Lecture
In the modern world, information has become one of the most important resources of mankind, and information systems and technologies have become the most important means of processing this resource. In the education system, informatics (informatics and information and communication technologies - ICT) has become one of the leading disciplines no less significant than mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and the mother tongue. Moreover, computer science claims the dominant position in a series of fundamental and general educational disciplines, especially in the coming information society.
This makes the problem of clarifying the meaning of the information concept fundamental to informatics within the framework of information philosophy, because any "philosophy is a breakthrough to the world of meaning" (N.A. Berdyaev), "a philosophical activity on imparting meaning to the alpha and omega of all scientific knowledge" (M . Were going to). Information philosophy should, in our opinion, synthesize the worldview of the “architects” and “builders” of the information society in the direction of finding the optimal ways of its technological and socio-economic development based on the general laws of information existence and dynamics, taking into account the limitations of humanitarian, mainly ethical ( infoethics ) and medical-psychological nature. Information, entailing society in the "information paradise", and at the same time satisfying the narrow interests of the IT business, must learn from the bitter experience of uncontrolled industrialization, which led the world to a techno-chemical "paradise" that is practically incompatible with organic life. The uncontrollable advance of artificial intelligence can lead to its domination over the lazy and ultimately wild natural intelligence of end users, to the “datacracy” of a handful of self-interested individuals and companies collaborating with each other and with “smart” machines in the fields of databases, knowledge bases and upgrade technology.
The horizon of information philosophy, limited by the phenomenon of information, has no right to close other horizons of the universe and the human world, no less important for modern philosophical thought - synergistic, globally evolutionary, anthropocentric, existential, etc. Our mind should strive to synthesize different concepts, for as one of the founders of the information theory, K.E. Shannon, "it is very rarely possible to discover several secrets of nature with the same key." At the same time, the concept of information directly or indirectly permeates many of the modern philosophical concepts, so we believe that the philosophy of information will be useful for them. Moreover, at the present stage of the development of mankind, the philosophy of information seems to be the actual branch of philosophy as an "era captured by thought" (in the Hegelian sense).
So, information is an object of research of information philosophy. Three main tasks of the philosophy of information: 1) the existence of information; 2) the philosophical status of information; 3) information in the outside world.
If we combine these tasks into one subject of research, then it is the existence of information in the world.
In the modern education system, when studying informatics and ICT, more and more attention is paid to practical applications of hardware and software to solving specific problems ("here and now"), which is consistent with the "tactical" paradigm embedded in the Bologna system of education with its orientation to Western standards education. We believe that, with all the merits of such a system, a modern university graduate will also need fundamental training that focuses on the future (“there and then”), which has always distinguished the traditional “strategic” Russian education system. A specialist with fundamental training adapts better to the rapidly changing realities of the information society (in particular, to frequent changes in hardware and software) and the requirements of the labor market. Information philosophy refers to the disciplines of fundamental training. We believe that for university graduates specializing in ICT, an information philosophy will not be superfluous, especially on the eve of the information society.
The goal of this course is to awaken the reader’s thought, albeit not agreeing with the author’s subjective reflections, but, more importantly, independent and productive in understanding the informational realities and fantasies of modernity. "In this raging world," yesterday's fantasies are becoming today's realities. Therefore, the author, along with time-tested concepts, takes the liberty to pay attention to fresh ideas, disturbing the mind and unusual for most of us. Without such ideas, one cannot hope for progress in science, technology and philosophy.
Refined philosophical "slang" is, if possible, excluded from the course, but, nevertheless, there are some purely philosophical terms that, if possible, are explained meaningfully or, at least, in the form of familiar synonyms. If this is not done, there are explanatory dictionaries (glossaries) containing the necessary information. The course also lacks mathematical formulas. Although mathematics is considered the "philosophy of science," the author believes that rational science is her home, and in philosophical studies, mathematics, if used, then with an eye to the rationalism that gave birth to it. In this training course we think math is superfluous. References to the original sources are given only on Russian-language publications, each of which has an extensive bibliography on the topic being studied.
The course is quite voluminous and difficult in perception. The author believes that a student can be given the right to choose topics that interest him (or even one topic) for thoughtful study and successful completion of a test throughout the course.
The students will be required to work their thoughts, for many of the problems posed are still "bleeding" and do not have an unambiguous solution, like most true philosophical problems. We believe that unequivocal answers to philosophical questions are nonsense. Therefore, in the proposed tests among the answers to each question are usually somewhat correct.
