What is information?

[Someone here]

I'm not sure, and I might be wrong, but I'm going to take the starting position that information is not 'a thing in itself, but a way of describing actual things (material things, abstract concepts, etc).

Hence information always tells you (informs you) about something else, that thing's properties, processes, quantities, measurements, what ever it's describing.

If you say an object or process 'contains a lot of information', that is really a metaphor for saying that object or process has a lot of ways of being described, measured, having different states.

It can describe things in encoded representations/symbols, such as words, '0/1 bits', or the patterns of neuronal systems which describe the outside world or internal body states.

As information has no independent existence, is only a way of describing or representing the actual thing in itself which the information is about, then it can have no independent causal powers of its own, no causal role at all.

Thoughts?

 

[ZzzleepingBear]

Interesting question.

Looking at the words itself strongly suggest that the word information. Is a description of knowledge put into a coherent formation. Like that of army soldiers in unity will togheter put themselves individually into one formation based on the comand given to them.

Information> In-formation.

In = knowledge. (In as input of )

Formation = A specific arangement into form

So the word information would consist of an array of separate knowledge and inherent understanding put togheter into a unique form that can be individually recognized and agreed upon by reaching a common conclution/goal.  

[Tim R]

That's a very theory-loaded question and you must be very careful and attentive when trying to forge an answer, because we're now moving within the domain of pure abstraction. You could read entire books on "what is information?" and still not be satisfied with the answers. 

I think information is a function of abstraction.

By abstraction I mean specifically: representations (in whatever form; symbolic, phonetic, visual, imagistic, etc.)  of events or things in the world. But since the "representation" is always based on comparison with "other things" (i.e. abstractions), the definitions of "things" is circular. But for the sake of discussion, let's pretend that this is not the case, because otherwise the whole enterprise of abstraction would lose its meaning. 

This is why in the strictest sense, information is illusory.  

Information is essentially synonymous with "meaning". Which in turn is synonymous with "implication". 

Information is always based on interpretation. I can talk to you in a foreign language, but unless you know how to interpret the sounds I make, no information is conveyed to you, aka no meaning/sense can be constructed. 

[Nahm]

@Someone here

Look for the punchline. 

[Someone here]

@ZzzleepingBear @Tim R I certainly agree. What you mention is called representation in post-structuralist and narrative theories. Genrally speaking, information could be seen in the light of Aristotle's notion of Logos. It involves the data that appeals to human rational faculty.
 

[ZzzleepingBear]

15 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@ZzzleepingBear @Tim R I certainly agree. What you mention is called representation in post-structuralist and narrative theories. Genrally speaking, information could be seen in the light of Aristotle's notion of Logos. It involves the data that appeals to human rational faculty.
 

Alright, thank you for that. I always find it interesting, when how I frame someting in a certain way. That it can be identified into a category like this that you mentioned, because I usually never have a clue from what category-frame I speak from, unless maybe when it's something more basic like deterministic based, or other.

Also, I might add to my take on information. That the end vision/goal as it is reached and understood. Determine whether information will be seen as just that. As information or nonsense:-)