[Fis] Information explained in simple terms

[Karl Javorszky]

Learned Friends,



*Abstract and sensual references to the same thing*

We are chewing the same old bones of epistemology: what are the properties
of objective reality [stimuli], what are unmistakably our own creations
[constructs] and what is a mixture (like onomatopoetic words, eg “cuckoo”
or “whining”), which evokes the underlying idea both as a verbal, abstract
concept and as a sensory experience.

*What we have learnt*

We have learnt, that a construct has in that case a good chance of being
useful, if it can be explained to a child, who has no prior knowledge about
the matter. Gravitation can be explained, the Earth pulls the apple, quite
convincingly. Magnetism can be introduced as the idea that the Earth loves
order and has posed everywhere signs “this way up/down” and some of the
things are eager to follow signs like one should when crossing the street.

In a relatively more complex approach: that not only the Earth pulls the
apple, but the apple pulls the Earth, too, one can expand into details of
the construct. Similarly, one can demonstrate that magnetism has something
to do with pushing and pulling, too.

This is the present understanding of the two natural phenomena, and this is
how deep we currently understand what the meaning of gravity and magnetism
are. If one cannot tell what one means in a straightforward manner, then a
re-check would be in order, whether one is actually trying to say something
exactly, or rather whether one pontificates about some new and
revolutionary snake oil. Blowing up smoke screens by making the subject
matter appear very complicated, actually so much complicated that only
specifically schooled and educated people can understand it, is usually a
hint that the customer a) does not know, b) wants his audience to believe
that he does know, c) speaks about how cool he is and not about the subject
matter. Laws of Nature cannot be complicated to explain, because they shape
and build the fundament of our thinking. Big posturing and references to
Authorities’ opinion on the subject is equivalent to throwing sand in
people’s eyes, as the academic nature of the dissertations about witches
and maleficium generally, Alchemy, Astrology, Phlogiston, etc. have
demonstrated.

*Speak understandably*

A simple and consistent, concise explanation will be a step towards
understanding the phenomena by reducing it to something a child
understands, like Newton’s explanation of gravity and Faraday’s
demonstration of magnetic force lines. The concepts of mass, velocity,
energy can be explained by saying “the bigger the stone and the faster you
throw it, the bigger the dent caused”, e.g.

The next step is to explain the phenomena by relating the observations and
their explanation to basic patterns of perception and the observed limits
of perception and cognition (one’s own blind spots). We do not see the
stars during the day not because they are not there, but because the
sunlight makes our eyes adapt to its glare.

We presently do not see the relation between gravity and magnetism, not
because the relation is not there, but because our inner eyes have adapted
too much to “what is similar among the elements of the picture”, and cannot
adapt to the level of “what is different among the elements of the picture”.

We are even so much glared by the relentless radiation of the
similarity-orienting lighthouses in our head, that we hardly ever notice
whether, the diversity-orienting lighthouses having been ignored, we are
sitting on a sandbank, unable to navigate.

*Need to cross-reference*

We have to cross-reference our position also with reference to the
diversity property of things. Here comes the *blind spot*. We have to
acknowledge what we see, even if it is against the torchlights of
similarity and we have gotten so much used to employ the similarity
property of things that we have not found time yet to create a big tent, or
visit Uncle Plato who lives in a cave and only sees shadows of things
there, in which we can observe how *similarity and diversity lighthouses
throw different shadows on one and the same thing.*

We already know, how to place similar things one after the other along a
line and say 1,2,3,… to their places. We can learn, what happens if we
place diverse things along a line and say 1,2,3,… to their places, and then
discuss, which of the diverse things comes to which place if we choose to
use a different aspect of the diverse things to line them up in a different
way. Once the child catches the method of rearranging the diverse things in
a different order, we are afloat again. No more shipwrecked, we can
navigate and discover the topography. We create a spatial map which shows
where the things are in dependence of how many diverse things are there and
which orders we use to line them up, while concurrently maintaining the
idea of a line that is segmented into equal distances (*N)*.

*Connecting the explanation to obviously true basic facts. *

The spatial map is easily understandable to a child, the more so, as the
map has 3 axes and the up-down axe is ideal to be called gravitational
axis, because it is directed, its units are not in diverse categories, but
rather like *N, *and *a+b=c *of course stands, as the axis is defined such.
The two other axes, left-right and forward-backward are a bit more
complicated but also very easy to comprehend. A child understands, that
there is an up-down direction of space and a horizontal plane with the axes
left-right and front-back.