Dear colleagues - students of INTUIT, "it is quite possible that some errors escaped me and still await the insightful glance of some critical reader. I hope that the joy of discovering errors and the experienced sense of intellectual superiority over the author in some at least, the lucky one will be rewarded for the loss of time and anxiety, which could have been a careful reading of this book. " These are the words of Lewis Carroll (aka Charles L. Dodgson - professor at Oxford University in the UK). The author of this course is in solidarity with Carroll.
The first problem faced by the philosophy of information is the confrontation of well-known schools of "functionalists" and "attributivists." In addition, information as an ideal concept to this day has practically no equal rights with material-energy ideas in the materialistic worldview of the majority of people of the present generations. Maybe the next generations, professing a different, in particular informational worldview, such equality will seem more natural ?! In the meantime, we are dealing with the problem of the internally contradictory triad "information - energy - substance".
More than 60 years have passed since N. Wiener in Cybernetics (1948) introduced the notion of information known to him into general scientific use, and from there it spread to all levels, from everyday life to philosophy. At about the same time, the theory of information was formed (K.E. Shannon). There are a lot of definitions of the concept of information (more than 100 definitions of information are known), but the so-desired unambiguous definition that suits everyone has not been found.
This should not confuse us. The concept of information is no exception; there are many concepts, the proclaimed unambiguity of the definitions of which, upon careful consideration, are only apparent, be they concepts of matter, energy, life, number, etc. Just within the framework of the dominant scientific and philosophical paradigm, one day someone decided: “Therefore,” and the opponents were not heard. Thus, under the domination of the materialistic paradigm, energy became a single measure of various forms of movement and interaction of all types of matter, the field is a special form of all the same matter, and the definition of matter itself in the era of the dominance of materialism fell into all objective reality existing independently of human consciousness and displayed by it . Of course, the right of each individual to doubt the objective reality of his subjective consciousness, but the consciousness of the people around him - isn't it an objective reality for the individual personally? Yes, and the “matter” itself is rather an abstract philosophical category, rather than a physical substance (substance, corporeality, or something similar). And doesn’t energy have to do with the human consciousness, which, in turn, is always in motion and interaction with the world, causing “the work of thought”, “nervous energy”, “agony of creativity”, “social energy” and even bodily manifestations, work-related consciousness?
In general, the uniqueness of the definitions of the fundamental concepts of physics and other scientific disciplines can be subject to the same doubt as the uniqueness of the definition of the concept of information.
In the hierarchy of concepts there are primary (root) concepts through which concepts of a lower hierarchical level can be formulated. And through acquired concepts, concepts of even lower levels are formulated, and so on down the hierarchy - down to the level of the desired concept. But the primary concepts themselves cannot be convincingly determined through other concepts that simply do not exist, as there are no hierarchy levels above the primary level. These primary concepts include the concepts of God, matter, idea, consciousness, spirit, number, soul, etc. These include the inaudible concept of information, which, however, can be understood through its essential properties and manifestations.
However, in some publications, the ambiguity of the definition of the concept of information is explained by the fact that the phenomenon of information is multifaceted, that the science of information is only developing and therefore its terminology has not yet been settled. These arguments are not too convincing. Many phenomena are multidimensional, but their unique definitions exist, be it energy, electricity, light, snow, mammal, brain, society, etc. Practically all sciences (and scientometry counted about 15,000 scientific disciplines) are developing, but they nevertheless have their own well-established terminology. So, for example, it is also possible to consider physics as a developing science, because it does not stand still. But meanwhile the basic physical concepts are defined and fixed in systems of units. And then, how many decades or centuries are "assigned" to the formation of a particular field of science? Who can tell for sure?
Over 60 years of the existence of the concept of information, its quantitative measures (bit, byte, bit / s, information entropy, etc.) are uniquely identified and used in computer science, theory and technology of communication and control. So why, apart from the primacy of the concept of information, science cannot yet formulate an unequivocal definition of information? In addition to the above difficulties, it seems that the concept of information has not only a quantitative aspect, leading to a measure (as in the concept of energy), i.e. to the number, but also the qualitative aspect, not related to measurement. Information is not a measure, not a number. The amount of information measured in information theory is not yet information, as the number of people is not humanity, and the power of a set is not a set. Quantitative measures of objects are their particular properties, but not the meanings. And this makes a significant contribution to the problem of the ambiguity of the concept of information.
