information

by

This is my title; there are many others like it, but this one is mine

It’s Tuesday now, and we begin to commence the rest of what is now a brace of braces of regular work days.  I guess those of you to whom that applies probably already know it, so I’m giving you no new information, unless you count as information the particular way in which I convey it.  Meanwhile, for those to whom this information does not apply, it’s probably just tedious trivia, if even that.

That’s not my fault; at least it’s not entirely my fault.  Of course, I’m the one who’s writing this drivel, but you’re reading it, and no one’s forcing you to do so.  There are two parts to the freedom of speech:  the freedom to speak (or not to do so) and the freedom to hear and listen (or not to hear/listen).  So there is mutual responsibility—or a lack of mutual responsibility if the notion of responsibility doesn’t apply.

I’m pretty sure that no one is ultimately responsible for anything let alone everything.  That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to hold people accountable when they do bad things, or reward people for good things; it’s good to discourage the negative and encourage the positive, I would think.

But none of us made the world or the universe, and none of us made ourselves, despite the popular notion of the “self-made man” (or woman).  We all happened, like everything else happens, and we didn’t get to pick which universe into which we’re born, if there are choices of such things.  Or, if we were given a choice in some bizarre, pre-conception, pre-birth sorting ceremony, our memories of such things have been erased pretty thoroughly.

I’m pretty convinced that there is no such pre-birth, and I’m nearly as sure that there’s no post-death, either.  My slightly less certain attitude toward the latter is probably just an artifact of self-bias that comes with being a biological organism whose ancestors were selected for (among other thing) a tendency to want to stay alive.  And, of course, it is influenced by the simple inability for anyone to imagine themselves not existing, since the minute you’re imagining anything, you’re very much not modeling a lack of existence.

If you’ve ever been under general anesthesia, such as during major surgery, and if there were no mishaps, such as a failure of the anesthesia, then you could say that whatever you experienced while you were under general anesthesia is the closest living simulacrum to what you’ll experience when you’re dead.  But of course, the point is, you didn’t experience anything.  Anesthesia means “without sensation” or “without feeling”, and it is pretty well named.

A tangent to this notion:  who the hell first came up with the term “lived experience”?  Speaking of punishment to discourage things, if we can find that person, they should be subject to serious public shaming.  Why do we need to add a modifier to the word “experience”?  Speaking of words that convey no information (which I did earlier), this literally is redundant.  One cannot have “non-lived experience” or “dead experience”.  It’s experience.  If you experience it, you’re alive.  Experience is an individual, personal, conscious thing that happens only to living things, almost by definition.

Even if you’re “learning from someone else’s experience”, you’re really learning from your awareness and intake of the information regarding that person’s experience.  That is the experience from which you are learning, and it is your experience, not that of some other person from whom you might be learning a lesson.

There are so many stupid things in the world.  I have no doubt that I am a prominent one of these things.  Still, some things are so stupid that they feel like personal attacks on, not my sanity exactly, but certainly on my equanimity.  Some human habits and words and deeds are like mosquito bites or poison ivy, like itching, burning rashes.  They make me want to snarl and lash out in irritation.

Oh, well.  I guess it’s hard to blame the stupid for being stupid—and we’re all stupid more than we are smart.  I guess all we can do is to try to become a little smarter every day, like the YouTube channel says.

In other news, it turns out that September is suicide prevention month (or some term to that effect).  I’m not sure why this particular month has been chosen for that designation.  Is it because it’s a time when kids go back to school, and so might need such support?  I don’t know; I always liked it when school started up again.  Is it because it’s the month when autumn begins?  Again, I wouldn’t get it, because autumn has always been my favorite season, though here in the sweaty intertriginous regions of south Florida, autumn is indistinguishable from most of the rest of the year.

Anyway, I’m the last person one should seek to try to help prevent suicide in someone else.  If anything, I would be more able to provide arguments in support of self-destruction, though I would not ever try to talk anyone else into taking their own life.

