From: Krekoski Ross (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Mar 03 2008 - 15:20:22 MST
I like the thread reword. The old thread is starting to meander and get
unfocused and inane.
> Yeah, sometimes there is objective meaning---sometimes not. There are two
> cases. The first I call "isomorphic meaning", and the second "conventional
> I would caution again: only *sometimes*.
> Yes, that sequence has enough *isomorphic* meaning to be deciphered
> by an enemy code breaker or an alien intelligence (assuming, as is only
> reasonable to assume, that to be sufficiently intelligent is to be able to
> "see" and figure out such sequences).
Yes, hence the example.
> But if they sent us one of their sacred stones, we would eventually
> find the non-random redundant pattern in the radioactive decay....
> Great example. We would find the pattern because it is objectively
> there, and its Komolgorov complexity is less than that of a random
> string. (Of course, after breaking the "code" we might still be
> totally baffled by *conventional* meaning embedded, such as
> what "jerryfooling up" means to them, or that Xmaph is one of
> their kings.)
yes, almost trivially. but unfortunately necessary apparently to point out.
> Isn't this analogous to the code-maker's efforts to change frequencies
> extremely often in order to thwart enemy decryption? But even in
> those cases, if there really is a pattern there, sooner or later others
> break the code.
> (Naturally, there has to be *isomorphic* meaning in, say, a long
> passage. No one can break the following code I just invented five
> seconds ago that in a *convention* I just created five seconds
> ago: "ACJXM TBBCP EHYSK QNLRZ"
Here is where I think one point is important to make however, that no
communication is completely devoid of contextual cues.
Your ACJXM TBBCP EHYSK QNLRZ may seem opaque without reading your
translation, but thats because it was embedded in communication that
utilized a marginally different code (english) to convey meaning, and the
code (your code) itself conveyed message in a more meta-pragmatic way than
the email itself did. Rather than have internal meaning, the meaning you
intended to convey was through the *existence* of the message itself--
namely, that specific codes can exist.
In English the separation between context and explicit information is often
fairly salient. It is done through, for a single example usage of pronouns.
Like in the previous sentence, the word 'it' referred to contextual
information located in the sentence before it.
If we move to a code we do not all immediately have a grasp of however,
context is information since less is understood from the outset. I can infer
a fairly large amount of information from your code even without your
translation. A few examples: it is produced by a person. It is likely
produced by a person who speaks English. Its existence communicates some
type of information regarding the opacity or transparency of specific codes
At any rate the distinction becomes less clear. But it would also make sense
to talk about isomorphisms of context, in addition to isomorphisms of
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT