A New Kind of Science: The NKS Forum > NKS Way of Thinking > What does it mean to transfer information.
Author
Enexseenge

Kingston WA

Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 46

What does it mean to transfer information.

Consider a system which receives expressions from an environment around it ( and an environment which continually expresses state as well). Lets say that as this "system" receives the expressions it alters the form of those expression into one which makes sense to the system.
This altering can be considered a process of computation. As the expression makes it's way through the system it eventually "Settles down" and solidifies it self as an identity in that system, thus is the end of the computation and we say that the expression has been 'computed' or identified.

Now, lets consider what it means to "transfer" information.

Consider that the system is receiving an expression which is similar to a past expression that already has an identity within a system.
The best example i can think of is a human being who is saying the same thing which they had said not too long ago to someone who has already heard it.

As the receiving human begins to hear the same thing again from the expressing human, the time it takes for the receiving human to identify the current expression is very small.
Since they already have computed the identity of a similar expression beforehand, the system recognizes the similarity in the current expression to the past expression and receives the current expression as the identity of the past expression.
In this case we say that there is NO transfer for information.
The identity of an expression is already existent within the system, even before that expression is given. There is no capacity for "new" identities to be made, thus there is no transfer of information.

It is in this way which i say that transferring information is the process of implicating through expression the computation of a new identity within a receiving system.

Thank you very much and have a nice... day

__________________
A great revolution is at hand, but this is just a metaphor.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

04-29-2007 06:22 PM
Philip Ronald Dutton
independent
Columbia, SC

Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 172

information transmittal

Let us say that a search algorithm exists and attempts to check for pre-existing matching information. This search algorithm will always check the input for the next block of information. But there is not an "on" or "off" style "interrupt" comming from the environment. There is no concept of "interrupt" which says "hello, here is a new incomming signal." From the perspective of the matching algorithm, the input is always "live" with noise regardless if there is anything there or not (by your interpretation standards).

I guess my question is: In a purely theoretical sense, how can a system detect an incomming signal? Or, explain to me what marks the beginning of a new signal? What is the difference between noise and "not-noise?"

Your "hardware" only works after you figure out signal levels in your noise (Kind of like creating your axioms first).

The machine knows nothing so from it's perspective the input is meaningless.... I think this is very interesting because humans often slip up and forget that their perspectives are different than what is actually happening between the machine and the environment.

This is a little off topic from the idea of information transfer. Just remember that there is no "information" comming in from the perspective of the machine. It is very obvious point. However, it helps to keep your feet on the ground.

__________________
P h i l i p . R . D u t t o n

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

04-30-2007 05:01 AM
Enexseenge

Kingston WA

Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 46

Hello,

I appreciate your response very much and will be replying some time soon.

It is very late right now and i lack the ability to spend the effort to think and write but i look forward to writing a response tomorrow.

__________________
A great revolution is at hand, but this is just a metaphor.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

04-30-2007 06:53 AM
Enexseenge

Kingston WA

Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 46

pelminary.

First of all, these systems are most definitely not machines in the typical sense. And by that i mean that any current exchange of energies which is used for logical processing within mechanical architectures in current technology does not relate satisfactory to the 'systems' which i imagine.

These systems have a much more abstract basis.
In fact 'system' is a term i use to define a concept in a method of thinking which i have been developing that revolves around the idea that elements within sets ( which ever sets happen to be identified in your current observation)communicate to each other to establish and maintain the identity of the set ( and the individual members of the set and all subsets) which implicates an universe's identiy. I am trying to describe the existence of a set as an active process of communication between the members.

Each element it self has what i call perspective, which is the way in which it identifies the other infinite members around it. It is these elements which are all the culprit of the axiom of choice and manifest relations by 'perceiving' each other. The use of the word "structure" relates the a set (although perhaps evolve able) to a defined function and it's form as a network.

I am still thinking very much about this but this is preliminary of what i have been researching.

....

Thank you for the response i need more criticism..

__________________
A great revolution is at hand, but this is just a metaphor.

Last edited by Enexseenge on 04-30-2007 at 04:37 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

04-30-2007 07:22 AM
Philip Ronald Dutton
independent
Columbia, SC

Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 172

balancing systems: abstract vrs. real

Hi. I appreciate your effort in this communication thread and would like to keep thinking about some things related to the ideas spoken of thusfar. Unfortunately, I require time to arrive at a point in my thinking where I can communicate my thoughts more clearly. I look forward to discussing these topics more in depth.