Well…I can think of a few people I might be willing to so encourage, but the people I might be willing to encourage to kill themselves are usually the sorts of people who would never even consider doing such a thing.  They think far too highly of themselves.

But hey, as for the rest of you, why not go out there and, if the opportunity occurs, prevent a suicide or something?  Batman knows I spend a lot of my time looking at support sites and information and posts and accounts and reading books and so on that are related to this.  Unfortunately, every argument I’ve encountered hitherto has been just repetition of the same old trite vomitus that people tend to spew about such things, and it often just makes me feel even less like I want to stay alive.

Unfortunately, Hamlet is much more convincing than the cast majority of the people who counsel others not to die.  Is that simply because Shakespeare was such a brilliant writer?  Or is it because he has the best arguments?  I guess it could be a combination—a superposition, if you will—of the two.

Whatever.  Try to have a good day.

by

If I could write the beauty of your eyes and in fresh numbers number all your blogs

Hello and good morning, and welcome to another Thursday morning blog post.

I’m not sure how many of these I’ve written, but since I’ve done them nearly every Thursday, even when I was writing fiction on all other weekdays (and excusing the occasional sick day), we can guess that I wrote on the order of fifty such posts a year for about ten years.  Thus, there are on the order of five hundred such daily posts over the years, each one nearly a thousand words long (and some going beyond that).  So, overall, the number of words I’ve written in these Thursday blog posts alone is comparable to the number of words in my longest novel (Unanimity…so long I had to publish it as two separate books).

Of course, when we approach it from the point of view of actual information, à la Claude Shannon’s information theory and whatnot, I would have a hard time estimating how much actual information there is in such a post.  In the first draft of the preceding paragraph and a half, there were 174 words, which comprise 940-ish characters (counting spaces, which I think one should count, since a space or the lack thereof can matter quite a bit in English).

Now, each character in a typewritten document, not counting ”special” characters, can have one of 26 letters (not counting upper and lower case as separate things for my current purposes) ten numerals, and maybe a comparable number of punctuation marks.  So, each potential space in the writing would have a total of roughly 26 plus 10 plus, say, 8 other characters, so 44 possible characters.  Rounding up, that’s about six bits per character (26 = 64).  Rounding down would give five bits (which is only 32 possibilities), so it’s something closer to 6 bits than 5.

Assuming the ratio of characters to words in the average blog posts stays fairly consistent, that would be, for a 900 word post:  (900/174) x 940, which rounding here and there* gives about 810,000 divided by, say, 180.  This can be reduced first to 81,000 divided by 18, or 9,000 divided by 2, or 4,500 characters per post.  Checking the math on the calculator gets roughly the same amount.

So, 4,500 characters, times five and some fraction bits per character, gives us between 22,500 and 27,000 bits of information per blog post.  Let’s say 25,000 bits.

But when I look at the storage space of my average blog post, they are almost all between 17 and 20 K (which is actually as much as 160,000 bits) in size.

This mismatch shouldn’t be surprising, because while English is (like most written languages) a “redundant code”, storing a word processor document entails storing more than just the individual characters.

Returning to what we mean when we refer to the redundancy of written English, we mean that not every new character gives you as much information as is potentially available.  For instance, if one types the letter “q”, what follows will almost always** be a letter “u” in English, and so we would be quite justified, at least in this, in writing the word “quite” as “qite”.  But, of course, redundancy in any kind of code is useful for counteracting the problem of lost data in transmission, which was one of the things Claude Shannon was thinking about in founding information theory.

There are surely other ways in which the data in a given blog post is “compressed” during the process of saving, but I don’t know enough about the computer science of word processors to know the specifics of how that’s done off the top of my head.  And since, of course, I write these blog posts “off the top of my head” each morning, I’m not going to try to research that subject for now.  That would make writing my daily blog much less pleasant, and make the process quite (ha) a bit (ha ha) longer than it would otherwise be.