Modern science is based on the classical Galilean paradigm: measure everything that is measurable and make everything measurable that is not measurable. And if it is not possible to make immeasurable love, infinite thirst for knowledge, human consciousness as a whole, Nothing and other qualitative phenomena measurable, then all of them, not fitting into mathematical chains, find themselves outside of science altogether. Such is the soul, which is not a heart-pump or a fragment of the substance of the brain and is not the energy expended by it. Information is the same: “information is information, not matter or energy. The materialism that does not recognize this cannot be viable at the present time” (N. Wiener).
This problem is filled with a philosophical meaning, because the concept of information has long been not only a general scientific, but also a philosophical concept. The formation of the concept of information in science and philosophy has a long history. Even in the pre-Cybernetic epoch, terms close to the concept of "ability, similar to sensation" (V. Lenin's term) were well known as indispensable attributes of the universe and man: Apeiron Anaximander, idea of Plato, Aristotle's entelechy, Nous (noos) Anaxagoras and Ibn-Rushda (Averroes), the substance of Spinoza, the monads of Leibniz and Blavatsky, a priori knowledge of Kant, the world mind of Hegel, a reflection of Didro, Lenin and Anokhin. In the ancient Hindu Vedas, the theological texts of various religions mention the cosmic Mind, the divine Logos, the Word from which the world began, and similar concepts that are directly related to knowledge (information). Now all these ideas are complemented, and in some ways they are replaced by the ambiguous concept of information as a symbol of modern civilization, no more understandable than the preceding concepts.
The philosophical significance of information is due to the fact that it is in the world as an entity (as opposed to energy measures and quantities of information that are “not the essence”).
The concept of information, cybernetics (as a direct forerunner of computer science), information theory, computer science arose not on the whim of scientists, but based on the military needs of communication development, fire control, radar and encryption in the 1940s. The twentieth century, as well as in connection with the invention of electronic computers. Accordingly, the main functions of information at that time relied management and communication (communication). Information had to implement these functions through its special forms - commands and data transmitted via control and communication channels. It was believed (and not without reason) that large quantities of matter and energy are controlled by energetically weak signals carrying information in the form of commands and data. Such information is considered to be functional.
For the transfer of commands and data, the main thing was the quantitative aspect - the measurement of information. The question was posed as follows: "What is this information and how is it measured?" (N. Wiener (It must be borne in mind that Wiener was a professional mathematician, and Shannon was a specialist in communications and encryption)). Indeed, functional information is transmitted in the form of messages by means of signals having a field nature (for example, electromagnetic). And a signal as a change in any physical quantity (amplitude, frequency, phase, energy of field oscillations or pulses) in its quantitative parameters must be matched with the same parameters of the communication channel , including the transmitter, receiver and the medium between them. Accordingly, quantitative measures were needed for signals, messages and, as a result, for information. In this case, the communication channel is invariant (indifferent) to the meaning of the transmitted messages.
Example 1. If instead of the message "fish" will be transmitted "slaves", then the amount of information in the message will remain the same (the letters are the same), and the carrier signals "impassively" will transfer the distorted message from the transmitter to the receiver, as the postmen transfer letters without being interested their content. Similarly, it will happen when transferring "1" instead of "0". But for adequate management, the meaning of the message influencing the choice of the control trajectory is important, because “1” can mean choosing one trajectory, and “0” means another, therefore in the interests of control theory in the 1950s – 1960s. Twentieth century. semantic information theories, quantitative measures of the value, usefulness and even meaningfulness of information, however, very far from practical use appeared. Авторы таких мер неукоснительно следовали в русле функционального количественного подхода к понятию информации, хотя и не могли не понимать ограниченности ее количественного представления.
Как альтернативу количественному представлению информации адепты функциональной информации предложили считать информацией "…обозначение содержания, полученного из внешнего мира в процессе нашего приспособления к нему и приспосабливания к нему наших чувств" (Н. Винер). Такую информацию - обозначение можно интерпретировать как знаковое сообщение (в виде материальных знаков), передаваемое в пространстве-времени посредством сигналов. Согласно данному определению сигналы должны восприниматься органами чувств человека и изобретенными им техническими устройствами, т.е. базироваться на воспринимаемых физических (материально-энергетических) полях.
