Re: too much information!
From: Mensanator (mensanator_at_aol.compost)
Date: 01/12/05
- Next message: Ralph Hartley: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Feynman's fallacy"
- Maybe in reply to: John Baez: "too much information!"
- Next in thread: mensanator_at_aol.compost: "Re: too much information!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 12 Jan 2005 14:38:19 GMT
>Subject: Re: too much information!
>From: jmfbahciv@aol.com
>Date: 1/12/05 5:46 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <PqCdnWhR7560hXjcRVn-hQ@rcn.net>
>
>In article <1105468858.967035.96660@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "mensanator@aol.compost" <mensanator@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
>>> In article <1105420562.691975.269220@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>>> "mensanator@aol.compost" <mensanator@aol.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >Androcles wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> >> 7) Pixels on a computer screen. 16,000,000 colors for each pixel.
>>> >> How many different pictures are possible?
>>> >> Is it more or less than a google?
>>> >
>>> >For a 640x480 screen, it's 10^2219433, slightly larger than a
>>googol.
>>> But none of it is information.
>>
>>I wouldn't say none. A lot of it would be useless. But just because
>>you can't tell the difference between a picture of a polar bear in
>>a blizzard and the inside of a ping pong ball doesn't mean the
>>picture of the inside of a ping pong ball isn't an accurate
>>representation.
>
>It isn't an accurate representation.
Sure it is. A 640x480x24 array of binary 1s is an accurate
representation of a uniform white object.
>The picture is only in your imagination.
No, there are two files on my hard drive called
polar_bear_in_blizzard.jpg
ping_pong_ball_interior.jpg
If the pictures are copied to another disk and renamed
image1.jpg
image2.jpg
then the context of those images has been lost and they
become useless. But they remain valid pictures. The information
has not been lost, only the context in which it was used has.
>At no time would you be able to compare
>the picture of the ping pong ball insides with a the polar
>bear and be able to accurately specify which was which.
Based on content alone, that is correct. But the same can be
said about any and all binary arrays you have stored on your
computer. Identical blocks of binary data will be different
information depending on the context in which it is used.
Have you ever opened an .exe file in Windows Notepad
(or any other text editor). Does the file stop becoming
"information" just because you used it in an inappropriate
context? No, in a different context, it becomes different,
albeit useless, information. And although you cannot
execute the .exe file inside Notepad, you may be able
to see arrays of ASCII data that are embedded in the
executable such as error messages. I have a couple
utility programs specifically for this task: dump.exe does
a hex dump of any file and damp.exe does an ASCII dump.
>
>>
>>If I had all 10^2219433 possible images, I would have every picture
>>taken by my digital camera, every picture that ever will be taken and
>>every possible picture my camera is capable of. This would include
>>closeups of every star in the universe. The thing is, a single image
>>could represent every star in the universe and be indistinguishable
>>from the inside of a ping pong ball.
>>
>>So it's not a question of whether it's information but whether it's
>>usefull information.
>
>It is not information. Take an area of your disk; set all bits
>to 1. You now have all possible programs.
No, no no, you've got that all wrong. Take every possible
photo with my camera and store them as files on your computer
using the file extension .exe. Some of those photos will be
executable programs.
>Now execute it.
ANY program that has less than 640x480x24 bits will be
amongst the photos. The trick is, you won't know which
pictures are programs when used in a program context.
Likewise, you can paste the binary data of any .exe file
into a paint program to create an image. All programs are
images but not all images are programs.
>Is the CPU generating all the work of all programs? NO.
>You get a fault.
Not neccessarily. The picture of a raven in a coal mine
would be a legal program on a Z80 processor since 0x00
is the op-code for NOP. It wouldn't be very useful, but it
wouldn't generate a fault.
This kind of thing happens all the time. People have
information stored on media for which there is no longer
hardware created by programs that no longer exist that
were run on obsolete computers. When context is lost,
information becomes useless, but is still information.
Because context is seperate from the information, the
posibility of restoring the context always exists.
>
>/BAH
>
>Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
-- Mensanator Ace of Clubs
- Next message: Ralph Hartley: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Feynman's fallacy"
- Maybe in reply to: John Baez: "too much information!"
- Next in thread: mensanator_at_aol.compost: "Re: too much information!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
