Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

“The Information”

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • “The Information”

    By JANET MASLIN

    THE INFORMATION

    A History, a Theory, a Flood

    By James Gleick
    Illustrated. 526 pages. Pantheon Books. $29.95.


    “The Information” offers this point-blank characterization of its author: “James Gleick is our leading chronicler of science and modern technology.” This new book goes far beyond the earlier Gleick milestones, “Chaos” and “Genius,” to validate that claim.

    “The Information” is so ambitious, illuminating and sexily theoretical that it will amount to aspirational reading for many of those who have the mettle to tackle it. Don’t make the mistake of reading it quickly. Imagine luxuriating on a Wi-Fi-equipped desert island with Mr. Gleick’s book, a search engine and no distractions. “The Information” is to the nature, history and significance of data what the beach is to sand.

    In this relaxed setting, take the time to differentiate among the Brownian (motion), Bodleian (library) and Boolean (logic) while following Mr. Gleick’s version of what Einstein called “spukhafte Fernwirkung,” or “spooky action at a distance.” Einstein wasn’t precise about what this meant, and Mr. Gleick isn’t always precise either. His ambitions for this book are diffuse and far flung, to the point where providing a thumbnail description of “The Information” is impossible.

    So this book’s prologue is its most slippery section. It does not exactly outline a unifying thesis. Instead it hints at the amalgam of logic, philosophy, linguistics, research, appraisal and anecdotal wisdom that will follow. If Mr. Gleick has one overriding goal it is to provide an animated history of scientific progress, specifically the progress of the technology that allows information to be recorded, transmitted and analyzed. This study’s range extends from communication by drumbeat to cognitive assault by e-mail.

    As an illustration of Mr. Gleick’s versatility, consider what he has to say about the telegraph. He describes the mechanical key that made telegraphic transmission possible; the compression of language that this new medium encouraged; that it literally was a medium, a midway point between fully verbal messages and coded ones; the damaging effect its forced brevity had on civility; the confusion it created as to what a message actually was (could a mother send her son a dish of sauerkraut?) and the new conceptual thinking that it helped implement. The weather, which had been understood on a place-by-place basis, was suddenly much more than a collection of local events.

    Beyond all this Mr. Gleick’s telegraph chapter, titled “A Nervous System for the Earth,” finds time to consider the kind of binary code that began to make sense in the telegraph era. It examines the way letters came to treated like numbers, the way systems of ciphers emerged. It cites the various uses to which ciphers might be put by businessmen, governments or fiction writers (Lewis Carroll, Jules Verne and Edgar Allan Poe). Most of all it shows how this phase of communication anticipated the immense complexities of our own information age.

    Although “The Information” unfolds in a roughly chronological way, Mr. Gleick is no slave to linearity. He freely embarks on colorful digressions. Some are included just for the sake of introducing the great eccentrics whose seemingly marginal inventions would prove to be prophetic. Like Richard Holmes’s “Age of Wonder” this book invests scientists with big, eccentric personalities. Augusta Ada Lovelace, the daughter of Lord Byron, may have been spectacularly arrogant about what she called “my immense reasoning faculties,” claiming that her brain was “something more than merely mortal.” But her contribution to the writing of algorithms can, in the right geeky circles, be mentioned in the same breath as her father’s contribution to poetry.

    The segments of “The Information” vary in levels of difficulty. Grappling with entropy, randomness and quantum teleportation is the price of enjoying Mr. Gleick’s simple, entertaining riffs on the Oxford English Dictionary’s methodology, which has yielded 30-odd spellings of “mackerel” and an enchantingly tongue-tied definition of “bada-bing” and on the cyber-battles waged via Wikipedia. (As he notes, there are people who have bothered to fight over Wikipedia’s use of the word “cute” to accompany a picture of a young polar bear.) That Amazon boasts of being able to download a book called “Data Smog” in less than a minute does not escape his keen sense of the absurd.

    As it traces our route to information overload, “The Information” pays tribute to the places that made it possible. He cites and honors the great cogitation hives of yore. In addition to the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., the Mount Rushmore of theoretical science, he acknowledges the achievements of corporate facilities like Bell Labs and I.B.M.’s Watson Research Center in the halcyon days when many innovations had not found practical applications and progress was its own reward.

    “The Information” also lauds the heroics of mathematicians, physicists and computer pioneers like Claude Shannon, who is revered in the computer-science realm for his information theory but not yet treated as a subject for full-length, mainstream biography. Mr. Shannon’s interest in circuitry using “if ... then” choices conducting arithmetic in a binary system had novelty when he began formulating his thoughts in 1937. “Here in a master’s thesis by a research assistant,” Mr. Gleick writes, “was the essence of the computer revolution yet to come.”