Но человек и техника способны генерировать и воспринимать сигналы, энергия которых ниже пороговой чувствительности биоприемников и современных приборов. Такая, условно говоря, несиловая коммуникация вообще характерна для большинства представителей фауны и флоры, а также для психологического и социального миров человека (воспоминания, инсайты, понимание "с полуслова, полувзгляда", неосознанные порывы, интуиция, "внутренний голос", парапсихологические эффекты, "стадные" инстинкты и т.п.). Вероятно, здесь между источниками и потребителями информации (в том числе внутри самого человека) происходит непосредственное информационное взаимодействие вне известных физических полей, а знаковые сообщения, извлекаемые при таком взаимодействии, не нуждаются в дополнительном перекодировании для передачи по физическим каналам связи.
Следовательно, информация как знаковое сообщение , передаваемое в пространстве-времени, может быть явной и скрытой. При передаче во времени память хранит сообщения тоже в знаково-символьной форме, наподобие хранения следов динозавров, наскальной живописи, берестяных грамот, книг, файлов в компьютере, знаний в нейронной или семантической сетях. Мысленное содержание принятого знакового сообщения, т.е. его пoнятый в форме субъективного образа смысл улавливается нашим сознанием в процессе адаптации к миру и обязательно после перекодирования из материально-энергетических кодов-знаков сообщения в идеальные семантические "коды сознания". Смысл сообщений потребитель информации может приближенно открыть (постигнуть), если источник информации понятен потребителю, несмотря на ряд перекодирований информации на ее пути от источника к потребителю, либо привнести (образовать), если источник непонятен потребителю или подвергается преобразованию по замыслу потребителя. Следовательно, смысл информации, во-первых, не материален, а идеален, во-вторых, субъективен настолько, насколько субъективны сам потребитель, его понимание источника и замыслы в отношении последнего. К такому утверждению нас бы привел и здравый смысл.
Пример 2. Допустим, кто-то разжег костер. Сигнал от костра достиг сетчатки глаза наблюдателя и, будучи воспринятым, готов для дальнейшей обработки мозгом. Праздный наблюдатель, которому костер-знак не интересен, не пустит воспринятый сигнал дальше своей сенсорной (оперативной) или даже рецепторной (сверхоперативной) памяти и, соответственно, быстро забудет о таком наблюдении. В результате сообщение о костре останется на уровне данных, не перейдя в информацию, т.к. оно оказалось неинформативным для наблюдателя. Если наблюдатель – инспектор пожарного контроля, он может включить нейронную (долговременную) память для запоминания данного наблюдения, по-скольку сообщение о зажженном костре для инспектора информативно, т.е. содержит информацию, а не просто данные. Инспектор привносит свой смысл в полученное сообщение, т.к. ему неизвестна причина, побудившая кого-то разжечь костер. Если же это было сделано по договоренности, например, для обозначения места посадки вертолета, то наблюдатель – пилот вертолета – запоминая сообщение, несущее информацию, открывает смысл, заложенный в разжигание костра.
Другой пример: источник информации – заготовка, превращаемая токарем в деталь. Субъективный замысел, заложенный инженером в чертеж детали, через токаря привносит смысл в заготовку. Кстати, и сам токарь может привнести в заготовку свой смысл, отличающийся от первоначального замысла инженера.
Таким образом, субъекты могут привносить целый спектр смыслов в одно и то же сообщение, а открыть нужно единственный смысл, и поэтому так важны научные открытия в отличие от гипотез, привносящих смыслы.
Понятие функциональной информации, как и информации вообще, представляется нам в двух интерпретациях – широкой и узкой. Традиционный термин "информация" используется в широком (обобщенном) смысле, включая в себя любые сведения (данные, команды). При использовании этого термина в узком смысле следует отличать данные и команды от информации. Как нам представляется, данные – это невостребованные сведения (тексты), ценность которых неизвестна. Будучи востребованными, сведения-тексты могут содержать полезную информацию , приближающую нас к истине и потому имеющую положительную ценность (быть информативными), либо вредную дезинформацию , удаляющую от истины и имеющую отрицательную ценность, либо, наконец, бесполезный и безвредный информационный шум , имеющий нулевую ценность. Понятие ценности здесь апостериорно (послеопытно), ибо, повторяем, до опыта (востребования) ценность имеющихся данных неизвестна.
Итак, в контексте узкой интерпретации информация – это отобранные по ценности данные. Знания содержат наиболее ценную для потребителей информацию (максимально информативны), поэтому они по праву считаются высшей формой информации. Следовательно, при формировании знания алгоритм селекции (отбора) продолжает работать, но уже не с данными, а с информацией. Однако между информацией (знаниями), дезинформацией и шумом нет однозначных границ – то, что для одного субъекта информативно и является информацией (знанием), для другого – дезинформация или шум, и наоборот.
Пример 3. Современный Russian chanson информативен, ценен для значительной части нашего общества (т.е. несет информацию), а для другой, не менее значительной части общества – неинформативен, вреден (т.е. несет дезинформацию и информационный шум).
Команды в системах управления также могут содержать информацию, приближающую нас к цели управления, дезинформацию, удаляющую от цели, или шум, никак не влияющий на достижение цели.
Из приведенных рассуждений следует, что информация (в узком смысле) подлежит запоминанию; иными словами нужна память (Данные и команды хранить в памяти не обязательно, в отличие от информации, извлекаемой из них.). Информация, извлеченная из памяти в нужное время в нужном месте, порождает действие, например, управление или коммуникацию , если это полезная функциональная информация (Далее понятие информации будем использовать в широком смысле, обращаясь, тем не менее, и к ее узкому смыслу.)
Действие как физический акт всегда сопряжено с некими полевыми взаимодействиями, будь то перемещение масс, перенос энергии, обмен сигналами или акт познания. Материалисты, интерпретируя опыты М. Фарадея и Г. Герца, теории И. Ньютона и Дж. Максвелла, считают поле особой формой физической материи, нематериалисты – "призрачным духом" (например, математик М. Клайн) или реально существующим само по себе, без какого-либо носителя (например, радиофизик Дж. Пирс).
Пример 4. Возьмем любое физическое поле, например электрическое, которое наряду с силовой (энергетической) составляющей содержит также и информацию об источнике поля. Представим источник электрического поля в виде шара, неподвижно подвешенного на нити в точке x 1 и имеющего заряд Q.
Но как я, субъект, находясь в точке x 2 , удаленной от x 1 , могу знать Q, не будучи объектом-шаром? Ведь заряд не существует без шара – своего носителя. Иначе нам пришлось бы поверить в сказочные проявления чувств сами по себе – без чувствующего субъекта, в проявление отображения без отображаемого, в существование копии без оригинала, сказочной улыбки Чеширского кота без самого кота. О величине Q мы судим опосредованно, регистрируя электрическую силу взаимодействия шара с другими заряженными телами, удаленными от него. Агентом силы служит электромагнитное поле, которое информирует нас о заряде шара посредством сигналов и тем самым устанавливает информационное соответствие между точками x 1 и x 2 . В этом смысле данное поле можно трактовать как посланца, передающего из точки x 1 в точку x 2 информацию о заряде шара. Поставим мысленный эксперимент: уменьшим энергию поля до нуля. Что будет с полем – оно так же исчезнет (вместе с материей, которую данное поле представляло согласно канонам материализма) или нечто от "бессильного" поля останется? Ведь сила, энергия – количественные свойства некоей качественной сущности поля. И что произойдет с информацией, которую электромагнитные сигналы переносили – она исчезнет вместе с "пропажей" поля?
The relationship of the power and information components of the field is the ratio of the carrier (vehicle) and wearable (passenger). As soon as the carrier has ceased to "carry", wearable, in turn, ceases to depend on the carrier and can continue its independent existence outside the carrier. Moreover, for the wearable, the main thing in the physical world is that the energy (power) carrier be, and the nature of the carrier is indifferent. For us, this means that information is invariant to its carrier. Therefore, we assume that the physical field at the end of our experiment was transformed into a non-force field, possibly containing information. Let's call it conditional information field . We came to the concept of the information field speculatively, and not as a result of a physical experiment (observation). Until convincing experimental data appear, the information field remains hypothetical (although there are plenty of publications about it). From this it does not lose (at least for us) the scientific attractiveness - after all, science without verified hypotheses does not exist.
Only the presence of the force component allows us to consider the physical field as a "special form of matter" or even physical matter; with the same basis, the physical field can be considered a special (power) form of non-material information.
What role could be assigned to the information field by nature? Recall that information is transmitted not only in space , but also in time to be stored in memory, therefore, we assume that the information field (if it exists!) Is an omnipresent non-force memory field in which nature is captured (including human nature) in its self-reflection and self-preservation. In other words, the information field stores a dynamic model of nature (the world), as a person’s memory stores a dynamic model of the world perceived by him.