Now that I’ve thought about it and mentioned it, I’ll probably be on moderate alert for information regarding the process if I should happen to come across it, and if I do, I’ll be more likely to focus on it and add it to my model of reality than I would have otherwise.

And now I am rapidly approaching the 800 word mark for this post, a mark which I will no doubt pass before I have finished writing the first draft of this sentence.  And, indeed, I did.  So let’s draw this very peculiar post to its close, today.

I’m sure many of you*** are thinking something along the lines of, “Geez, I hope he goes back to just writing about depression and chronic pain and all that shit tomorrow…this post has been really boring.”  To those people, I can only apologize.  To anyone who shares my idiosyncratic interest in esoteric (but highly amateur in my case) things like information theory and whatnot, well—I hope at least you have enjoyed this.

TTFN

*It’s okay to do this since I’m not trying to be terribly precise, just to get “back of the envelope” numbers for fun, anyway.

**Not in this case, of course, since there is a quotation mark after that last “q”…and this one here, as well.  So, the “u” is not a completely redundant character, but it certainly doesn’t give anything like 5 more bits of information.

***If a fraction of my few dozen readers can really be called “many”; I’ll let myself get away with using it as at least a relative term.

by

Thoughts meander like a restless spore inside a humid room

In case you’re confused:  Yes, it is Monday, even though I’m writing a blog post.  I just decided that I might as well do something that gives the illusion of productivity, since, y’know, I’m awake and on my way to the office anyway.

As for topics about which to write, well, on that I don’t know.  I don’t think there are any momentous or interesting things worth discussing that are happening in the world right now (ba-dump-bump, chhh!).

Still, it is true that to a very good approximation every event that happens and that seems so earth-shattering and important in the moment is utterly forgotten by everything except quantum mechanics and Laplace’s demon.

Don’t believe me?  Do you remember that scandal in the Roman Senate when Cinna the Younger misdirected Republic funds to buy a “servant” for his household?  No?  Neither does anyone else.  Of course, that was 2000 years ago, so you may think it doesn’t count, but I’m sure almost none of you know about any of the “crucial” events of the day or the escapades of popular stars even 40 years ago.  I certainly don’t remember any, and I was fifteen at the time, and I have an unusually good memory.

Also, time‒with respect to online information, anyway‒is cycling more quickly nowadays.  Sure, information can last a very long time online*, but that doesn’t really matter in a dispositive way, because there is a constant gusher of new and distracting information coming in at all times, with signal and noise intermingling haphazardly.  It’s a bit akin to the fact that although Manhattan is crowded with millions of people in a small area‒so you might think your life would be less private‒in many ways it is more private than other places, because when there, you are one indistinguishable face among those millions.

The internet makes Manhattan look like Mayberry.

Still, it would be nice to be able to get my words and maybe my stories and maybe even my music out to more people who might find them interesting and/or entertaining.  It’s not immortality in anything like a literal sense‒nothing is‒but still, there’s at least some little internal drive to spread the memetic code of me out in the world.  I could think of myself like the fruiting body of a fungus, spewing the spores of my thoughts into the wind, seeing if they’ll be able to infest and infect any other people out there.

It might at least be interesting to give someone the psychological equivalent of a persistent, itchy rash thanks to my words.

Of course, the fungus metaphor is an ironic one for me, since I cannot stand mushrooms for eating, and even the smell of wild mushrooms after damp weather (or mildew for that matter) fills me with literal nausea.  Then again, given my own poor opinion of myself, maybe it’s right for me to think of myself and my ideas (my celium, perhaps…get it?) that way.

Fungi don’t have any qualifications or requirements to meet other than survival and reproduction.  And that’s very much the nature of online information exchange; the stuff that spreads most isn’t the “brilliant” or the “important”, it’s just the catchiest.  The whole process is stochastic.

