Undefined Information

[Doctordick]

My use of the phrase “undefined information” has been severely criticized by a few self proclaimed authorities on the philosophy of science forum and I would like to know the opinion of the members. Given that the Webster's New World Dictionary circa 1951 (my personal reference for American English) gives the following definitions,

 

data things known or assumed; facts or figures from which conclusions can be inferred.

 

information from the Latin informatio a representation, outlining, sketch 1. an informing or being informed; especially, a telling or being told of something. 2. something told; news; intelligence; word. 3. any knowledge acquired in any manner; facts; data; learning; lore.

 

My question is extremely simple: which of those two words would you use to refer to a fact that “something happened” where what it was that happened is absolutely unknown? It seems to me that it certainly is not a thing “known” and, if it is assumed, what has been assumed? As defined, “data” seems to imply something beyond “something happened”. My attitude is that “information” is a much more ambiguous general concept (that is why it has a longer definition): i.e., anything “told” would qualify, defined or not.

 

Thanks -- Dick

[Rade]

Your question asks ... to refer to a fact that "something happened"...

 

So, clearly you claim there to be a fact present in your question, the fact that "something happened". Your use of the word "fact" is the key to the answer of your question.

 

Note that "data" is defined in your dictionary as "facts", thus a "datum" as a primary (singular) would be a "fact". Therefore, by definition data = facts, datum = fact.

 

Suppose bit code, 1 and 0. Each bit represents a singular datum (a fact). Combined in various ways 10, 11, 00, 01 they represent information, "a thing told". The information comes from the constraint on the possible variety in the possible repetitive pattern of datum (1 or 0). If all datum were 1, with no other possibility, there would be no information, for information requires constraint on variety. Information is told by combining two singular datum facts (1 and 0) in various ways, thus datum is prior to information.

 

Notice from the definition of information you gave, that it is a "word" told, not each letter as datum "w","o","r","d" that is "told" as information. Thus, to say that information is told, there must always exist a possibility of constraint. So, 1010101010100101 is information told if 1 and 0 are possible, but 11111111111111 is not information told if 0 is not possible.

 

Therefore, data (a datum) as facts (a fact) are always prior to information. So, to answer your question, you would use data to refer to the "fact that something happened", you would use information to help explain some unknown repetitive pattern of data from the something that happened.

 

==

 

You asked about the difference between a thing "known" vs "assumed" as used for definition of data. Using your New World Webster dictionary, we see these definitions:

 

know...to have a clear perception or understanding of...to have a firm mental grasp of.

 

assume....to take or put on (the appearance, form, role etc. of)...to suppose (something) to be a fact.

 

It seems logical to me that it would be "data as assumed facts" that would describe your "something happened". This would meet your requirement that whatever the "something" is that did happen, is completely unknown (it is not clear)--that is--the data are assumed to be fact of the "something", not known to be fact of the "something". Thus, you are correct when you say that it is false to say "data as known facts" would describe your "something happened".

 

What is being assumed in your example is that the "something" of the "something happened" is thought to be supposed to be data (facts), not known to be data (facts). This is completely in line with your requirement that the "something" be completely "unknown", that your initial understanding of the "something" is as assumption, and not knowledge. The reason you cannot find a role for assumption to explain your question is because you hold information to be prior to data.

 

==

As a time sequence showing the priority of data over information I offer this example:

 

1. something happened...a datum fact... 1 (completely unknown, except as a thing that happened)

pause

2. something happened...a datum fact... 0 (you assume it differs in unknown way from the first thing)

pause

3. something happened...a datum fact... 1 (you assume it is similar to the first thing)

pause

4. something happened...a datum fact... 0 (you assume it is similar to the second thing)

 

If we stop the process here, we have the set of data {1010} which represents some unknown repetitive pattern of something as information that happened from time step 1 to 4.

[HydrogenBond]

Say you were back in the middle ages when the earth was the center of the universe. One data set we could collect is the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Based on our earth center theory, we think we know what is occurring (known information), but in the 20/20 hindsight of 20th century it was actually unknown information, since the sun does not rise or set, rather the earth moves around the sun. However, if you told people at that time, this was undefined information, you would be the one considered out of touch with reality based on their perception of reality. Since science continues to learn and new data always appears, who knows whether in 500 years, what we assume is defined information, will be seen by them as undefined in our time.

 

Undefined information is a function of time. In any given time, it can appear to defined by our perception of reality, but it may or may not be necessarily defined for all time. Even the data can also alter its apparent character based on how we define reality. The direction of east and west is based on how we wish to define our reality of direction. For example, we define the magnets of a compass with the needle pointing north. Say the earth's magnetic field switches, like it has done before, now the needle will point south. Or does it still point north, based on north being where the needle points? We would probably say south, based on existing reality direction traditions, simply because it would too much work to change all the rest that also need to change. If we call north where the needle points, now the sun would rise in the west and set in the east. North America is now South America. To avoid that confusion in reality, it might be easier to have the new reality the needle now points south so we don't have to turn defined into undefined during the transition time.

[fahrquad]

Your question is meaningless. Either something happened, or did not happen. How you choose to define the event does not change the existence or non-existence of the event.