Semiotic paradigm

Information' - What is it? In a human sense, it is the vehicle, on which we base our decisions - the lubricant for our lives. In hindsight, it is the rationale we give ourselves to explain our actions. In this century we speak of digital information. This is not just a story explaining how things are - it's more about understanding what we need and how to find it. Will it rain today? Who’s in charge? How do I get there?

When I was coming to understand the world, information was something primarily captured in language and stored on paper. Newspapers were for the day to day, and libraries were where the books were kept. Oh yes, there were computers… number crunchers that were bigger than houses with little paper cards and even tinier holes. It was some time before we realized that letters, as in morse code, could be represented by ones and zeros and the ‘word processor’ was made available. Machines could manage language!

Ones and zeros - base 2 math, funny! - binary math can express any number but there is no 'two' involved: on, off. Then came wireless communication and satellite or microwave transmission. Suddenly libraries were looking like 8 track tape players! Information had changed drastically! - or had it? Because we think in language, we have a tendency to confuse the word with the ‘thing itself’. We also confuse where we look with what we’re looking for. To clarify our thinking, linguists and philosophers have developed a concept diagram:

Semantic triangle

Picture an object. Now think of the word for that object. If your triangle points up, at the top is… the mental transaction we make or the 'referent'. So, 'log' [old wood lying on the ground] the mental transaction [referent] that evokes the ‘word’: log. The mental transaction ‘referent’, in theory, could be represented as a coded algorithm. This tidbit is intended for all those born after 1980. So, again, what is information?

Max Planck defined information as: "The function of Surprise within a Matrix of Expectancy". {*here a footnote regarding source}

Let’s begin broadly, to examine the nature of reality, by describing the nature of our Matrix. Our Surprise, hopefully can be apprehended later within this context. Thus we have object [that which can be examined or observed], and subject [one who observes]. This starting point thanks to Heisenberg and his Principle of Uncertainty.

WIKIPEDIA: The pragmatist Charles S. Peirce defines the broad notion of an object as: "anything that we can think or talk about".

The Referent: Magic or Modifier? This is a tabula rasa that transforms!, ‘as if by magic’ the moment we attach a label, or create a title. The act of naming is fundamental to both Science and Magic. Both reside here. From the semantic triangle, whose base juxtaposes Kant’s ‘thing-in-itself’ and a lingual ‘word’ we must look up into an apex of 'real' to find the Referent. This is the realm of experience: The transaction, performed within a neural net, of pure creation that gives the triangle context and meaning. Here we must be clear about the nature of our subject of discussion: Semantic Triangle - the foundation of all human language. The physical infrastructure pre exists for all creatures whether we deem them to be sentient or whether they be rooted or quick. By selecting the label Semantic Triangle, we exclude most of reality in order to focus, just on ‘human linguistics’. The rest of existence is excluded from the frame as ‘understood’ or ‘assumed’. This paragraph has been written within the realm of “classical physics”. Without considering the implications of quantum reality, one can observe the nature of transformation away from certainty introduced by processing experience through this lens. This is the scope of meaning evoked in the term ‘Referent’ -it's nature: 'raw verb'. (here ref. Uncertainty Principle)

Classification systems must endeavour to group objects of information into categories that are: clearly defined, mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. This way, any entity of the given classification universe belongs unequivocally to one, and only one, of the proposed categories. Now to simplify, once we have established the object-subject relationship and for the sake of clarity, let us replace the term 'subject' with the term 'participant'.

This change frees the word ‘subject’ to be used normally with all its common meanings. In addition, this change underlines the nature of the relationship between ‘anything we can think or talk about’ and the ‘participant’. To encounter the next step in our examination we must understand categories, how they are constituted, and the purposes they must serve.

Here I would like to acknowledge that you are reading English text because I read, write and speak English. In the same way that we freed the word: 'subject' to allow it the freedom of meaning for English use, let's examine classical categories. I wish also to acknowledge that Aristotle’s categories were concerned primarily with substance. This automatically creates the category of ‘things of no substance’. This is a semantic feature of language [and an essential characteristic of Set Theory] which implies that language cannot obtain or contain truth, however, it is an essential when exploring meaning.

