If I send a message to someone and it has nothing that can influence the behavior of the receiver does the message contain information? Does a message contain information beyond its ability to manipulate whomever receives the message? Can the amount of information contained in a message change if the recever later receives more information from other sources that allows the original message to manipulate the receiver in new ways?
Isn’t this just a reformulation of the old question: If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear, does it make a sound?
Just remember, all messages are true in some sense, false in some sense, and meaningless, in some sense.
On the very, very, very unlikely chance that this isn’t just a whoosh, yes, messages carry information (in an information-theoretical sense) even if they’re not received by a human at all: computers talk to each other all the time, for example. Mine plot against me at night.
A message with no content still carries at least one bit of information (received vs. not received), and probably a lot more (time of sending, time of receiving, etc.)
Going the other way, I get lots of messages every day with content, that don’t influence my behavior (they’re filtered before I see them), or that don’t influence my behavior based on their individual content, only their content class (I delete them). These are called spam.
If you start a lot of threads on a message board containing many intelligent, experienced and enthusiastic people, then you are indeed sending a message about yourself.
So far you have (for example):
- asked if a set of crude statements prove God :rolleyes:
- asked if another dubious chain of logic disproves God :rolleyes:
- whether your underwear can communicate with your bacon sandwich :smack:
- and this one
You seldom return to these threads and seem indifferent to whatever is posted in them.
Yes, we have formed an opinion about you. :eek:
Any message always contains infinite information due to the relative context of the receiver.
glee, don’t make me get the man thong again. (That was clearly “information.”)
Or a modern version: If a guest from outer space posts repeatedly on the SDMB, do any Dopers care?
Oooh, oooh, I don’t!! Me! Me! I don’t care!
Unless it’s one of those aliens with mind-control powers, of course, because then he’d make me care. Or if it’s a sexy alien.
Show me an alien that* isn’t* sexy. C’mon, I dare you.
Though he is delightfully fat and evil.
What’s not to like about fat and evil? Oops, just saw that this was in GQ. Sorry–I’ll stop making jokes now.
Are you asking whether meaning is objective, interactive, or transitive?
Information is (in theory) a measurable quantity. If you take a message and encode it in binary somehow, the information content of it is defined to be the length of the shortest computer program with no input that will output that message. The small snag is that the information content of any non-trivial message isn’t guaranteed to be knowable, even though it’s well-defined.
It’s not possible to have a message that does not influence the receiver; the act of receiving it is influence (brain states, etc.) if it contains nothing that can do that, it isn’t a message at all.