Compression limit

[einseele]

Which is the compression limit
Physics teaches that such limit is mass

So the question is. Which is the limit for information compression.

The answer to this question is about information itself.

If information cannot be compressed beyond certain limit, then
information has mass.

If information can be compressed limitless, then information does not
consist of a mass, therefore is not compressible.

I believe this is the case, and the next question should be.
Well, if information has no mass, what are we compressing in its
place, and where and what is information.

[Lonnie Clay]

Wonderful to hear from you einseele, especially on this topic!

Information in isolation, taken out of context one bit at a time, is incompressible, and often binary. However, even a simple yes/no DOES have context because it is subject to the experiential base of the receiving awareness/computational entity. So *I* maintain that information is ALWAYS compressible until it reaches a critical limit of uncertainty based upon each unique receiver's experiential base.

The question then devolves to "How many receiver's sensoriums do I desire to attain comprehension of my message?" That depends upon objectives of the sender. Furthermore, the question arises as to the impact of miscommunication upon those who are not the objectives of a particular message's transmission dispersal. Interception of messages outside the transmitter's intended routing list is so common as to be taken as a given. *I* maintain therefor that the optimum composition strategy for messages MUST include as a PRIMARY objective the goal of making messages not only incomprehensible outside of the routing list, but also contain content such that each intercepted message will be DISCARDED as "nonsense" by interceptors outside of the routing list of intended recipients. By following this precept there is little harm which will occur due to messages scattered freely to the public, such as my messages on the internet...

I estimate that limited comprehension of the surface text of the above statements can be attained by 1% of the population. Deeper understanding of the implications can be attained by 0.1% of the population. Since it is intuitively obvious to those who have provided intelligence tests to me, that due to my scoring at the 0.1% level of intelligence on a consistent basis that my intelligence must be at the 0.1% level rather than (for example) at the 1 per billion level, then there can't possibly be anything even deeper to be discerned. However, I note that sometimes *I* surprise even *myself* by how cute or clever I have been in past postings.

What might those further hidden meanings be? *GOD* only knows LOLOL...

Lonnie Courtney Clay

[awori achoka]

Interesting...but the assumption is that data only becomes information when it is transmitted from one source to another. But information 'intelligence' can be derived from without.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/Yk9CSUlkeWF6SzhK.
> To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
>

[Lonnie Clay]

Oof Misunderstanding! Information continuously cycles within an awareness between the so called "conscious mind", the "memory", and the "subconscious". Furthermore there are often many layers within each of those broad categories, each of which exchanges content within its own realm of control. For example, when I want to fetch a particular datum from memory due to a fleeting wisp of recollection, I must follow a path of mnemonically associated compactions to attain retrieval. If I have secreted the memory to prevent unauthorized extraction, then I must also follow a keying sequence of permissible windows of synchronization, such that I am not diverted into false leads which provide bogus imitations of the buried data. Information exists as datums taken WITHIN CONTEXT in my mind. Perhaps I could clarify by saying that every transitional exchange of a datum is information regardless of whether the transmitter and receiver are located within the same awareness? As extraction proceeds, the information attains a solidity of form which approaches clarity of its true meaning, until the final stage is attained with the clarity at which the datum was stored. This begs the question of how much subtext is contained in the clarified information, and how many associated datums must be synthesized together within the conscious mind to attain a true vision of the meaningfulness of the data.

So far as derived conclusions go based upon the gibberish which I spout - Arrggghhhh Yaarrr, Good Luck Pilgrim!

Lonnie Courtney Clay

[Lonnie Clay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_8GAX45lo4

The Fortunes - Coca Cola jingles

Let's discuss cascading associations too. The most exemplary of this category of memory retrieval method is advertising jingles. In very few instances (such as the famous 'two all beef patties' jingle" is there any attempt to discuss the product based upon it's ingredients, since that sort of thing went out of style in the early 70s. The advertiser instead focuses upon hypothetical benefits to the purchaser of using the advertiser's product. An attempt is made to cause a desire for a product based upon "situation" - such as causing you to think of their product whenever you are IN a situation. The broader the situation, the more diffuse is the associated reference, while the converse is true for tightly focused commercials. There is a big tradeoff in potential referrals to a product due to competing associations versus probability of encountering the situation referenced.

Another important factor is "blocking out" associations based upon "rejection" or "denial". In this case, you REFUSE to pursue a memory which lies outside of your focus of attention. A memory which persists in occurring despite your best efforts can BY A FORCEFULNESS of exerted willpower be caused to submerge more or less permanently into your subconscious mind. In extreme cases, rejection of powerful memories is accomplished by the extreme technique of "amnesia". Total amnesia occurs when a memory is so painful and dominant that only by discarding the entirety of associations within a person's recollection can the rejection be accomplished. Selective amnesia is generally preferred and occurs as naturally as saying :

I don't want to think about that right now.

Please don't remind me, it's embarrassing.

Let's focus on the task at hand.

etc etc etc and the classic manager's imprecation :

GET BACK TO WORK!

Lonnie Courtney Clay

[awori achoka]

Good

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/MFh5Q3JvSFB3UVFK.

[awori achoka]

Good. That is...before the fact..there is fact. The existence of phenomena..'data'...is independent of the conscious fact that, it is there.

On Jun 5, 2011 12:29 PM, "Lonnie Clay" <clayl...@comcast.net> wrote:
Oof Misunderstanding! Information continuously cycles within an awareness between the so called "conscious mind", the "memory", and the "subconscious". Furthermore there are often many layers within each of those broad categories, each of which exchanges content within its own realm of control. For example, when I want to fetch a particular datum from memory due to a fleeting wisp of recollection, I must follow a path of mnemonically associated compactions to attain retrieval. If I have secreted the memory to prevent unauthorized extraction, then I must also follow a keying sequence of permissible windows of synchronization, such that I am not diverted into false leads which provide bogus imitations of the buried data. Information exists as datums taken WITHIN CONTEXT in my mind. Perhaps I could clarify by saying that every transitional exchange of a datum is information regardless of whether the transmitter and receiver are located within the same awareness? As extraction proceeds, the information attains a solidity of form which approaches clarity of its true meaning, until the final stage is attained with the clarity at which the datum was stored. This begs the question of how much subtext is contained in the clarified information, and how many associated datums must be synthesized together within the conscious mind to attain a true vision of the meaningfulness of the data.

So far as derived conclusions go based upon the gibberish which I spout - Arrggghhhh Yaarrr, Good Luck Pilgrim!

Lonnie Courtney Clay

On Saturday, June 4, 2011 8:01:57 AM UTC-7, Awori wrote:

>
> Interesting...but the assumption is that data only becomes information when it is transmitted f...

>
> On Jun 4, 2011 4:54 PM, "Lonnie Clay" <clayl...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > Wonderful to hear from ...

> To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology...@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
> >

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group....

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/MFh5Q3JvSFB3UVFK.

To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group,...

[Lonnie Clay]

Mmmhhhmmm... It Goes something like this :

[Context -> Interaction -> Events] ->

[Observations -> Abstractions -> Prioritization and Categorization -> Memorization -> Recall -> Pondering and Correlation]

Lonnie Courtney Clay

On Sunday, June 5, 2011 3:55:24 AM UTC-7, Awori wrote:

Good. That is...before the fact..there is fact. The existence of phenomena..'data'...is independent of the conscious fact that, it is there.

On Jun 5, 2011 12:29 PM, "Lonnie Clay" <clayl...@comcast.net> wrote:
Oof Misunderstanding! Information continuously cycles within an awareness between the so called "conscious mind", the "memory", and the "subconscious". Furthermore there are often many layers within each of those broad categories, each of which exchanges content within its own realm of control. For example, when I want to fetch a particular datum from memory due to a fleeting wisp of recollection, I must follow a path of mnemonically associated compactions to attain retrieval. If I have secreted the memory to prevent unauthorized extraction, then I must also follow a keying sequence of permissible windows of synchronization, such that I am not diverted into false leads which provide bogus imitations of the buried data. Information exists as datums taken WITHIN CONTEXT in my mind. Perhaps I could clarify by saying that every transitional exchange of a datum is information regardless of whether the transmitter and receiver are located within the same awareness? As extraction proceeds, the information attains a solidity of form which approaches clarity of its true meaning, until the final stage is attained with the clarity at which the datum was stored. This begs the question of how much subtext is contained in the clarified information, and how many associated datums must be synthesized together within the conscious mind to attain a true vision of the meaningfulness of the data.

So far as derived conclusions go based upon the gibberish which I spout - Arrggghhhh Yaarrr, Good Luck Pilgrim!

