Date: Fri, 12 Dec 1997 09:28:03 -0500 (EST) From: John Fieber <jfieber@indiana.edu> To: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> Cc: "J. Weatherbee - Senior Systems Architect" <jamil@acroal.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: This IS relevant, you'll realize why later. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971212084814.1001N-100000@fallout.campusview.indiana.edu> In-Reply-To: <199712121110.NAA14267@greenpeace.grondar.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Mark Murray wrote: > John Fieber wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, J. Weatherbee - Senior Systems Architect wrote: > > > > > Does anyone have any numbers for the sum total amount of information > > > existing in the universe? > > > > Define what you mean by "information". > > Not the answer you were looking for, John, but how about this from > an informatics point-of-view. > > At least n Bits > > Where n is the total quantity of mass/energy quanta reduced to binary > states. Yes, that view exists in a mathematical branch of the field of informatics. The rest of modern information/information science, however, would call that DATA, with information basically being data with MEANING. Or, data that is distinguished from noise is information. For example, from the OED 2nd edition has this to say on information: Knowledge communicated concerning some particular fact, subject, or event; that of which one is apprised or told; intelligence, news. spec. contrasted with data. For original the question asked, this definition of information is not useful. It isn't very tangible or quantifiable because in this view, information is in the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately, the "at least n bits" definition largely ignores the etymology of the word. The first sense of the root "inform" (OED again) is "To give form to, put into form or shape." The subsequent senses are close variants, all emphasizing the intellectual process of shaping and ordering. This is not to say that there is anything particularly wrong with the mathematical information theory, just that the term choice is regrettable. Maybe I'm just picking nits, but information science is my academic discipline so I am possibly a little hypersensitive about proper use of terminology central to the field. :) -john
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971212084814.1001N-100000>