Of course, there is an entire ecosystem of such meme-plexes, and they vary in their tendencies to spread quickly versus being more long-lasting.  Like the species in a rainforest, some spread quickly and germinate and reproduce quickly, but then quickly die, with short, frequently repeating cycles; others spread and grow more slowly, some perhaps becoming the mighty trees that dominate the structure of the forest, but which perforce have longer, slower growth and death cycles.  And, of course, the various other plants (and animals) in the jungle create and are each others’ environment.  There are even parasitic plants, and opportunistic ones that germinate only after a fire.  It’s very complicated, and no one plant is crucial or eternal**, though they may think they are.

Am I pushing the metaphor too far?  I don’t think so.  I think it’s important for people to recognize that no one controls the internet, just as no one controls the economy, just as no one controls the ecosystem, just as no one controls the evolution of the universe itself.  Everything just happens thanks to the interactions of numerous smaller elements interacting according to local forces and pressures.

That’s enough for a Monday, I think.  I hope you all have a good one.

*But not forever, despite what anyone says.  I fear no contradiction here, because to prove me wrong, you would have to wait until forever had passed.  At which point, if you are right, I will gladly concede the issue.

**Unless you count microbes‒some of those could be considered immortal.  Of course, in a sense, since it all has one common ancestor somewhere, life as a whole could be considered just one gigantic, very long-lived (but probably not immortal) organism.

by

If I could write the beauty of your blogs, and in fresh numbers number all your graces…

Hello.  Good morning.

Aaahhh, doesn’t that feel better?  Now I can use my standard Thursday blog post opening phrases, because today is, in fact, Thursday.  It’s the 21st of November, the third Thursday of the month, so in the USA you only have seven shopping days until Thanksgiving.

Speaking of Thanksgiving, since next Thursday is that holiday, I probably will not be writing a blog post then.  It is one holiday on which our office is always closed.  We will be open on so-called Black Friday, but I can’t guarantee that I’ll write a post on that day.

Of course, in principle, I cannot guarantee that I’ll write anything at all ever again after this post.  I may not even survive to post this entry*‒I am in the back seat of a Lyft, on the highway (I-95) of the East Coast of the US, so goodness knows there’s a non-zero chance of a fatal accident.  I would even wish for one, but I know such a thing would involve harm and possibly death to other, more innocent, people.

Also, of course, wishes don’t actually directly affect reality‒thank goodness.  Imagine if even one percent of wishes came true as wished.  The world would be thoroughgoing chaos…and not in a good way.  I tend to say of wishes that “If wishes were horses, then we’d all be hip deep in horse shit,” but it would be even more terrifying if wishes worked.

The “if‒then” character of the wishes saying (my version or the more SFW one that involves beggars riding) often makes me think of lines of computer code in some generic programming language, like:

If wishes==horses then execute beggars.ride

Or maybe 

If wishes==horses then horseshit_level = “hip deep”

I wonder what that would look like in machine language.  Or, I wonder what it would look like in straight binary.  Really, though, I know part of the answer to the latter piece of wondering:  it would look, to the naked eye, like a random string of ones and zeros, perhaps the tally of some very long record of flipping a coin and marking heads as 1 and tails as 0 (or vice versa).

Actually, of course, given a binary-based computer language, one can literally generate every possible computer program just by flipping an ever-increasing number of coins.  Or, to be honest, one can do it just by counting in binary:  0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000…

This is why, if memory serves, computer science people and information theory people say that every program can literally be assigned (and described by) a number.  You could express that number in base ten if you wanted, to make it a bit more compact and familiar to the typical human.  Or, if you want to be more efficient and make conversion easier, you can use hexadecimal.  This is easier because a base-sixteen number system is more directly and easily converted to and from binary, since 16 is a power of 2 (2 to the 4th).

Even the human genome, or any genome in fact, could be fairly readily expressed in binary.  The DNA code is a 4 character language, so it wouldn’t take too much work to make it binary, however you wanted to code it.  Then, each person’s genome would have a single, unique number.  That’s kind of interesting.