Thanks,
Philip Ronald Dutton

__________________
P h i l i p . R . D u t t o n

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

04-30-2007 05:19 PM
Philip Ronald Dutton
independent
Columbia, SC

Registered: Feb 2004
Posts: 172

the observer

Perhaps one might say that information is only exchanged via some system of observation? The observation is always required. If the observations never take place then all that is left is processing.

__________________
P h i l i p . R . D u t t o n

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

04-30-2007 05:25 PM
Enexseenge

Kingston WA

Registered: Mar 2005
Posts: 46

The idea of information and systems.

Today while i was at work i was thinking about this idea of the interrupt and realized that it is a very important concept to consider and glad that you had brought it up. Since my systems are more abstract then a physical machine i had to bridge what you had commented on with my ideas. I see that this gets into the idea of "memory" and how an identity is represented within the system, which is exactly what i am looking into right now.

For the past 2 years i have been researching the real numbers and set theory, Godel, Cantor, Zermelo, Russell, Whitehead... But my approach is quite spontaneous and uncertain.

I started with the question, "what is a number, and what is the interaction between numbers?".. I came up with this idea that a number it self need not represent merely quantity or order but more so may exist as a "Structure"* of innate properties that an identity can represent. These properties allow the identity to be a member of a function or relation (the function exploits these "innate" properties") with other “identities“ (elements).

Next i needed conditions which would help me consider how an "interaction" between numbers might happen, i needed something which would allow separateness to exist and exchange to take place, and I needed to get rid of irrational numbers because they really pissed me off when considering an edge in a network.
So I consider that for any number to be existent (whether your write it on a paper or a function traverses it) it must have it's expression received so as to be identified and held.
The reason that it must be held is that there is a "decay" which takes place and dissolves structures, and it happens at the same rate as identity (try not to imagine time too much though…).
So, if we were to have a moment in which an identity appear to us it's structure would have already decayed by the time we received it's expression. The “structure“ of an element cannot exist simultaneously with it‘s expression unless a signal is receipted by that structure at the same time that the expression is released..

So this decay helped me consider the idea of a strange type of space, an identity space, where elements could come together and try their hand at maintaining structures. But I came across a big problem in my thinking at this point, and that was how an element deals with two simultaneous "receptions".. I am still totally unsure about what to do about this but it’s what your mentioning of the interrupt has led me to think about. I have been ignore the idea of simultaneous receptions upon an element, and this is because I am unsure of how to proceed. I don’t like the idea of a “expression” having a magnitude, but it very well might work. The other idea I had was that when two signals are received simultaneously some how it changes the element, or causes it to simply express a multiple… hmmm I am begging to think about it as I write and don’t want to get off topic…

In my idea of the system the "environment" (which happens to be other systems) are continually expressing their state. Now, here we find the first problem already with the use of the word continuous; for how could a finite measure of signal be observed if the expression was truly continuous? My lack of experience may simply obscure me here but I believe that it is a valid point that a "continuous" transfer cannot actually occur, for there would be no sequence of a signal.. Would the signal be incomplete, where we are on the result side of the computation, never able to see the bit stream so we know it as nothing??
At this point is where I start to consider sets, particularly the set of all real numbers.

As for “information”, what I was hinting at is the creation of a new structure, vrs to “re-use” of a prior structure.

Any ways, I rarely speak to anyone about this so I am stopping here least I ramble as I do in my personal writings…

Kyle.

* Structure: A structure can be considered a node in a network.
It is easy to confuse identity with structure, but an identity is the result of perceiving a structure, the result of bringing identity to an element. Unless a structure is “identified” then if we say it exists we cannot be 100% certain that it does.. So I made a little rule that says in order to be 100% certain that a structure exists and is maintained it has to be ‘pinned in’ by it’s reception of a secondary element and it’s expression to that secondary element (which leads to that secondary element identifying the first).. This is a the most basic “network”, it goes back and forth at a fixed rate and maintains a two member structure at that rate as well.

__________________
A great revolution is at hand, but this is just a metaphor.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

04-30-2007 10:18 PM

wolframscience.com  |  wolfram atlas  |  NKS online  |  Wolfram|Alpha  |  Wolfram Science Summer School  |  web resources  |  contact us