*Enter information. *

The explanation of information is: Mom has baked a pie. Your greedy brother
has already eaten a slice, say a ¼ of the pie. What you see here is that
what is the case. That what you imagine as the whole pie, is the
expectation. That what you imagine your brother has eaten, is the
information. The information is that what is not here: one recognises it in
the context, if that what is here is contrasted to that what should be
here. You know that your brother has eaten ¼, because you see here ¾, and
you expect the whole pie to have been a whole, that is: 1. Information =
expectation – fulfilment. Fulfilment is another word for what is the case.

Listening to your brother, we would get the impression that he believes ¾
of the pie to be possibly available, not having been a fulfilment for him.
He says: ¾ is information, ¼ is reality, while you say: ¾ is reality, ¼ is
information. You both agree that you expect a pie to have 4 quarters.

*Information has always two variants*, relative to whether *a *says *relative
to the whole c, b is not here; *while *b *says *relative to the whole c, a
is not here. *In a marital crisis, wife A says: of the whole C of problems,
my husband B is the cause of, while husband B says: of the whole C of
problems, A are caused by my wife. This is all very informative, and of
course logical.

*Now how to explain gravitation and magnetism: *

Uncle Marcus has given a pretty name to the toys we play with: logical
primitives. These are as similar and diverse among each other, as good as
it can get for a simple set of toy pairs. One logical primitive is a pair
of a girl and a boy. We have a group of children, who can each have one of *d
*distinct names, where *d *stands for the number of different names per
sex. (It is best to use *d=16, *for reasons discussed in oeis.org/A242615,
but one can use any *d *above 6. To do this exercise, one will need
computers. That computers are needed to do this simple exercise in
explanation, is also the reason that the explanation has not been found
earlier, because in earlier times, people had no computers.) So, we see our
collection of logical primitives, (we may call them *{(Adele, Alphonse),
(Adele, Boris), (Barbara, Boris), (Adele, Cesar), (Barbara, Cesar), (Conny,
Cesar), (Adele, Daniel), (Barbara, Daniel),…, (Ophelia, Peter), (Pamela,
Peter)} *always trying to be there where they belong*.* As we observe how
they walk around and change places, one with the next, during periodic
changes (and, believe me, on this planet Earth we are all subject to at
least the following periodic changes: a) caused by the path of the Earth
around the Sun, b) caused by the rotation of the Earth around its own axis,
c) caused by the Moon which circles around the Earth), we have detected 3
rectangular axes, and 2 planes that slice through the 3-dimensional
construct. These we have detected by using paper and pencil, and making
dots on a grid. The grid shows where a primitive would stand, if the cohort
was sorted on names of girls /this we call the *x coordinate/, *and
concurrently the cohort was sorted on the name of the boys /this we call
*y-coordinate/*. A grid is a plane. We observe the positions of the
primitives in several grids, and stick such grids together which show the
primitives circling a central element (the central elements are – in case
we watch primitives of a cohort with 16 different names for each sex –
always called *(Frieda, Karl)*) in groups of three. We create by this
method a spatial structure with *x,y,z.*

*Regarding two slices of a pie*

Nature compares things that consist of two parts with regard to their
similarity and their diversity, in two ways: A) with regard to their being
similar, she and we use with great success the principle *a+b=c. *This
principle can also be observed by watching the primitives walking around.
The *vertical axis* *z *we call C and it is a good construct to be behind
that what we call gravitation. B) with regard to the diversity
(not-alikeness). The two horizontal axes *x,y *deal with the proportion
between what is not there and what is there. They do it by comparing that
what is here with the *double* of what is not there. We do not yet
understand deeply enough, *why *the logical primitives walk around in this
fashion, the fact is, that they do so. The horizontal grid has two axes: 1)
how much the smaller part is different to the double of the bigger part,
and 2) how much the bigger part is different to the double of the smaller
part. This is like discussing: a) if you ate double what you ate, how would
that look compared to what your sister eats, and b) if you ate double what
you ate, how would that look compared to what your brother eats. The
classification of pies gives a planar position *on the horizontal plane *for
each and every way of having a pie partly eaten and still partly having it,
irrespective of the size of the pie. The size of the pie is measured on the
vertical axis *z, *which is C from the well-known, traditional way of
placing things in context, by saying: their similarity calculates to
*a+b=c.*

The position of each and every of the variants of the pie-eating contest is
calculated by much more complicated methods than by adding *a *to *b*. Even
the simplest calculation is *way more complicated than a+b=c**. *One among
the easiest is, e.g. *position((a.b),d,[b,a])= b*(b-1)/2+a*. It is
important to note, that one can calculate the position by using his
fingers, paper and pencil. To do this systematically, one needs computers.

