• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Information is bogus.

Sorry. I was converted by Shannon and Miller in 1958. Now I'm to the point where it's meaningless to think about anything without considering information. Just don't introduce it to your work in physics unless you're into information technology such as electronic warfare.
 
Information is an ourobouros. You cannot say that something is information without relying on more information to make that determination.

So yes, Robert Mercer has a word document or three. They are all ex nihilo.
 
Val said:
Information is an ourobouros. You cannot say that something is information without relying on more information to make that determination.
Click to expand...

That's not quite true.

You would need to make the distinction between belief and knowledge.

You'd be correct in saying that knowing information is true is ourobouros. My own way of saying this is that we know nothing about the world which is supposed to be out there. Because ultimately, our trust in the information we have supposedly about it is based on impressions. At some point, we have to stop going back in the justification chain for the information we have and decide to trust it without further ado because it's our impression it's good enough. So, it's a belief. The value of all information is our belief in it. That's all we have.

So, while knowledge of information is indeed ourobouros, belief in information is not, as it's based on our impressions. The impression, for example, that our perception is truthful etc.

NB. I take it you use "information" here in the ordinary sense, the kind of information we find in newspapers and what we hear from other people, not as Shannon's theory of information. So, in the ordinary sense, our impressions are not information, while they would be in Shannon's sense. And since we do know our impressions, if you took our impressions as Shannon would, i.e. information, then you'd have to accept that some information can be known in itself, without having to look for more information.
EB
 
Val said:
Idiots. Does anybody have a fucking clue what I'm on about?
Click to expand...
If someone claims that something is bogus, it's highly suggested that there is a something to in fact be bogus. Take calling counterfeit money bogus for instance. There is the sense in which it's not real (fake) and the sense it's real (exists).

Yet, you say "there's no such thing." That's contradictory. If there's something bogus, there's something, so this notion of there is no such thing implies nonexistence, but surely if something is indeed (as you say) bogus, then false you are to say there's no such thing.

Later, you speak of information. Why you single that out is any extremists guess, and notwithstanding the blindingly obvious falsity of "you cannot SAY that," you seem to think knowledge is a necessary condition for truth. The proposition expressed by the sentence the cat is on the mat is true if there's a real world match up between the worldly facts and purported facts.
 
Speakpigeon said:
[...] we know nothing about the world
Click to expand...

I believe many (very many) things about the world. I have justification for some of those which are true beliefs. At least a few of my beliefs are probably incorrect. As such, I would be mistaken when I say I know since it wouldn't be so that I did; however, I'd have to be wrong about every darn last one of my beliefs for it to be false that I didn't know anything about the world.
 
fast said:
Val said:
Idiots. Does anybody have a fucking clue what I'm on about?
Click to expand...
If someone claims that something is bogus, it's highly suggested that there is a something to in fact be bogus. Take calling counterfeit money bogus for instance. There is the sense in which it's not real (fake) and the sense it's real (exists).

Yet, you say "there's no such thing." That's contradictory. If there's something bogus, there's something, so this notion of there is no such thing implies nonexistence, but surely if something is indeed (as you say) bogus, then false you are to say there's no such thing.

Later, you speak of information. Why you single that out is any extremists guess, and notwithstanding the blindingly obvious falsity of "you cannot SAY that," you seem to think knowledge is a necessary condition for truth. The proposition expressed by the sentence the cat is on the mat is true if there's a real world match up between the worldly facts and purported facts.
Click to expand...

You're on the completely wrong track. Anyway, the truth or falsehood of "information" is a red herring - you need different information to make that determination to begin with, and that is the point.
 
Speakpigeon said:
Val said:
Information is an ourobouros. You cannot say that something is information without relying on more information to make that determination.
Click to expand...

That's not quite true.

You would need to make the distinction between belief and knowledge.

You'd be correct in saying that knowing information is true is ourobouros. My own way of saying this is that we know nothing about the world which is supposed to be out there. Because ultimately, our trust in the information we have supposedly about it is based on impressions. At some point, we have to stop going back in the justification chain for the information we have and decide to trust it without further ado because it's our impression it's good enough. So, it's a belief. The value of all information is our belief in it. That's all we have.

So, while knowledge of information is indeed ourobouros, belief in information is not, as it's based on our impressions. The impression, for example, that our perception is truthful etc.

NB. I take it you use "information" here in the ordinary sense, the kind of information we find in newspapers and what we hear from other people, not as Shannon's theory of information. So, in the ordinary sense, our impressions are not information, while they would be in Shannon's sense. And since we do know our impressions, if you took our impressions as Shannon would, i.e. information, then you'd have to accept that some information can be known in itself, without having to look for more information.
EB
Click to expand...

I'm playing a bit of a game here by connecting two unrelated dots between information and its identity. Unrelated in the sense that identity is information in of itself, which then suffers from infinite regress.

Let's rather not muddy the waters by talking about beliefs. Transcriptase, ferinstance, does not need to believe in start and stop codons.

- - - Updated - - -

DBT said:
Val said:
Idiots. Does anybody have a fucking clue what I'm on about?
Click to expand...


Not enough information. Your comments are open to interpretation.
Click to expand...

Eggzactly!

Or would that be chickenzactly?
 
Val said:
Information is an ourobouros. You cannot say that something is information without relying on more information to make that determination.
Click to expand...
Yeah, man. There is no absolute truth. Everything is relative. Who would have thunk it?

I had planned to do some shopping and water the garden on the weekend. The weather site informed me, ex nihilo of course, that there'll be a top temperature of 40°C on Saturday and 42 on Sunday. So I did the shopping and watering today. On the weekend I shall remain resolutely ensconced in air conditioned comfort, stepping into the heat only for the occasional cigarette. Truth!
 
You're not smart enough for this thread, Herr Mitt. Take your leave while you're still able.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom