so organized- Was it information that existed on the outside that created and designed the info on the inside of the closed system? Was there a need for an intelligent designer? Or was nature capable of doign htis in a stepwise fashion?
I’m not real familair with Rosen’s work, but I don’t see how he can skip over first cause and go right to final cause
[[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.]]
On a new Ghost hunting show, they have a hypothesis that the ‘spirits’ that peopel encounter are from another dimension (gettign tired- I’ll see if I can explain htis right)- one of their theories is that if they, the Ghost hnters, recreates the tiem period when these supposed spirits lived, that it will incite activity as though the present day hunters are in the past- uggh- not explainign htis well- There’s a theory called ‘risidual’ spirit activity, where the spirit doesn’t know they’ve passed on, and keep ‘goign through the motions’ like walkign htrough doors that are now walls, going up stairs that have since been moved- etc- it’s liek they are living in another dimension, and we in this dimension are gettign glimpses of theirs in the past- it’s liek a parallell universe thing
Wow- gonna have to re-explain this better tomorrow- I don’;t beleive in Ghosts (I do beleive in evil spirits and angels though), but this show the other night got me thinking about the whole parralel universe thing (It was clearer to me the other night lol) & the theory of the Ghost hunters kinda touched on tat a bit which I thought was interesting- kinda liek hte future interactign with hte present and past & how there may be a paralell universe where we’re al lthe same, but living slightly behind our present time here, or slightly ahead- Anyhow- I’ve strayed a bit
[[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!]]
Yes I agree- but you had said ‘informaiton theory’ not Shannon theory which is what I responded to- will have to read rest of your post tomorrow
just fr the record- I don’t beleive in parellel universes, but the concept is cool to noodle over lol Deja vu