Thus, I wish here to depose that this text will be devoted to a search for meaning. Truth is a faith based conclusion which has no place, if unqualified, in a quantum mechanical reality.

A category such as ‘Miscellaneous’ is a catch-all for anything, so, not ‘clearly defined’. If we are to evaluate experiences we must categorize them in some fashion. It is important to note here the definition for Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness [Charles S Peirce’s scientific reasoning]. How Shall we classify to create useful categories? As all this experience is processed through Language, semantic relationships would be paramount. Analog ‘temporal sorting’ and GPS location demographics could also prove useful in types of combination and grouping.

Perhaps a good start in the examination of categories has been suggested by Luciano Floridi who describes information as “four kinds of mutually compatible phenomena”: Information about something (e.g. a train timetable) Information as something (e.g. DNA, or fingerprints) Information for something (e.g. algorithms or instructions) Information in something (e.g. a pattern or a constraint). WIKIPEDIA: Philosophy of Information Mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive seem to be two properties that a useful taxonomy of categories would feature to avoid ambiguity and duplication.

New question: “What’s all this analysis in aid of?” Information that is not subject to intentional recall is not useful. Alphabetical, by name or Numerical, by case number is an effective storage method. To retrieve all cases related to or containing a specific feature is what is desirable for research purposes. Neither of the alpha-numeric systems prove especially useful for this type of retrieval. Here, a side note: Recently, barcoding of Case files has greatly simplified retrieval, by encoding key features of cases not previously part of retrieval process. Such features include withheld information, elements of modus operandi etc and now can use a ‘select for’ function, that turns 673 cases into 12 useful related documents. Having said that, Quantum processing appears to have the potential to sort all cases at once in a similar fashion.

A subject classification system is a taxonomy selected for the subject to enhance or feature a specific subject. It classifies related information into categories that are clearly defined, mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. Within such a matrix, information in a specified location, is surrounded by 360 degrees of closely related information that may apply or prove useful because of its context or 'subject locus' in the Taxonomy. Thus subject classification systems are ideal for research purposes if the taxonomy is sound and comprehensive.

Let’s reexamine Planck’s definition of Information. Information ( I ) is the function (⨍) of Surprise (*S) within a Matrix of Expectancy (Me) or [(⨍)*S]x[Me] = I . If I should I say to you “Good morning” and you nod and say “Good Day”, while we have confirmed that communication lines are open, no information however, has been transacted: No Surprise. If, on the other hand I were to say to you “Albuquerque” with no context, you would be at a loss as no matrix of expectation has been established. Successful communication includes both aspects of the definition.

Charles S Peirce was also a founder of Semiotics. While Saussure approached through semantics and linguistics Pierce arrived through the social sciences, signs, symbols and meaning. Both fathers of Semiotics met with an emphasis on context. Luciano Floridi’s four kinds of mutually compatible phenomena provide categories useful to classify information.

The example of a timetable suggests a taxonomy regarding a route, and the departure and arrival times at any given station along it. The reduction and transformation of an individual into a set of fingerprints or DNA graph would certainly qualify as information. A process can be stipulated with precision through a codex of algorithms or set of instructions. Such a description of a process is as comprehensive and would qualify as valid information in much the same way a train timetable does. The fourth, “Information in something” has an intrinsic quality as would a telegrapher’s fist, herringbone or ‘this is true if and only if’ should apply to this ’something’.

Peirce’s Notion of Science proves a useful tool if one can apprehend it. Phaneroscopy was a word invented by Peirce to differentiate the process of witnessing phenomenona from the active process of observing unique events with an eye to classification and categorization of them. I refer here to the text: PIERCE’S THEORY OF SIGNS AS FOUNDATION FOR PRAGMATISM by John J Fitzgerald [1966]. The primary tool he recommended for this purpose was sifting by concept differentiation through the application of “Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness”. By applying these categories we are able to locate ourselves and our perspective on this unique event. While both Peirce and Fitzgerald attempt explanation, for the 21st Century ear, these sound convoluted and feel obscure. This reader’s interpretation is as follows: Firstness is singularity; Secondness results in “other”; Thirdness is firstness and secondness in context hence the reason that no category of ‘fourthness’ needs be created.

It is important to account for and understand that both fathers of Semiotics were operating in a reality untouched by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. With Peirce especially and his notion of Phaneroscopy he wrestles with phenomenon, which by definition is something observed, and with the context of his notion of Interprenant  he seems to be groping for an element of the interaction between reality and the role of the observer later identified by Heisenberg. Also, Kant’s neumenon or ‘the thing in itself’ seems significant when opposed to phenomenon for perhaps a different reason than he might have intended. Schrodinger’s superposition of that which is not observed seems to apply. That having been said, there remains a value to Peirce’s Notion, and this categorization sieve has an advantage in application. They [Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness] guarantee a moment of self-awareness that turns the observer into a ‘witness’, and the event into a ‘phaneron’.

To speak meaningfully, agreement must be reached on terminology and implications to limit meaning. Therefore, let me address virtuality: a neural net whether mechanical, electronic, or biological, constructs a virtual model that pre-exists prior to that experience being “Real-ized” [sic]. That is to say all reality, as we perceive of it exists because of a pre-existing “Virtual” model created by a neural net. Unique to our species, is human language. This prompts the question: ‘What is language?‘ I choose to ignore this and ask instead what does Human Language do? It places our reality Outside of Time. The fundamental ‘Now’ experienced by all creatures, sentient, rooted or quick, apprehend reality complete with the infrastructure of living experience. For humans, however it is mediated by language and through it. This removes our awareness from it - the eternal 'Now' thereby transforming our reality and how we interact with it. “Quantum Mechanical” realities differentiate the wave and particle states by means of the observer’s attention. To be clear, whether an event is witnessed or not, will impact the outcome. The old chestnut about a tree falling in the forest, has a fundamental reality beyond the philosophy.

The observer needs to comprehend, that the act of observing, is participating in creation!

Fundamental is used with a specific meaning. If one considers a river and water molecules of which that river is made, while we cannot see those molecules we would say that they bear a fundamental reality. The river does not have this fundamental existence. Even though we can see, feel, smell, drink, swim and bathe in it, its existence is said to be emergent - not fundamental. In this, at least, we are consistent. Our consciousness is also emergent. An emergent phenomenon is a result that could not have been predicted in spite of a thorough inventory of all the system’s individual parts and interactions understood to exist between them. R Buckminster Fuller called it "Synergy". It follows then that we too have no fundamental existence... yet, here we are!

If the universe can be said to exist, it would seem that the best description of that existence is as information. In the last three decades of the previous century the most important realization of human awareness, was the demonstrated proof that we, individually and collectively, we are an intrinsic part of the creation process. Reality is not something that exists outside, and independent of us. In fact there is ample evidence to suggest that what we perceive as reality could not exist without that perception. We are an intrinsic part of the creation process.

Earlier, the 'referent' was declared to be the realm of both Magic and Science. As science enhances and expands our understanding of the matrix, the result is almost as though Magic were an axiom upon which we've built a geometry of Science which eventually, it seems, will prove the axiom. This observation is intended for consideration to underline what human language does for human perception. It ostentatiously points out a potential answer to the question posed earlier: -what does Human Language do?

Of course proof implies truth. As no qualification for truth presents itself, let’s continue our exploration of experience for meaning that might be gleaned. Our participation through awareness, is essential to the reality that we share and for which we bear a responsibility. Heisenberg’s insight into how our interaction with reality limited our ability “to know” struck a devastating blow to the scientific ego. To move on, further exploration has provided headway. A significant way to express this conceptualization is to remove a distorted emphasis on what we can know, and replace it with an appropriate accentuation of what we may allow to happen.

