The more complex the information the more interpretive its nature:
only the simplest data bears a close relation to objectivity.
pk was posting modules on objectivity and its relation to information, specifically to my theory of Macroinformation from damn close to 1999 on. I’ll make an effort to resurrect those among my thousands of fed-censored files ASAP: they knocked down my domains, not my blogs: thus far, blogs are the safer path for a spurned philosopher to try to reach a public.
Meantime I repeat a couple of points made a decade ago, and add a couple:
Objectivity is possible only with trivial information: with data. We can mostly agree that that symbol is a zero and that symbol a one; we will seldom agree as to what exactly “Thou shalt not kill” means. Important information must be interpreted.
Without my theory of Macroinformation human beings are a bunch of religious insisting that their priesthood, their Bible, their Harvard faculty has God right, the truth right, is scientific … Only through Macroinformation do we have a prayer of seeing objectivity as a spectrum: a spectrum over which there are very few 400 hitters, and no 500 hitters.
But our cultures, our kleptocracies, all inherit eidolons of certainty. No scientist, no philosopher, has yet talked the public (or the kleptocracy’s bureaucrat / scientists / teachers) out of its confidence in certainty, in objectivity. It’s always the judges burning the witches who pretend that their judgments, invariably blasphemous, are right. Cromwell’s Parliament was a Parliament of saints according to the Parliament. God kept silent on the issue.
There: that silence is macroinformation!
Decades ago when I bought my son a Rubix Cube and stayed up all night tying to figure out how to solve it before I gave it to him Christmas morning — I got 2/3 done, but not 3/3 — I was imagining an Isaac Asimov-type argument: IF some robot made one twist of the cube per second, randomly, it would take 264 seconds, a quarter of a million years, or some such figure to have it come out right … The math was something I’d read, and am not remembering precisely, by Douglas Hofstadter, I think. But it was the kind of math “analogy” Asimov was fond of. And I added what I never saw Asimov or Hofstadter add: Who would notice when the cube was solved?
I well imagine all sides coming up one color for one second and then being randomly disfigured again: with no one noticing!
Even geniuses still imagine an objective god! a fixed reference point, something which can be enforced as right!
Here’s the note I scribbled while the modem dialed:
Data about which we can be certain is trivial. The information we need for survival, is interpreted. It’s meaning we need.
To understand information, to become wise, not just clever, we need to understand Macroinformation: learn better to interpret complex emergent information.
the priest will always know better than the king, but the Pope will know less well than the humble priest.
After I’ve imported the old modules on these subjects I’ll hope to reduce them to one coherent essay.