Lonnie Courtney Clay

On Saturday, June 4, 2011 8:01:57 AM UTC-7, Awori wrote:

>
> Interesting...but the assumption is that data only becomes information when it is transmitted f...

>
> On Jun 4, 2011 4:54 PM, "Lonnie Clay" <clay...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Wonderful to hear from ...

> To post to this group, send email to epis...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistem...@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
> >

[awori achoka]

We are there...if not almost!

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/LWstQTBZenJvZ3NK.

> To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology...@googlegroups.com.

[Lonnie Clay]

Try introspection and self realization, proceed onwards to reprogram your own mind as you see fit. I started the process in the third grade with mnemonic associative memory retrieval techniques, for which I thank Mrs. Dowd, who would likely be in her 80s by now if not dead. My earlier teachers before the AT program regarded me as a pestilential nuisance, but AT program teachers regarded us all as a challenge to their own ability to take raw ore and turn it into glittering blades of intellectual incisiveness. Somewhere along the way I became distracted by entertainment rather than pondering, but I THINK that I have shaken off the death grip of frivolousness. To clarify a point regarding my posts elsewhere, I use frivolity to see if I can prod unguarded responses from others goaded into replying. The problem with being intelligent is that your wits become dull if you fail to clash swords with similar talents.

If you have a child at hand to manipulate, be cautious, because there is untapped potential in even the most obviously dim-witted of youths. Did you ever stop to think that perhaps a so called dimwit merely finds the outside world dull and lacking challenge, sunken into introspective apathy from boredom? I suspect that lacking brain damage in the womb, all infants are more or less intellectually equal, what varies widely is the traction gained by the environment upon the infant's attention. If you want a child to succeed with worldly interaction, then provide a stimulus rich environment. To attain failure, place into a white crib in a soundless white room and initiate sensory deprivation protocols.

As an adult you will probably be forced to employ more sophisticated tricks to derail old habits of thought. Couple the activities which provide maximum reinforcement of changed protocols with reinforcing rewards. Pavlov knew a trick or two. As a revised mental process gains strength through usage, vary the reinforcing rewards so that the specificity of cues is diminished. Eventually you will be able to shake loose from semi-compulsory associations and range freely within your own mind, cultivating your programmed processes with any applicable mental tool at hand rather than having to employ a specific trick.

Lonnie Courtney Clay

>>> > To post to this group, send email to epi...@googlegroups.com.

>>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

>>> epist...@googlegroups.com.

>>>
>>>
>>> > > For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
>>> > >
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Epistemology" group....
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/MFh5Q3JvSFB3UVFK.
>>
>>

>> To post to this group, send email to epis...@googlegroups.com.

[awori achoka]

I call it zapping and visioning. I will share with you something i wrote towards that end.

Thank you.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/TDlHTnFBaUo2djRK.

[archytas]

Physicists are experimenting with cavities Carlos. I'll get back - as
a mere biochemist I need to codge up.

On Jun 6, 7:08 am, awori achoka <awori.ach...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I call it zapping and visioning. I will share with you something i wrote
> towards that end.
>
> Thank you.
>

[archytas]

This is a bit of the idea - imagine the information potential even in
such 'small' physics. The fields they measure are so-called hotspots
that form at the surface of metals or around metallic nanostructures
such as nanoparticles or nanoscale bow tie structures. There,
collective movements of the electrons – the surface plasmons – can
create huge electromagnetic fields. This is very much in analogy to
the way any other antenna works: oscillating electrical currents
create electromagnetic radio waves. On the surface of metal
nanostructures, the same happens; but because the geometry is so small
the effect is much larger.

These hotspots are very efficient antennas indeed. Light that is
directed on the hotspot with a frequency close to the resonance of
these plasmons is very tightly focussed into this tiny space. If a
molecule happens to be in that hotspot, the interaction with this
highly concentrated light is very strong. It is no surprise that this
effect is explored for sensing applications such as surface-enhanced
Raman spectroscopy (SERS).

The efficiency of SERS and other applications, however, depends on the
precise distribution of electromagnetic fields at these hotspots. It
is a somewhat surprising drawback that the electromagnetic field of
these hotspots couldn’t be measured so far. In their experiments,
Xiang Zhang now use the ultimate analogue to iron filings to visualize
the electromagnetic field of hotspots: single molecules. They take a
dilute solution of dye molecules and pour this on the hot spots. Then,
they turn the light on. Due to the antenna effect of the plasmons the
light gets focussed into the hotspot, where it excites the dye
molecules and causes them to emit light. But the dye molecules can
only emit light for a little while before their electronic states
become saturated. Each dye molecule only sends out a brief flash of
light before it goes dark again for a certain period of time.

