The concept of UNCERTAINTY is closely related to "INFORMATION", and to entropy. In the Shannon definition, information is defined as a "measure of uncertainty". What is not defined is who or what is uncertain?
In technical fields we deal with uncertainty in terms of probabilities. They are looked at as if they are scientific concrete things, like facts and Truths. However, the thing with probabilities, is that they change depending on what you "know".
OK good. I think I understand. So, are you saying that conformance-based people are always certain, and this is because they can’t cope with uncertainty. They may be ‘certain' of one thing in 2020 and the opposite in 2024, but they achieve this feeling of certainty by shutting out the possibility of uncertainty. They don’t take responsibility for uncertainty, they simply sit back passively and wait for the next dose of propaganda.
Also that truth-based people CAN cope with uncertainty, and take responsibility for their uncertainty, leading to active search for further information?
I know that I am not doing a good job of explaining things, but they way I came into all this was through "Shannon Information", Stephen Meyer and quantum mechanics.
When my flat becomes untidy, it is because there is a build up of entropy. It requires a mind to reverse this, decrease the entropy, and tidy up. Consciousness is that non-algorithmic thing which reverses entropy. Determinism, automation, top-down control of everything, machine societies are fatal in the end because they eschew free-will (consciousness) and therefore cannot manage the natural build up of entropy.
We live in age in which people cannot cope with the complexity of modern life. Instead, they seek certainty and automation. It seems the easy way out.
Entropy is connected to "information", and "uncertainty". Information is defined as negative entropy, a reduction in uncertainty. There's no way to avoid it -- there always has to be a mind in the loop. There is no information without mind. Knowledge requires a knower (Rudolf Peierls).
>Also that truth-based people CAN cope with uncertainty
Yes. To a point. But think we all have our limitations. Including me. Lol! :)
Allow me to say, finally for now, all this means that we heading for collapse. I do not think the "global elite", the State, the Establishment or whatever you want to call it, has everything all figured out. They might think they did, but are now discovering the opposite. I think large corporations and institutions are in disarray.
I think it will be like an African country in which the government gets in their limos over night with a boot full of cash, and drives off.
And this is good!
There will be a renaissance afterwards. But it's shitty thing to live through.
And to add, there is something very wrong with computers. In your article, you referred to information as being "true" or "false". However, you recognise that what humans beings have a merely models of reality, some models being functional, others not (all perceptions are not equal!).
When I was young, the future was digital! We say that as long as you have enough definition (say 24-bit for audio), then that is the same thing as reality. What does digital do? It collapses things into discrete states which can therefore manipulated deterministically, i.e. with absolute certainty. That is why your MP3 does not degrade each time you copy it, like a vinyl record does.
But something was lost. The uncertainty was vital. It was is the vital thing of life.
Shannon himself defined the fundamental unit of information being a "bit". I think this is mistaken. Perhaps there is no such thing. Perhaps it is infinity?!
We have been told for so long that everything is digital, we believe it. Computes are digital. DNA is digital. The plank length is digital (discrete). I don't think it is true.
I think you're on the right lines, but the distinction is simpler and more profound.
Some people want CERTAINTY. Certainty may or may not have anything to do with "truth", just so long as it is certain.
A smaller percentage want "truth", with a small "t". Truth with a small "t" contains UNCERTAINTY. This is hard and stressful. No one wants uncertainty.
>Many conformance-based people now admit that governments and health authorities may have made some mistakes
I would suggest that what conformers say is this: "I'm following to data" or "I'm following The Science". This could mean absolutely anything. It could mean that they believe that they are just "right", and then select the data to justify it. By "data", I suspect few are looking at spreadsheets and plotting graphs, but merely listening to talking heads and experts. But when the data changes, they change their mind but were never wrong, because they were following the data.
In other words, they refuse to or are unable to "think". Didn't Hannah Arendt write on this -- the banality of evil and those who refuse to think?
For those who seek "truth", well they are never going to get it. Truth with a capital "T" is for God. What humans can achieve is HONESTY. This is a good functional abstraction of reality but, if we're honest, always contains uncertainty.
So the distinction is between those who can cope with uncertainty, and those who can't.
And just what is UNCERTAINTY anyway? ... (more to follow)
I referred to UNCERTAINTY in my previous reply.
The concept of UNCERTAINTY is closely related to "INFORMATION", and to entropy. In the Shannon definition, information is defined as a "measure of uncertainty". What is not defined is who or what is uncertain?