In the above context, memory is an indispensable attribute of the world as a whole, and the omnipresent information field resembles ether in its properties - an elusive and denied by many physical substance that excited the scientific and philosophical community in the XIX – XX centuries. If the ether is competent in the philosophy of information, then the nature of the ether seems to us, first of all, information field, where the field serves as a physical substrate (carrier) for storing and transmitting information. Perhaps that is why (and also because of the imperfection of the instruments) of physics in the XIX – XX centuries. and did not find the desired mechanical properties of the ether (tension, compressibility, elasticity) and rejected the very idea of the ether according to the results of the experiments: "even if the ether exists, then at least within those experiments that could be carried out at that time, the results would have to be as if he did not exist "(physicist D. Bom).
Will it be possible to detect the information field and thereby prove its existence? Perhaps the unobservability of the information field is related to the relative "rudeness" of our senses and instruments, with the well-known physical principle of uncertainty. Experimentally, we penetrated no deeper than the nanworld (10 -9 m). But there are more "thin" worlds: picomir (10 -12 m), femtomir (10 -15 m), atomir (10 -18 m) - worlds of atoms, elementary and virtual particles, quarks, quantum interactions. About them, we can only build conjectures and hypotheses, at best, confirmed in experiments only indirectly. Perhaps, in one of these worlds, the information field hidden from us is one that stores information - the “model of nature” in quantum-virtual letters unknown to us. "Truth in the depths" (Democritus).
Example 5. It can be argued (in the spirit of materialism) that the information field - "idefix" - is an obsession, and nothing more, and information is stored on "non-living" carriers of anthropic origin (paper, discs, flash memory, etc.) created by a living, conscious brain. However, a person creates information not only in a conscious, but also in an ecstatic state of creative inspiration, which borders on insanity. So, why the unconscious (as we believe) mother-nature could not create and save her inner information on the carriers available to her and unknown to us for the “duration” of her existence, if a miserable person could do it for the cosmic “instant” of her existence ?!
The information stored (transferred) by the information field is a stable property of the world - its attribute, and accordingly can be called attribute information (The genesis of the attribute information remains to put forward hypotheses, however, among them we do not suppose hypotheses about divine origin. to consider the attribute information as a given of the world, as before A. Einstein considered gravity.). The attributive approach to the concept of information emerged later than the functional one (in particular, in the works of the Russian philosopher A.D. Ursula, the scientists A.N. Kolmogorov, V.M. Glushkov). According to the attributive approach, the source of information should have it, as a source of knowledge - knowledge, a source of water - water, a source of goodness - good, a source of finance - finance. This seeming evidence, however, requires a more serious substantiation, for then we must recognize that in any source of information it must be present internally in order to be manifested in messages about ourselves. You can, of course, abandon similar literary analogies-metaphors, excluding from the scientific use of the very concept of "source of information". But in the end, all the same there will be something containing information that happens not only “about something”, but also “in something”. Any object (system), reflected outside - in our consciousness, can internally self-reflect in its properties through the intra-object (intra-system) information processes. Consequently, the deep attribute of the world, called “information” by man, may have been inherent in the world even before man.
It turns out that according to this point of view, information is not so much “designation of content received from the outside world”, but rather the very content of the outside world (including the “non-living”) as the opened or introduced meaning of the world, extracted in the form of images from messages about him Moreover, the attribute information is the content (meaning) not only of the external (in relation to consciousness) world, but also of the internal world of consciousness. Such information can be likened to a language of understanding (and not explanation) in which the object and the environment interact with each other. We only note that for the concept of information in the narrow sense (in terms of the concepts of information, disinformation and information noise) only the meaning of the object carries information. The extracted meaning (content) may be distorted by the subjective introduction of meaning in the form of disinformation or noise, and the information being opened as a true (authentic) content-meaning of an object is not subject to distortion. In practice, the difficult to open hidden meaning is much less often easily introduced by the subject.
If information is taken as an attribute of nature, then hidden information stored in its information field of memory is logical to call internal (related) information, as opposed to external (free) information, clearly observed as a partial manifestation of internal information (the term "copying" is hardly The external information is not a complete copy of the internal, but its partial manifestation, as if the canopy is slightly opened, hiding the internal information. Partial manifestation of internal information in external is due to the objective space-time finality of consumer properties (selectivity, sensitivity, susceptibility, information performance, interaction time), as well as the interfering influence of interference from the environment, the "observer effect", etc. Based on the above, internal information attributive, external - functional. Outside the information process of transferring and receiving external information, internal information has a potential value that is insufficient for its use and accumulation. External information demanded by the consumer, after conversion, can become a fragment of the internal information of the consumer, i.e. increase it. The advocates of the attributive approach argue that internal information is not a phantom, but a latent (hidden) potential phenomenon capable of manifesting itself in topical external information.
Thus, the concept of information acquires a dualistic sense : on the one hand, the internal information of an object is its latent self-reflection in some field structure (perhaps not yet known), on the other hand, this latent information is partially manifested outside the object - in external information about the object. It turns out that being of the existing information should be described as being - implicit (potential) internal information and as existence - explicit (actual) external information. In this context, the functional approach is focused only on the existence of information, and the attribute approach - on its essence and existence. As a result, the attribute approach is more constructive than the functional approach.
If we assume that the internal information of objects is there, then there should be also information genesis as a process of generating this information ("see topic 5, section 5.1"). Information genesis is possible only through the formation of (self) mapping the phenomenon of diversity of heterogeneous structures or their states. The uniformity of homogeneous structures is not informative, as a card game is not informative with cards of the same rank and one suit (for example, jacks of diamonds). Hence, the internal information of any object is self-reflection, first of all, of its diversity. The informational diversity of an object (hereinafter simply a variety) is understood as a set of its states differing from each other, and the number (power) of this set is considered a quantitative measure of diversity. Diversity is a ratio of at least two states . If, following G. Galileo, we believe that nature is a text that we read and learn in all its diversity (morphological, syntactic and semantic), then the internal information of heterogeneous systems reflects all the nuances of their diversity, as far as possible in the model as a translated text. External information as a manifestation of internal introduces a distorting variety into the displayed diversity of the latter. External information is a change in diversity , and internal information is stored diversity . As applied to an object, information is an internal self-mapping of its diversity (information of the object), partly given to the outside in the event of a spontaneous or initiated change in diversity (information about the object).
Through the concept of diversity, information can be interpreted in the context of the philosophical category of difference .
Taking as a dominant attribute approach to the concept of information (regardless of ideas about its physical nature), then the concept of the information field is used only in the philosophical (ontological (Ontology - the doctrine of being as such - the basic component of philosophy.)) Sense: information field - a non-energy information carrier continuously distributed in space with a tendency to an infinite number of degrees of freedom. This concept is invariant to the forms of space and debatable physical concepts of the information field, which stimulates philosophical (metaphysical) prerequisites for overcoming the contradiction between attributive and functional concepts of information. This contradiction may be far-fetched if we consider internal information as potential external information, which, in turn, acquires the kinetics of real (actual) external information in the information process through an unknown mechanism of materialization of the information field into physical fields (electromagnetic, gravitational, etc.).
Any structural changes in physical matter and physical vacuum can be self-mapped in physical fields and the virtual information field as hard correlates of modified structures. Consequently, the internal information of any object, including the Universe as a whole, can be defined as the ontological concept of self-reflection of an object. Accordingly, external information partly preserves the status of an epistemological concept: it is given to a subject of an arbitrary nature in acts of cognition as an extracted or reflected part of the internal information of an object.
The foregoing creates prerequisites for the philosophical concept of informational monism, which is rooted in the eternal problem of a universal substance, posed by Hellenic animist philosophers and, above all, by Aristotle, who believed that everything that exists is either a substance or a form of its manifestation. The monistic concepts of B. Spinoza, I.G. Fichte et al. On the question of substance, the monists of materialism, empirio-monism, absolute idealism, spiritualism and theology are traditionally opposed by dualists (Cartesian and Kantian) and pluralists. The traditional circle of two substances - matter and spirit, in which monists and dualists rotated with some variations, pluralism added a plurality of opposing substances. Also known is psychophysical monism, for which substance is not matter and not spirit, they are only manifestations of a latent (hidden) universal substance, basic to matter and spirit. The main ideas of psychophysical monism, close to the metaphysics of information, are presented in the works of G.V. Leibniz and E.P. Blavatsky.
As a mathematician, Leibniz felt the interaction of the infinitesimal elements of the whole with the whole itself in statics and dynamics. Mathematical addictions and Leibniz's discoveries preceded his substantial research and, no doubt, left their mark on them. As an element (indivisible quantum) of universal substance, Leibniz introduced in his Monadology the concept of a monad - the ideal metaphysical analogue of a physical atom (the term “monad” appeared in Plato's Academy, was used by N. Kuzansky (Krebs), J. Bruno, F. Suarez, G. Morom, F. van Helmont and, finally, Leibniz. In modern philosophy, the antisubstantial position prevails (apparently, it is not up to metaphysics with its substantial constructions). Long before modern theories of space-time, Leibniz, as a true scientist, philosophized on the basis of physical concepts of the extent of matter and its movement in time. Leibniz strictly showed that the motion and extension of bodies are not deducible from each other, that the material cannot be material and completely indivisible at the same time. All material is divisible, substance is indivisible. Here, apparently, it is necessary to understand the divisibility of matter in the sense that the material dividend does not have such a material private, which could not be separated yet. The substantive divisible has such a substantial particular which is indivisible - this is the meaning of the indivisibility of the substance.
Hence Leibniz comes to the conclusion that the substantial elements (the simplest particular ones, as the final results of division), from which the matter (the dividend) is composed, must have another, i.e. intangible origin.
Ideal consciousness, like matter, is also divisible in the indicated sense, but up to a certain substantive limit - “see topic 4.” This means that the substance of a different nature than consciousness itself also lies in the foundations of consciousness.
Time according to Leibniz is a property of a sequence of things that replace each other in relations of past, present and future. If the "chronology of things" (material and ideal) did not exist, there would be no time (Leibnitsev's concept of time I. Kant revised from the standpoint of "pure reason" (see Kant's "Critique of pure reason").). Thus, matter and time according to Leibniz are not substantial, these are secondary phenomena. What is primary? Leibniz came to the conclusion that the substance behind matter, motion and time has a power, activity nature, but the nature of these primary forces is not physical, but metaphysical, ideal in the sense that ideas under certain conditions become power.
Example 6. According to the cybernetic canon, information initiates any purposeful activity, any act of management. As shown above, information is intangible, but being perceived in our material world, it can be activated through material and energy manifestations, controlling the mass and energy of substrates. Is information divisible? In contrast to the inexhaustible divisibility of matter, the divisibility of information (as a certain functional of the diversity of matter) is exhausted by a minimum information "quantum" of 1-bit diversity.
Bit indivisible! (1 бит есть мера минимального разнообразия состояний, исчисляемого двумя различимыми состояниями объекта. С приходом в информатику квантовых технологий с их кубитами проблема делимости информации, конечно, приобретает более сложный аспект, но минимальное (базовое) информационное разнообразие (два состояния) при этом остается незыблемым.) И в этом смысле информация неделима (в отличие от материи и сознания), значит, она, если следовать Лейбницу, может претендовать на субстанциональный статус. Обладает ли управляющая информация силовой, деятельностной природой, приписываемой Лейбницем метафизическим монадам? Несомненно, ибо большие массы и большие порции энергии контролируются и деятельно управляются информацией. В информационном обществе знание как высшая форма информации буквально по Ф. Бэкону приобретает свойства производительной силы: "Знание – сила".
Данный пример демонстрирует уместность монадологии Лейбница в метафизике информации. Монада Лейбница – неделимый квант универсальной субстанции, первичная деятельностная сила, способная к восприятию впечатлений извне и представлению впечатлений. Монады Лейбница образуют упорядоченные агрегаты, а всякая монада согласно Лейбницу "есть живое зеркало, наделенное внутренним действием, воспроизводящее (отображающее! – В.Г.) Универсум со своей точки зрения и упорядоченное точно так же, как и сам Универсум". Лейбниц устанавливает иерархию монад – от монад с примитивной перцепцией (восприятием нижнего уровня) до монад с апперцепцией на уровне сознания, разума (восприятием верхнего уровня). Герметичность монад ("монады вовсе не имеют окон") Лейбниц постулирует для "фигур и движений", т.е. для вещества и энергии, но не для восприятий (на современном языке – не для полей и информации; восприятия негерметичны в лейбницевском
продолжение следует...
Часть 1 The concept of information as a philosophical problem
Часть 2 Информация как философская категория - The concept of information as
Comments
To leave a comment
philosophiya
Terms: philosophiya