The *two transcendent planes* generated by the reorders *1) (a,b) **→
(b-a,b-2a), 2) (a,a-2b) → (b-a,a)*are understood to depict two aspects of
spatial influences of order, without being as such constructers (tensors)
of space: one may suggest to compare them to planes of electro-magnetic
contributions to the general order and welfare, no aspect to be left
behind.

Equipped with these preliminary remarks, one can tell the child, that if we
calculate spatial distances and the results agree to operations on *N*, we
traditionally talk of gravitation, and if the arithmetic and the results of
the calculation do not agree to operations on *N, *we speak traditionally
of something else. In this sense, one may say, that whatever it is that
generates measurement results that agree in syntax to *N, *is henceforth to
be called gravitation, and be these effects observed on two pieces of
magnets that attract or repulse each other. Gravitation is the name of a
specific form of algorithm, which is usually observed yielding results
along the axis *z. *Using differing algorithms in different contexts will
not preclude that syntactically similar results appear.

*Proposition:* The proposition is to group explanations of observations
according to the syntax of the calculation of results.

*Critic of the proposition:* Traditionally, one counts colors and
temperature in differing numbering systems. Why would one want to say that
gravitation and magnetism have some aspects common? Have not our ancestors
taught us differently?

*Answer to the critic*: Our ancestors had distinguished the heat of the Sun
to its light. We have seen that we can use a form, syntax of calculation,
which shows that both human experiences are but forms of one and the same
idea of the Sun vibrating at several speeds at once. The key common concept
is vibrating, the difference lies in the frequency of vibration. We propose
to use the idea of a form, syntax of calculation to describe space-related
human experiences as differing degrees of the same process. Both
gravitation and the attracting-repulsing effect of magnetism are calculated
and expressed in terms of units that are similar among each other (we use
*N*).

*Conclusio:* We are perfectly able to count along the axis *z, *using *N, *and
there is nothing wrong with the glaring truth illuminating the inner
landscape with the mighty radiation of *a+b=c. *If the child learns *ab ovo
*that *b=c-a* and *a=c-b* are as valid descriptions of any and all of the
relations between *a,b,c *as the traditional, then it would not have to go
through the inner dissonance: there is *one normal* way of counting, namely
*a+b=c*, and *many freaky*, special ways for specific circumstances. The
proposition is to accept any and all of possible algorithms relating to the
position of a logical primitive as *equally valid*.

*Eating with two chopsticks*

The logical primitives tend to team up with other logical primitives during
a periodic change. This is also beyond our current understanding, *why*
they choose *<this specific collection of other primitives> *to team up
with during *<that specific reorder*>, but we have to accept the fact that
they do so. So, in fact, the primitives present themselves to us like a
section in a ring-noodle. Grownups call the ring-noodles ‘cycles’, but they
generally do not like to speak about the subject.

The *two chopsticks talk to each other*, and will disagree about how near
to or far from the end of the chopstick a ring-noodle is. The left
chopstick says to the right chopstick: the noodle should be further up! The
right chopstick says to the left chopstick: Absolutely not, on the
contrary: the noodle should be further down!

*Information is what is otherwise*

The two chopsticks create an area of disputation regarding where the noodle
should be, further up or further down. The area of disputation is what is
called information, because it is the sum of deviations of the actual fact
from expectations regarding how the actual facts should be. The same could
be also said when looking at the noodle: relative to how much flour is in
it, how long is it? One cook will say: with so much flour, I’d make a much
shorter noodle. The other cook will say: for a noodle so long, I’d need
less flour. The deviations of what is the case to what could be the case
are grouped in two main heaps: a) how much that what is the case is
different to that what was the case, and b) how much that what is the case
is different to that what will be the case.

*Giving names to that what we observe*

We are all very happy that the grown-ups will meet again, in Japan, if all
goes well. We can show them *Adele *to *Pamela, Alphonse *to *Peter, *and
how the primitives walk around, adapting to periodic changes. Maybe we can
make them curious about advanced techniques of handling complex
interdependencies by using two concurrent methods of counting, like we eat
slippery noodles by using two chopsticks. If there are some among the
grown-ups who are interested in information theory, they could find some of
the ideas useful, but you never know with grown-ups: they prefer to talk
about important things and will have no time to come to us to play with us
as we play with primitive toys of pairs of children and how to use two
chopsticks and how noodles are different among each other. Although
children learn by playing, grown-ups do not like playing or do not like
learning, because they already know everything. This they keep repeating to
each other. Funny people, these grown-ups.
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20200918/000c9abd/attachment-0001.html>