It would be a bit unwieldy as an ID number, of course.  The human genome is roughly 3 billion nucleotides long, which means it would be roughly 6 billion binary digits (AKA bits).  And since every ten bits is roughly a thousand in base 10 (2^10 is 1024, which is very close to 10^3, aka 1000) then 6 billion bits should be roughly 2 billion decimal digits long (a bit less), which is much, much larger than the famously large number, a googol**.

It’s a big number.  This should give you at least some idea of just how unique each individual life form is at a fundamental level.  There are so many possible genomes that the expected time until the final heat death of the universe is unlikely to be long enough to have a randomly created duplication within the accessible cosmos.

Of course, within an infinite space‒which is the most probable truth about our universe as far as we can tell‒one will not only have every possible version that can exist, but will have infinite copies of every possible version.  Infinity makes things weird; I love it.

Of course, just as with the making of computer programs by simply counting in binary, the vast majority of genomes would not code for any lifeform in any kind of cellular environment, using any given kind of transcription code you might want (the one on Earth, found in essentially all creatures, uses three base pairs to code for a given amino acid in a protein, but that’s not all that DNA does).  Similarly, most of the counted up programs would not run on any given computer language platform, because they would not code for any coherent and consistent set of instructions.

But even so, you would still, eventually, get every possible working program, or every possible life form in any given biological system if you could just keep counting.

On related matters, there are things like the halting problem and so on, but we won’t get into that today, interesting though it may be (and is).

It’s quite fascinating, when one is dealing with information theory (and computer science) how quickly one encounters numbers so vast that they dwarf everything within the actual universe.

Mind you, the maximum possible information‒related to the entropy‒carried within any bounded 3-D region is constrained by the surface area (in square Planck lengths) of a black hole with that size event horizon.  For our universe, roughly 96 billion light years across, I think that’s something like 10 to the 124th bits, or at least it’s that many Planck areas.  That’s quite a bit*** smaller than the number of possible genomes, though I have a sinking feeling that I’m underestimating the number.

And information, at least when instantiated, has “mass” in a sense, and the upper limit of the amount of information in a region of spacetime is delineated by the Bekenstein entropy description.  So there’s only so many binary strings you can generate before you turn everything into a black hole.

Something like all that, anyway.

I may have been imprecise in some of what I said, but when you’re dealing with very large numbers, precision is only theoretically interesting.  For instance, we**** have found Pi to far more than the number of digits needed to calculate the circumference of the visible universe down to the Planck length.  It would require only about 40 digits of Pi to get to that precision to the size of a hydrogen atom, and those are only about 10^25 Planck lengths across, so we wouldn’t expect to need much more than 65 digits of Pi to get that precise, but let’s be generous and use 100 digits.

How many digits of Pi have actually been “discovered” by mathematicians?  Over 105 trillion digits.  Talk about angels dancing in the heads of pins!  It’s literally physically impossible, according to the laws of quantum mechanics, even to test whether that number precisely defines the ratio of any given circle to its diameter by measuring it.  One cannot, in principle, measure finely enough.

Still it just goes to show that mathematics is vastly larger in scope than any instantiated, superficial reality.  Information is deeper than one might think…so to speak.  But, then, so are minds themselves, vastly deeper.

As Idris/the TARDIS asked in Doctor Who, Series 6, episode 4, “Are all people like this?  So much bigger on the inside?”  Yes, Idris, I suspect they are, even those people we don’t like and feel the urge to denigrate.

That’s enough for today, I think.  I’ve achieved nothing, really, other than write a Thursday blog post, but then again, that’s all I meant to do.  I hope you have among the better half of all the vast number of possible days available to you.

TTFN

*If you’re reading this, though, I clearly did survive.  I have mixed feelings about that.

**How much larger?  Soooo much larger that if you subtracted a googol of something from 10^1,800,000,000 of something, you would not change it to any extent measurable even by the most precise instruments humans have ever created.  And a googol is already something like 10 to the 19th times as large as the total estimated number of protons and neutrons in the accessible universe.

***No pun intended.

****Actually, I had nothing to do with it; it’s just the sort of “royal we”***** kind of thing everyone uses when discussing the accomplishments of humanity as a whole.

*****Not to be confused with royal wee.  That’s the sort of weird, niche thing one might find for sale in mason jars on the dark web.  Be careful if you’re into such things.  I wouldn’t buy it unless you’re sure of the source, so to speak.

by

Where be your gibes now? your gambols? your blogs? your flashes of merriment, that were wont to set the table on a roar?

yorick skull and friend

Hello, good morning, and welcome to another Thursday.  It’s 4-11, the day of information!  You could say it’s the first of the middle two Thursdays of April 2019.  Although, let’s see…yes, since April has only thirty days (things would be different if it had thirty-two), there will be only four Thursdays this month, the outer two and the inner two (if you will).  Maybe I’m trying too hard to split things into binary parts, but I am listening to a biography of Claude Shannon, so perhaps such a desire can be excused; I’m not just a nut.  I am a nut, of course, but I’m not just a nut.

I’ve recently released another audio blog on Iterations of Zero, about the importance of trying to disprove one’s own theorems, and I have another audio blog already being edited, which I’ll probably put out before the end of the week.

No one could ever honestly say of me that I don’t put out.

I’m also going to be turning both of those audio blog postings into YouTube “videos” for those who prefer to use that platform to get their fix of audio material.  But whether those videos will happen before the end of the work week is far from certain.

I’m sad to have to report that I must put my novella on hold for the time being.  I’m just not making progress nearly quickly enough on editing/rewriting Unanimity, and that’s a long book…I need to speed it up because it would be nice to be able to publish it—and Free-Range Meat as well—sometime before I die.  At the rate I’ve been going, that seems not only far from guaranteed (as no such thing is ever guaranteed) but frankly improbable.  So, I’m going to have to put new writing on hold, with the specific exception of these weekly blogs, in order to focus on editing and rewriting my previously written work.  It’s a bit of a wrench, since I do like the new novella.  I also thought of a funny new short story idea this morning, but…well, that idea is now jotted, nicely alongside its colleagues, in the note-taking app on my smartphone.  There it can wait.  As for the novella, I’ll be able to pick up on it where I left off with minimal trouble.  I’ve always been lucky, or blessed, or whatever you want to call it, in that regard.

Of course, I’d prefer to do my new writing and my editing full-time, which I suspect is quite a common sort of lament among authors and writers and musicians and artists of all stripes.  The need to pay the bills, and therefore to work, and therefore to commute, and therefore to burn up precious and unrecoverable chunks of one’s lifetime doing things that have absolutely no deep value to oneself, and probably none to anyone else, is maddening.  I suppose everything is trivial at some level, so I shouldn’t be too despondent.  Or maybe it’s okay to be despondent as long as one recognizes that such despondence as the inescapable nature of life.  It’s overrated, that’s all I can say.

Well, okay, that’s clearly not all I can say.  Anyone who’s read anything of this very blog entry, let alone previous ones, and/or my audio blogs and other entries on Iterations of Zero, and/or any of my books and Facebook and Twitter postings knows that’s not all I can say.  I talk and write far, far too much to be able to make such a claim with any degree of honesty.  If I were that self-deluded, I might as well be a solipsist, which is something I just don’t see myself being able to do.

Solipsism could seem sort of lonely, if one were seriously to entertain it, but given how lonely life is anyway, it might be a comfort to imagine that such is the fundamental nature of reality.  I don’t know.  I’m probably overthinking this.

And since I’ve come to the point where I’m sharing my random thoughts on loneliness and solipsism, I suppose that’s as good a hint as any that I’ve reached the end of any productive value to this week’s blog entry.  I hope you all have a wonderful week and a good remainder of the month, and in general as good a future as can possibly be managed.  If I find myself in a position to pull strings to make it happen, I’ll be sure to pull them.  In the meantime…

TTFN