The researchers then made sure that the dye solution is so dilute that
on average only one molecule at a time emits a flash, which they are
able to measure with an accuracy of 1.2 nanometres. Furthermore, due
to the random movement of the dye molecules, the flash from the dye
molecules always occurs at a different location. The intensity of the
light emission of the molecule, however, is the same all the time. But
the light intensity the camera sees depends strongly on the antenna
effect of the hotspot, which in turn depends on the local
electromagnetic field at the position of the dye molecule. In that way
the location and intensity of the light flashes from the dye molecules
provides a direct map of the electromagnetic fields in the hotspot –
with nanometer resolution.

At the moment, the technique only is able to measure two-dimensional
images of the hotspots, but three-dimensional sensing seems not too
unlikely. Nevertheless, already at this stage this tool provides very
useful feedback for the study of hotspots and the further development
of applications such as SERS.

If we move to Einstein-Bose Condensates and 'distanced' entanglement
(done I understand) the information possibilities leap away from the
'smallness'.

[einseele]

> Information in isolation, taken out of context one bit at a time, is
> incompressible, and often binary. However, even a simple yes/no DOES have
> context because it is subject to the experiential base of the receiving
> awareness/computational entity. So *I* maintain that information is ALWAYS
> compressible until it reaches a critical limit of uncertainty based upon
> each unique receiver's experiential base.

You are confusing information with the object used as a pointer, what
you call here information is just an object.
And what you call here the "context" is the information itself.
Nothing in any binary or other coded lists like hex, decimal or
whatever base is information but this type of object.

As such it has mass and can be compressed, pretty much like you do
with your zip packer. Take a text file, zip it and you will see how
its volume falls, zip the zipped file and you cannot go any further
down, this is because you reached a limit because of mass, no matter
if this mass is a real thing or a character sequence.

Context is NEVER compressed, first of al because it is always beyond
mass

[Lonnie Clay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nIUcRJX9-o

Cingular Commercial "bff Jill"

Y = Yes etc

Y as YH? = You have? You hate? etc

Y as YHG? = You have got? You have given? etc

Y as YHGTBKM! = You have got to be kidding me! Now we are getting precision, but it could be You Hate God Then Be Killed Mother*ucker! in a conversation regarding theology.
We always pulled Y= You in those cases, BUT :

YM! = Your Momma! or Yearly Maintenance or..

We always referenced a "Y" but the reference pulled was determined by context (rather than being absolute) and there was always uncertainty due to limited contextual precision based upon the experiential base of the receiver. For example :

YM! YM! YM! sent by a teenage boy to his girlfriend might mean Yum, yum, yum,

Whereas the same message sent to a friend in response to a conversational disagreement might take the other meaning of Your Momma.

I dispute vehemently your claim that context cannot be compressed, but agree wholeheartedly that compression of context results in ambiguity. Let's talk about compression some more. Suppose that you had no desire whatsoever to conceal the meaning of anything and restricted yourself to the ASCII character set. Suppose that you had a library of definitions (See my original post in the Merry Christmas series on sci.crypt). Your dictionary might, just as an example, contain ten million acronyms which were determined by reading several thousand books and noting a new acronym each time no previously encountered word pair triple etc had been found. Now rather than going from letters to hypothetical combinations of words, you have done a reverse Polish construction of your dictionary and gone from word sequences to acronyms. The only problem is your blocking factor. Suppose that you had noticed that a string of six characters contained three high frequency of occurrence pairs of characters, and put those three together to form a meaningful phrase. Alternatively, suppose that you failed to find any combination of three pairs, but were able to find a pair of triples which made a lot of sense. Suppose that triples did not work, then you could go for 2-4 or 4-2 combinations etc. Finally, as in the case of YHGTBKM, you might have a high frequency match for the entire string taken as a single stream of words.

I'm going to close out this post before the computer glitches or something. DYSMP?

Lonnie Courtney Clay

[Serenity Smiles]

No Lonnie I do not “hate” except excessive packaging and universally unfriendly packaging.  I just wish to overcome Ignorance a huge poison of this planet

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/9DGJAdp41RMJ.