ONT Re: Information = Comprehension x Extension -- Discussion
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
ICE. Discussion Note 38
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
AK = Antti Karttunen
JA = Jon Awbrey
One of the reasons that I'm plodding along so slowly here is that this
is ground that I've already been clod-hopping over many times before,
and so I'm making a concerted effort to look at the problems and
to the consider the possibilities that I may not have given
full shrift the last umpteen times around.
At any rate, at my usual rate, I begin to get back to the neighborhood of
one of the problems that Antti Kartunen asked me about -- AK has gone off
to read for exams right now, but I am hopeful that he will breeze through
those easy enough and eventually get a chance to pick up the sporadic few
pieces of the puzzle that I'm able to scatter about.
Just as soon as I'm able to find them ...
Re: ICE Discuss 7. http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg05282.html
In: ICE Discuss. http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/thrd1.html#05274
Hx: ICE. http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2003-March/thread.html#196
Hx: ICE. http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2003-April/thread.html#363
In part:
AK: But this puzzles me:
CSP: | In the same way, when he learns that 'D' is red,
| the term 'D-like red' becomes equivalent to 'red'.
AK: Because here D belongs to the realm of Sphere, Extension, and Breadth,
so how can you compare it with "red"? (What is "D-like" red, or
"Antti Karttunen-like red"?)
JA: My guess is that "x-like" means "having all of the discourse-relative
or currently noted properties of x". But we have in this discourse
currently noted only the property Red of D, or properties that are
immediate implications of that. In effect, D serves merely as
yet another exemplar of the quality Red, since that is all
the information that we have of it.
JA: More generally, Peirce's use of "particulars" and "properties" is more
like particles and waves than the usual hard lines that the descent of
mind that de-evolved from atomic logicism imagines it can draw between
absolute individuals and absolute predicates.
JA: It's a thing I've been looking for an excuse to get back to,
and the occasion of your remark provides as good a catalyst
as any I've seen lately for getting around, back, down tuit.
And let me invent a not-so-subtle subtitle for it that I'll
design to startle if not to shock, and that is a little bit
that I'd like to call "Peirce-Heisenberg Uncertainty" (PHU),
and by this PHU to say that C.S. Peirce in 1865 had already
discovered by sheer logical detection and lectured publicly
on all of the principal principles of the later-to-be-great
uncertainty principle. In effect, it says that information
is the only "symmetry invariant meaning" (SIM) that we have,
that it can be cast to moderate and relative extents, never
to absolute degrees, as information about individuals or as
information about qualities, but only in a trade-off within
the quantity of information that avails itself at any given
moment, though the quantity and quality of information will
of course be free to vary from moment to moment in due time.
JA: I will copy this to the Global Brain list, because it bears
on some discussion there about the "limits of localization".
One more alias: The "folly of particles and waves" (FOPAW).
JA: Let us begin by returning to the text and the context of your puzzlement:
Re: ICE 19. http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2003-March/000214.html
In: ICE. http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2003-March/thread.html#196
JA: That's the set-up, the spike may take some time to accumulate.
With that review, I'll try to pay off a little more
of the grandiose promissory note that I issued above.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/mighty/history.html
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o