Re: Information = Comprehension x Extension -- Discussion
Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:24:17 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.inquiry,gmane.comp.misc.ontology.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o ICE. Discussion Note 19 o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o One of the themes that appears to be arising from this complex of issues is the relationship between global thought and local action, not exactly to coin a new phrase, as Goethe long time passingly aphorized the prevalent but hopefully not the prevailing problem in his succinct formula, "Action limits, thought lames". One of the best ways to understand the relationship between global abstraction and local application is by examining the way that represented information constrains the structures of various order systems, such as pre-orders, partial orders, and lattices. At this point we run into a problem of exposition in the fact that "order" is too general, even ambiguous when taken out of context, while "lattice" is too specific in the strictest use of the term, so we find ourselves using the word "lattice" in both a strict and a loose sense, depending on the context. In mathematics, the action of an informational constraint on a pre-existing structure is described as a "quotient" operation. One frequently thinks of this process as using a set of "generator" elements to over-generate a more abundant variety of structure than one really needs and then using various sets of "relator" formulas to "divide out" the extraneous portions of the structure or variety in question. When we turn to the problems of logic, semiotics, and scientific inference that Peirce was trying to tackle with his information theory, our attempt to apply the quotient method is complicated by the fact that we have two sorts of quotients to think about. There is the "syntax to semantics" quotient by which the diversity of syntactic signs is partitioned into "logical equivalence classes" (LEC's) by whatever laws of logic are applicable by default. Then there is the "semantics to semantics" quotient by which the object domain in one state of information turns into the object domain in another state of information. That indicates some of the work of understanding that we have yet to do, when next we turn to Peirce's text. But first, to breakfast, and another cup of coffee. Jon Awbrey o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o http://www.cs.bsu.edu/homepages/mighty/history.html o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o