Our model of reality, complete with assumption, bias, artificial and technical embellishments, is a condign limitation on our ability to perceive or apprehend. It is fair, then to reassess the “Scientific Method” as a cleaver way to stack the experimental deck in order to obtain a consistent and reproducible result. Is it appropriate to enquire how time can impact information? How do information, expectation and meaning interact to evoke a specific result? This result would be referred to as ‘phaneron’ by Pierce, but as previously noted Schrodinger and Heisenberg were not a part of his conceptual toolbox. What is information?

Perhaps a thought experiment could contribute. Over centuries we have developed a conception of the universe that has reached a conclusion about its inception: The Big Bang. One thing that applies to information about beginnings is that it must change the narrative. The Big Bang: before it - nothing; after it - Inflation. The single fundamental and unifying force is Inflation. We should view our fundamental forces in the same way we speak of horizon or sunrise. Our universe of light, time and matter was an evolutionary precipitate of the cooling, for want of a better word, resulting from exponential expansion after the big bang.

Our four fundamental forces evaporate. As the exponential expansion continues its surge, the precursors of matter distill. Gravity as we understand it begins as a an inertial symptom of this development. Information, does not yet exist. Matter does not exist. Light does not exist therefor duration and hence Time does not exist.

Inflation is the only thing that exceeds the speed of light. We know this because in the big bang, everything that has existed, exists now or will come to exist, erupts from a point. As we know a point is pure location. It has no other dimension. Before time can exist light has to be able to move. At this earliest phase of existence, inflation is a superheated plasmic soup of superposition - hence no position. Light has yet to exist thus time is still on hold.

A transformation, as if by magic! The thought experiment completely revises the rationale we give ourselves to explain our existence. So one has to enquire: Does information exist prior to its incorporation, application or use?

While we consider this, should we also ask: When we speak of information should the word’s meaning strictly be limited to reality apprehended by human beings? In the late seventies I encountered a book: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values (1974). In it Robert M Pirsig explores the nature of ‘quality’. Is it something the competent craftsman imbues his creation with thorough attention to detail; prudent selection of material and meticulous workmanship? If so is it now a component of the product and therefore transferable? Should I discover that product in a corner of a shed and recognize the quality do I become part of a transaction in the nature of value? The process of that examination as reader touched me deeply by affecting how, in daily life, I became aware of common objects.

The reference to Max Planck’s definition of information was encountered in a Hardcover Publication published in the ‘Programmed learning sequence’ format for the Library Science audience on Subject Classification Systems. [Programmed Learning B F Skinner 1958]. Both texts encountered at the same period of my life assisted in my growth as family member, employee, student and citizen.

Both books, one from a drug store rack, the other from my employer’s library, interacted with my daily routines, changing by enhancing my understanding and providing underpinnings of clarity, with which to react to life. Both provided me with meaningful information. I however was responsible for understanding, identifying, and applying these insights in my life.

It strikes me that information is more process than artifact. There was the the life work of Skinner to arrive at a learning process ‘Programmed Learning’ that for someone with a learning disability broke new ground of potential. There was the foundation for Library Sciences that chose this format to publish a work that opened the door for research into any topic to which I was drawn. There was a rigorous [no shortcut with Mcnuggets] examination provided by a philosopher genuinely exploring Quality and Value. Then there was the drug store, the library and me. Some of these elements were incidental some pivotal but none were trivial to this process.

So, what is information?

Let us examine, and if need be, reorder what we already know. Planck’s definition was originally developed for astrophysics. It was intended as a means of gleaning signal from the general background noise - signal as in significant information. It proves invaluable, however, in preparation for written communication, or public speaking. Effective communication requires gathering the attention of the ‘audience’ while introducing yourself. Then generally one introduces the topic in some entertaining fashion. At this point one describes what one intends to say about the topic: 'the surprise'.

This matrix of understanding helps individuals in this audience consolidate attention and focus on what’s being presented. Audio-visual aids Graphs, photographs and illustrations can be helpful in reinforcing the unified nature of this audience by ensuring that all the age groupings, gender and educational demographics are included. Only then, can we plot the course of our ‘story’ to our intended ending and result. A good presentation leaves even those in opposition to your presentation satisfied with what they take with them: enhanced understanding of the counter arguments and a feeling of time well spent: 'the surprise'.