In technical fields we deal with uncertainty in terms of probabilities. They are looked at as if they are scientific concrete things, like facts and Truths. However, the thing with probabilities, is that they change depending on what you "know".
Hi Andy!
OK good. I think I understand. So, are you saying that conformance-based people are always certain, and this is because they can’t cope with uncertainty. They may be ‘certain' of one thing in 2020 and the opposite in 2024, but they achieve this feeling of certainty by shutting out the possibility of uncertainty. They don’t take responsibility for uncertainty, they simply sit back passively and wait for the next dose of propaganda.
Also that truth-based people CAN cope with uncertainty, and take responsibility for their uncertainty, leading to active search for further information?
I would say conformance based people would prioritise certainty.
Had a parallel discussion recently in which things were expressed in terms of "attachment" and "authenticity". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3bynimi8HQ
I know that I am not doing a good job of explaining things, but they way I came into all this was through "Shannon Information", Stephen Meyer and quantum mechanics.
When my flat becomes untidy, it is because there is a build up of entropy. It requires a mind to reverse this, decrease the entropy, and tidy up. Consciousness is that non-algorithmic thing which reverses entropy. Determinism, automation, top-down control of everything, machine societies are fatal in the end because they eschew free-will (consciousness) and therefore cannot manage the natural build up of entropy.
We live in age in which people cannot cope with the complexity of modern life. Instead, they seek certainty and automation. It seems the easy way out.
Entropy is connected to "information", and "uncertainty". Information is defined as negative entropy, a reduction in uncertainty. There's no way to avoid it -- there always has to be a mind in the loop. There is no information without mind. Knowledge requires a knower (Rudolf Peierls).
>Also that truth-based people CAN cope with uncertainty
Yes. To a point. But think we all have our limitations. Including me. Lol! :)
Allow me to say, finally for now, all this means that we heading for collapse. I do not think the "global elite", the State, the Establishment or whatever you want to call it, has everything all figured out. They might think they did, but are now discovering the opposite. I think large corporations and institutions are in disarray.
I think it will be like an African country in which the government gets in their limos over night with a boot full of cash, and drives off.
And this is good!
There will be a renaissance afterwards. But it's shitty thing to live through.
And to add, there is something very wrong with computers. In your article, you referred to information as being "true" or "false". However, you recognise that what humans beings have a merely models of reality, some models being functional, others not (all perceptions are not equal!).
When I was young, the future was digital! We say that as long as you have enough definition (say 24-bit for audio), then that is the same thing as reality. What does digital do? It collapses things into discrete states which can therefore manipulated deterministically, i.e. with absolute certainty. That is why your MP3 does not degrade each time you copy it, like a vinyl record does.
But something was lost. The uncertainty was vital. It was is the vital thing of life.
Shannon himself defined the fundamental unit of information being a "bit". I think this is mistaken. Perhaps there is no such thing. Perhaps it is infinity?!
We have been told for so long that everything is digital, we believe it. Computes are digital. DNA is digital. The plank length is digital (discrete). I don't think it is true.
I liked your conclusion. Yes, it will be annoying as things are rationalised to fit.
I think you're on the right lines, but the distinction is simpler and more profound.
Some people want CERTAINTY. Certainty may or may not have anything to do with "truth", just so long as it is certain.
A smaller percentage want "truth", with a small "t". Truth with a small "t" contains UNCERTAINTY. This is hard and stressful. No one wants uncertainty.
>Many conformance-based people now admit that governments and health authorities may have made some mistakes
I would suggest that what conformers say is this: "I'm following to data" or "I'm following The Science". This could mean absolutely anything. It could mean that they believe that they are just "right", and then select the data to justify it. By "data", I suspect few are looking at spreadsheets and plotting graphs, but merely listening to talking heads and experts. But when the data changes, they change their mind but were never wrong, because they were following the data.
In other words, they refuse to or are unable to "think". Didn't Hannah Arendt write on this -- the banality of evil and those who refuse to think?
For those who seek "truth", well they are never going to get it. Truth with a capital "T" is for God. What humans can achieve is HONESTY. This is a good functional abstraction of reality but, if we're honest, always contains uncertainty.
So the distinction is between those who can cope with uncertainty, and those who can't.
And just what is UNCERTAINTY anyway? ... (more to follow)
See also a wonderful insight by Jessica Rose on https://jessicar.substack.com/p/merry-christmas-to-all-almost-70000/comments
(A link to the Ros Nealon-Cook interview is https://youtu.be/4Iqa4CoMciU?si=wmNxKMiFrZX8iHfq)