    Among its many other virtues “The Information” has the rare capacity to work as a time machine. It goes back much further than Shannon’s breakthroughs. And with each step backward Mr. Gleick must erase what his readers already know. He casts new light on the verbal flourishes of the Greek poetry that preceded the written word: these turns of phrase could be as useful for their mnemonic power as for their art. He explains why the Greeks arranged things in terms of events, not categories; how one Babylonian text that ends with “this is the procedure” is essentially an algorithm; and why the telephone and the skyscraper go hand in hand. Once the telephone eliminated the need for hand-delivered messages, the sky was the limit.
    In the opinion of “The Information” the world of information still has room for expansion. We may be drowning in spam, but the sky’s still the limit today.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/bo....html?_r=1&hpw

  • #2
    Re: “The Information”

    Haven't read or researched the book yet, but does Gleick take-on Cantor or Godel? If so, I'll have to read it, cause I'd love to know how he rationalizes this system of 'information' given Cantor's/Godel's work, or does he just ignore this work?

    "In 1931, Kurt Godel 1906-1978, proved two important things about any axiomatic system rich enough to include all of number theory. First, you'll never be able to prove every true result. Let me repeat that. Godel proved that you'll never be able to prove every result that is true in your system. Second, Godel proved that one of the results that you can never prove is the result that says that the system is consistent. More precisely: You cannot prove the consistency of any mathematical system rich enough to include the known theory of numbers."

    "Any consistent mathematical system that is rich enough to include number theory is inherently incomplete. Second, one of the propositions whose truth or falsity cannot be proved within the system is precisely the proposition that states that the system is consistent. "

    "What Godel's proof means, then, is that we can't prove that arithmetic—let alone any more-complicated system—is consistent. " "So, Hilbert's dream is dead—Descartes's dream is dead."

    "Now listen to this implication: For 2000 years, mathematics has been the model—the subject—that convinces us that certainty is possible. Yet since Godel's proof, as the existentialist philosopher William Barrett has put it: "Now there's no certainty anywhere—not even in mathematics." "

    Fyi, I quickly pulled this text from the following lecture..
    http://teachingcompany.12.forumer.co..._post2327.html

    Last edited by reggie; March 07, 2011, 10:49 PM.
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge ~D Boorstin

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: “The Information”

      This is a pretty important topic, I'm surprised this thread has not garnered more attention.
      The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge ~D Boorstin

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: “The Information”

        of course an "existentialist philosopher" interprets godel's proof as saying "certainty's dead." that's what existentialists think everything is saying.

        godel's proof, russell's paradox and general problems with self-reference all point to the limits of the logical systems we create. but things may be certain within these systems. and godel doesn't imply that arithmetic is inconsistent, just that its consistency cannot be proven. and the unprovable propositions which exist in any system containing arithmetic are all true; a false proposition is easily disproven by a counterexample. the problem is that, given a hard and unproven proposition, we don't know whether it is provably true, provably false, or unprovably true. and when is the provable merely beyond our grasp?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: “The Information”

          Some thoughts ... good topic!

          1. I had to chuckle at "certainty's dead". An "oxymoron" if there ever was one.

          2. Godel's theorem has many meanings depending on what angle you look. Generally, as system cannot model itself therefore can't be used to predicts its own future completely. Critical challenge to those wishing for an understanding the proves a deterministic world that is useful.

          3. There is a clear difference between the concept of "unknowable" and "random" but people casually interchange the two.

          4. Information theory is really cool and very important and should be taught to everyone and I advice anyone to pick up a description of Shannon's work. Dover I think has a little book on that is very good.

          5. The intellectual abuse, even at the highest academic levels, of the term "entropy" is almost never considered. It is much more complex and beautiful than a casual understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics would give. It should be a subject all by itself like Chemistry, Physics, or Biology but it isn't. Information Theory comes close but I think Information Theory and Computer Science should be part Entropoligy than the other way around.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: “The Information”

            Originally posted by jk View Post
            of course an "existentialist philosopher" interprets godel's proof as saying "certainty's dead." that's what existentialists think everything is saying.

            godel's proof, russell's paradox and general problems with self-reference all point to the limits of the logical systems we create. but things may be certain within these systems. and godel doesn't imply that arithmetic is inconsistent, just that its consistency cannot be proven. and the unprovable propositions which exist in any system containing arithmetic are all true; a false proposition is easily disproven by a counterexample. the problem is that, given a hard and unproven proposition, we don't know whether it is provably true, provably false, or unprovably true. and when is the provable merely beyond our grasp?
            I interpret Godel's work, especially when taken with Goerg Cantor's work on set theory, as illustrating that all sets, or logical systems, are inconsistent when viewed from the perspective of nature. Hence, what I see Geick attempting to do here is to convince his readers that "information" (ie. man-made logical systems (ie. sets)) are in fact complete, and therefore to be followed. The problem with this approach is that man-made systems can be gamed by the systems designers. Am I missing something in this view?
            The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge ~D Boorstin

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: “The Information”

