tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post2649690638861893846..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: Explaining 'the morning star'Edward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-69477260146568551942012-02-27T00:27:48.070+00:002012-02-27T00:27:48.070+00:00>> In that case, all informational content i...>> In that case, all informational content is relative, and therefore it is meaningful to talk about the information "contained" in a discourse.<br /><br />I assume you mean <b>not</b> meaningful?<br /><br />I would define "informative" as "providing information". I didn't think of it as "containing information".<br /><br />In any case, I think what is necessary before one can talk about information contained in and/or provided by a discourse, is context. This is a recurring theme, but I still do not accept what I see as an attempt to separate sentences or paragraphs or even entire texts, from context.<br /><br />If my 5-year-old said to me tomorrow morning "the morning star is the evening star", that sentence would have provided quite a bit of information. Even more after the ensuing conversation we would have, which would include me saying something like "Wow, where did you learn that?"<br /><br />Granted, this might be related to another recurring theme, which is what I see as the difference between propositions and sentences. If we're talking about the proposition that the morning star is the evening star, that's a whole different thing from the sentence "the morning star is the evening star".Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-60728249381638296632012-02-21T16:16:54.434+00:002012-02-21T16:16:54.434+00:00Ed, like the Maverick, I worry about your summary ...Ed, like the Maverick, I worry about your summary formulation. You seem perilously close to suggesting that information content is some additive function over sentence components. Using |x| to denote information_content(x), the argument seems to be that <br /><br />|MS=ES| > |MS=MS|<br />=> |MS| + |=| + |ES| > |MS| + |=| + |MS|<br />=> |ES| > |MS| <br /><br />But by symmetry this can't be right. Why do we need this theoretical concept 'information content'? Bill makes it worse by introducing a whole farrago of theoretical concepts. Why not simply say that MS=MS and MS=ES have distinct logical consequences. The former has none whereas the latter has many---one fewer space missions to nearby celestial bodies, say, or a reduced budget for temples if these objects are deemed worthy of worship. Isn't this what we are trying to get at with the 'information content' idea?David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-89669631008411282642012-02-21T08:36:11.227+00:002012-02-21T08:36:11.227+00:00>>If I already know that the morning star is...>>If I already know that the morning star is the evening star, then there's nothing informative about it at all.<br />>><br /><br />So 'the earth is not flat' is not informative, contains no information, because everyone (or nearly everyone) knows this? Thus the informational content, the information contained in a discourse, is relative to whether a person already has the information? <br /><br />In that case, all informational content is relative, and therefore it is meaningful to talk about the information "contained" in a discourse. Interesting idea.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-34071323712156351992012-02-21T00:18:04.901+00:002012-02-21T00:18:04.901+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-24752288213550535102012-02-21T00:03:27.700+00:002012-02-21T00:03:27.700+00:00>> The point is that the sentence "the ...>> The point is that the sentence "the morning star is the evening star" is informative<br /><br />Shouldn't this say that it might be informative? If I already know that the morning star is the evening star, then there's nothing informative about it at all.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-89679337557792859182012-02-20T21:58:32.325+00:002012-02-20T21:58:32.325+00:00>>Of course. But what we know is that this i...>>Of course. But what we know is that this is equivalent to "Venus, at certain positions in its orbit". So no, MS != ES. Unless you're inventing a new rule, that a nearly-given collection-of-atoms must have a time-invariant name.<br /><<<br /><br />You fail to understand. It is not equivalent to 'Venus, at certain positions in its orbit'. For the sentence 'the morning star = Venus, at certain positions in its orbit' is informative. Ergo etc.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-48655223349206968522012-02-20T21:50:19.190+00:002012-02-20T21:50:19.190+00:00> It means, the bright shiny thingy that you ca...> It means, the bright shiny thingy that you can see in the morning, or in the evening, respectively.<br /><br />Of course. But what we know is that this is equivalent to "Venus, at certain positions in its orbit". So no, MS != ES. Unless you're inventing a new rule, that a nearly-given collection-of-atoms must have a time-invariant name.<br /><br />> whose meaning never change over time<br /><br />I might, but I'm not sure what you mean by meaning :-)William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-27396577271570998362012-02-20T21:03:50.566+00:002012-02-20T21:03:50.566+00:00>>If "the morning star" actually m...>>If "the morning star" actually means "the planet Venus, when in portion X of its orbit wrt Earth"; and "the evening star" means "when in portion Y"; then MS = ES is wrong.<br /><<<br /><br />It doesn't mean that, of course. It means, the bright shiny thingy that you can see in the morning, or in the evening, respectively.<br /><br />By 'names that never change over time' you mean 'whose meaning never change over time' yes?Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-91305332392144673992012-02-20T15:06:00.949+00:002012-02-20T15:06:00.949+00:00You're assuming that all objects have names th...You're assuming that all objects have names that never change over time. If "the morning star" actually means "the planet Venus, when in portion X of its orbit wrt Earth"; and "the evening star" means "when in portion Y"; then MS = ES is wrong.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com