The Random House Dictionary defines Rheme as: (linguistics) the constituent of a sentence that adds most new information, in addition to what has already been said in the discourse. The rheme is usually, but not always, associated with the subject theme. Again we are looking at the surprise but this time within the context of the sentence. Let’s look at the following sentence: The motorway from London to Leeds is called the M1. Here the theme ‘motorway from London to Leeds’ or in a larger format the ‘matrix of expectancy’. The rheme is ‘called the M1’ or the surprise. Same structure, same format, same relationships, whether a single thought or an entire subject. Information equals surprise if and only if a context has been selected and established. By whom is an obvious qualification that would seem needed. By the participant, the term substituted for subject or the interprenant as Peirce named him.

The participant brings with him a pre established complex of expectation. This is a good thing. Previous experience plays a large roll in establishing what the participant is capable of expecting. What difference would the size of vocabulary in the role of processing the event through language play? The gestalt of this process is so transformative that size has no effect on the process. An example of the essential nature of this would be the pre articulate language forms developed by young humans usually referred to as nonsense language. Most mothers will assert that: “It’s not nonsense, he knows what he means and so do I.” Clearly the infant is performing the transformative lingual processing. Thus can we agree that information is a result of lingual perception?

So often we discover that what we thought we saw was based on expectation. Unless we are given the gift of slow motion replay, we can continue with the incorrect impression as belief. Wheeler’s delayed-choice thought experiment: Experimental realization and theoretical analysis [2008]. Is only one of the exciting results, some research having been done with electrons testing the ‘wave v. particle’ nature of light and the apparent ‘collapse’ function attention brings. I think that superposition [Schrodinger] explains the results discovered without being able to explain results; in other words while superposition helps explain what we are seeing, it does not explain why we see them. These results however, do tend to support claims about the unique nature of human intellect and attention.

What if the participant has no previous experience of the phenomenon about to be witnessed? As pointed out in the educational DVD “What the Bleep” it is believed that Natives of the Caribbean could not “see” the many masted sailing vessels of the first Europeans until a spiritual elder spent the time needed, meditating on the anomaly found at the horizon, to conceive of it as some man made vessel containing strangers. Fictions like Men In Black I and II suddenly do not seem so far fetched when the limitations of human awareness are taken into account. It may be that miracles surround us yet we are unable to appreciate them. Our model of reality, complete with assumption, bias, artificial and technical embellishments, is a condign limitation on our ability to perceive or apprehend.

In his excellent book: “Peirce A Guide for the Perplexed” Cornelis de Waal provides a little historical perspective: ”In the final chapter of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), John Locke divides science into: physics, which studies ‘The Nature of Things, as they are in themselves, and their Relations, and their manner of Operations’; practics, which concerns ‘the Skill of Right applying our own Powers and Actions, for the Attainment of things good and useful’; and semeiotics. This last term he derives from the Greek semeion, for ‘sign’ or ‘signal.’ According to Locke, it is the business of semeiotics—which like Peirce he also calls the doctrine of signs, and which like Peirce he also identifies with logic—‘to consider the Nature of Signs, the Mind makes use of for the Understanding of Things, or conveying its Knowledge to others’ When Locke writes these words the term was commonly used in medicine." [Ch 5 Semeiotics, or the doctrine of signs]

Peirce uses the extra ‘e’ spelling as that of 17th Century Locke whereas Saussure originally named the subject Semiology. Semiotics seems to be the label of choice, and hopefully the one in use consistently throughout this text. In any case the term and the study have been crucial to understanding for over three centuries almost as though it remains elusive. One might consider the efforts of aquarium fish in trying to understand their world without having a concept for water.

So what is Information?

30.                                                                                                                                     [-!.[* ]

"Emergent Phenomena" is a subsequent paper that explores the means to categorize and evaluate avenues of thought concerning the reasons for the differences between the micro and macroscopic universes as we apprehend them. Emergent Phenomena