              I am not sure whether you or Gleik posed the idea that "information" or even "sets" are made man constructs. "Information" exists in nature apart from man. You could argue sets do too. Now, a logical construct, such as a computer program (or Touring Machine or "model" or a "system" take your pick) to describe both the senders and the receivers of information and how they generate and use this information is a man made construct.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: “The Information”

                Originally posted by reggie View Post
                I interpret Godel's work, especially when taken with Goerg Cantor's work on set theory, as illustrating that all sets, or logical systems, are inconsistent when viewed from the perspective of nature. Hence, what I see Geick attempting to do here is to convince his readers that "information" (ie. man-made logical systems (ie. sets)) are in fact complete, and therefore to be followed. The problem with this approach is that man-made systems can be gamed by the systems designers. Am I missing something in this view?
                i'm not sure why you conclude "inconsistent" as opposed to merely incomplete.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: “The Information”

                  Originally posted by sunskyfan View Post
                  I am not sure whether you or Gleik posed the idea that "information" or even "sets" are made man constructs. "Information" exists in nature apart from man. You could argue sets do too. Now, a logical construct, such as a computer program (or Touring Machine or "model" or a "system" take your pick) to describe both the senders and the receivers of information and how they generate and use this information is a man made construct.
                  I think we need a definition of the word "information" here, as I believe Gleick is writing for two different audiences, with each audience having a different understanding of the word. Additionally, "Nature" is not deceptive in her "incompleteness", but man is.
                  Last edited by reggie; April 06, 2011, 04:45 PM.
                  The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge ~D Boorstin

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: “The Information”

                    Originally posted by jk View Post
                    i'm not sure why you conclude "inconsistent" as opposed to merely incomplete.
                    Ok, let's settle on the word "incomplete". So, if a system is incomplete, then does that not mean that there are some rules within every system than cannot be proven or disproven. Hence, leaving an opening for contradictory rules. If that is the case, then isn't every system "game-able"? Isn't this the most significant takeaway from Godel's "Incompleteness" theorem? Further, if every system is "game-able", then what exactly is "information", who is the target audience for said "information", and what is "information's" purpose? I believe Gleick is bragging in his book about the success of "information" on the public mind.
                    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge ~D Boorstin

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: “The Information”

                      Originally posted by reggie View Post
                      Ok, let's settle on the word "incomplete". So, if a system is incomplete, then does that not mean that there are some rules within every system than cannot be proven or disproven. Hence, leaving an opening for contradictory rules.
                      no, you're wrong. only true statements can be unprovable. as i pointed out above, a false statement can always be disproven by a counter-example. [and if there is no counter-example, then it's not false.] thus, all the true statements are consistent. but some of them can't be proven within the system of axioms given. thus the system is incomplete in the sense that it is not provably consistent. thus we must always worry about unproven but open questions- they might be provable but not yet proven, unprovable but true, or false but not yet falsified. but if the original axioms are consistent, so will all the true statements be consistent.
                      Last edited by jk; April 06, 2011, 05:00 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: “The Information”

                        Originally posted by jk View Post
                        no, you're wrong. only true statements can be unprovable. as i pointed out above, a false statement can always be disproven by a counter-example. [and if there is no counter-example, then it's not false.] thus, all the true statements are consistent. but some of them can't be proven within the system of axioms given. thus the system is incomplete in the sense that it is not provably consistent. thus we must always worry about unproven but open questions- they might be provable but not yet proven, unprovable but true, or false but not yet falsified. but if the original axioms are consistent, so will all the true statements be consistent.
                        Here is where I'm still struggling... if "not provably consistent', then how can we assure ourselves that the system is not gamed or that the system correctly models whatever it purports to model?

                        Gleick is selling us a system of "information" based largely on Stafford Beer's & Norbert Weiner's Management Cybernetics, which is merely a system of dialectical cause & effect. With this approach, any "truths" are possible.
                        The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge ~D Boorstin

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: “The Information”

                          Originally posted by reggie View Post
                          Here is where I'm still struggling... if "not provably consistent', then how can we assure ourselves that the system is not gamed or that the system correctly models whatever it purports to model?
                          what does "correctly model" mean? if you define that, you are expressing your own criteria for validation. models are never correct, but sometimes are useful.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: “The Information”

                            My understanding of Godel is that he showed that certain complex systems cannot be "self-proven" -- that is, proven without reference to something outside the system. For other than the most abstract of these systems, that "something outside" is called "reality."

                            So it's not that such systems are totally unprovable, it's that they may need an external reference, so they cannot be completely self-contained.

                            Do I have that right?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: “The Information”

                              My point is that if one is unable to prove every true result, then how can one confirm that the system is not gamed (ie. prove that there are no contradictions within the system)?

                              Moreover, doesn't proving that there are no contractions become even more important when our realities are created by man-made binary systems that are divorced from nature (ie "The Information")?

                              PS. What exactly is Gleick doing with this book. Is he celebrating this divorce? If so, why?
                              Last edited by reggie; April 07, 2011, 03:19 PM.
                              The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge ~D Boorstin

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X