|
|
 | | From: | Mike | | Subject: | Re: too much information! | | Date: | 13 Jan 2005 23:42:35 -0800 |
|
|
 |
John Baez wrote:
[snip]
>
> But, I wasn't trying to explain this stuff in detail - just
> compute the amount of information in a raindrop!
[snip]
Now that you "know" the amount of information, can you use it in any
way to replicate the rain drop?
If not, this means this is the apparent information, or information at
the phenomenal level. The information needed at a substance level to
replicate the exact same rain drop could be significantly higher or
even asymptotic to infinity.
I argue that even if you know the amount of information you claim that
is not nearly enough to replicate the rain drop.
Mike
|
|
| | From: | John Baez | | Subject: | Re: too much information! | | Date: | Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:24:24 +0000 (UTC) |
|
|
| In article <1105688555.614418.206950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Mike wrote:
>John Baez wrote:
>> But, I wasn't trying to explain this stuff in detail - just
>> compute the amount of information in a raindrop!
>Now that you "know" the amount of information, can you use it in any
>way to replicate the rain drop?
No - not me, anyway.
>If not, this means this is the apparent information, or information at
>the phenomenal level. The information needed at a substance level to
>replicate the exact same rain drop could be significantly higher or
>even asymptotic to infinity.
I'm using "information" in the usual sense of information theory -
see for example Shannon's book "A Mathematical Theory of Communication".
In this sense, information is what it takes to answer questions about
something. It's not all it takes to build something: for that you
need some raw materials as well.
For example, you can't build a brick house even if you have the
blueprints, if you don't have any bricks. Or, for that matter,
if you don't have the proper tools and knowhow!
The last point is also relevant: even if we had the complete information
describing a raindrop and we had enough water to make a raindrop, we
couldn't build an exactly identical raindrop, because we don't know
how to manipulate atoms that well.
>I argue that even if you know the amount of information you claim that
>is not nearly enough to replicate the rain drop.
You need something more - but what you need isn't more information
about the raindrop. The wonderful thing about statistical mechanics
is that it allows us to measure the total amount of information in
something like a raindrop, by measuring its entropy. Boltzmann, Gibbs
and Shannon - they were awfully clever.
|
|
| | From: | jmfbahciv at aol.com | | Subject: | Re: too much information! | | Date: | Sat, 15 Jan 05 11:45:42 GMT |
|
|
| In article ,
baez@galaxy.ucr.edu (John Baez) wrote:
>In article <1105688555.614418.206950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>Mike wrote:
>
>>John Baez wrote:
>
>>> But, I wasn't trying to explain this stuff in detail - just
>>> compute the amount of information in a raindrop!
>
>>Now that you "know" the amount of information, can you use it in any
>>way to replicate the rain drop?
>
>No - not me, anyway.
>
>>If not, this means this is the apparent information, or information at
>>the phenomenal level. The information needed at a substance level to
>>replicate the exact same rain drop could be significantly higher or
>>even asymptotic to infinity.
>
>I'm using "information" in the usual sense of information theory -
>see for example Shannon's book "A Mathematical Theory of Communication".
>In this sense, information is what it takes to answer questions about
>something. It's not all it takes to build something: for that you
>need some raw materials as well.
I've spent my working time making sure that a cold start is possible.
That's when you have the raw materials in one pile, the desire and
plan in another pile, but not the knowledge to combine the two.
My goal was to make this third pile.
I get impatient with that information theory biz because this
third pile gets diminished as people focus their attention on
other two. The bug in the theory is that it assumes the third
pile will always exist and will always be available. I can tell
you from experience of a mere 10 years this is a fallicy.
>
>For example, you can't build a brick house even if you have the
>blueprints, if you don't have any bricks. Or, for that matter,
>if you don't have the proper tools and knowhow!
YES! Note that part of that knowhow has to include how to
build the proper tools.
>
>The last point is also relevant: even if we had the complete information
>describing a raindrop and we had enough water to make a raindrop, we
>couldn't build an exactly identical raindrop, because we don't know
>how to manipulate atoms that well.
>
>>I argue that even if you know the amount of information you claim that
>>is not nearly enough to replicate the rain drop.
>
>You need something more - but what you need isn't more information
>about the raindrop. The wonderful thing about statistical mechanics
>is that it allows us to measure the total amount of information in
>something like a raindrop, by measuring its entropy. Boltzmann, Gibbs
>and Shannon - they were awfully clever.
I suspect capacity in the computing biz is the equivalent to
entropy in the science biz..??? Please consider this a question..
I haven't thought about it in quite that way.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
|
|
| | From: | Aleks Jakulin | | Subject: | Re: too much information! | | Date: | Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:13:21 +0100 |
|
|
| John Baez:
> You need something more - but what you need isn't more information
> about the raindrop. The wonderful thing about statistical mechanics
> is that it allows us to measure the total amount of information in
> something like a raindrop, by measuring its entropy. Boltzmann,
> Gibbs and Shannon - they were awfully clever.
Are you sure that the thermodynamic entropy is based on a model that
is a *sufficient* and *complete* description of the raindrop? If it's
not a sufficient and complete description, the thermodynamic entropy
is merely the information of a particular representation of the
raindrop. Representations are subjective. It is not, however, the
information of all there is to that raindrop: there is more
information to a raindrop than what is captured by its thermodynamic
entropy.
Shannon entropy H(X) is based on a joint probability model P(X). How
does one decide on the number of states that X can take? What are the
possible states of a raindrop? It's easy when one speaks of spin, it's
also easy when one uses a simple boxy thermodynamic model, but when
one speaks of the information of a raindrop, one should define the
possible states.
Aleks (who is reading the thread on comp.compression and is curious
about how physicists think about this)
|
|
| | From: | Willem | | Subject: | Re: too much information! | | Date: | Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:09:44 +0000 (UTC) |
|
|
| Mike wrote:
) John Baez wrote:
)> But, I wasn't trying to explain this stuff in detail - just
)> compute the amount of information in a raindrop!
)
) [snip]
)
) Now that you "know" the amount of information, can you use it in any
) way to replicate the rain drop?
Obviously not. If I know the amount of information on a floppy disk, can I
recreate that floppy disk ?
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
|
|
|
