Re: [asa] Information and knowledge

It looks to me as though there is a serious problem with ambiguity. Let
me specify a page with 60 columns and 50 lines. Filling those 3000
locations with a random sequence of alphanumeric symbols is essentially
to have a maximum of Shannon information on the page. However, this has a
minimum of intellectual information, for it tells us nothing factual, for
example. The sheet with six-place random numbers arranged in 8 columns
and rows of five will have less Shannon information and not much
intellectual information, though such tables have utility. In contrast,
such a page from a textbook has less Shannon information, for it can be
condensed as a ZIP file, but it potentially communicates a fair amount of
intellectual information--at least to those prepared to understand it. A
page on nuclear physics will communicate nothing to a third grade reader,
and little to those in other disciplines. Shannon theory applies
objectively, but intellectual information has a subjective aspect.

To communicate intellectual information, unless one claims clairvoyance,
for example, one has to produce sounds or squiggles which a hearer or
reader has to decipher. This, I understand, requires the addition of at
least 50% more information for the process to work. Part of it, notably
in verbal, nonformal communication, may be had from the facial expression
and physical movements of a speaker. Writers and readers are at a
disadvantage here. But Shannon tells us nothing about the amount of
intellectual information communicated, actually or potentially.
Dave

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:16:46 -0400 "David Opderbeck"
<dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:
The problem is they apparently want the credibility of being "scientific"
when they are really "philosophical". That intellectual honesty would be
good because the evidence for intelligent design is in the philosophical
and theological realm anyway.

I agree with you.
 
But you must NOT invoke any of the mathematics of information theory
because it simply put, does not apply.

I do not, however, entirely agree with this. The mathematics of
information theory have potential philosophical consequences. Read the
blurb from Floridi and check out his resources on Philosophy and Ethics
of Information. It's a burgeoning field that has nothing directly to do
with ID, and it most certainly draws on Shannon, Weiner, etc.

On 4/13/07, Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 13, 2007, at 7:07 AM, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Information theory does not define information that way at all.
>
> You have to be more precise about what you mean by "information
theory." If you mean simply Shannon, you're right. If you mean the
Philosophy of Information and the Ethics of Information Technology, the
issue is wide open. Both of these fields build on Shannon's insights but
have gone far beyond them. There is most certainly a lively debate in
this fields, which BTW tend to be hostile to ID in general, about the
ontology of information. See generally,
http://www.philosophyofinformation.net/
>
> That's right you do need to be precise about what you mean by
"information theory". For example,
>
>
> Information theory is a discipline in applied mathematics involving the
quantification of data with the goal of enabling as much data as possible
to be reliably stored on a medium or communicated over a channel.
>
>
> If you want to debate philosophical realism, be my guest. But you must
NOT invoke any of the mathematics of information theory because it simply
put, does not apply. So, if ID wants to be philosophical I say great but
don't pretend they have any mathematical basis for what they are doing
because they don't. They are in no way "building on Shannon". It's not
like others haven't successfully done that, e.g. quantum information
theory. But, you have to really base it on Shannon and not hand wave. On
the other hand, if they said, "we are building on Plato" then I would not
have any quibble whatsoever. The problem is they apparently want the
credibility of being "scientific" when they are really "philosophical".
That intellectual honesty would be good because the evidence for
intelligent design is in the philosophical and theological realm anyway.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 13 15:20:00 2007