I Didn’t Die!

I didn’t die. Adventuring was fun. I jumped off a cliff. Lake superior is cold. Hurray.

Today I just want to look at this little bit in section 4.6.12. There’s a statement in there talking about necessity of self-processing information leading to a quantum theory of information: “However, the linguistic reduction of reality is superficially macroscopic. Just as a perfectly self-contained language must be self-precessing … so must the information of which it consists. This leads to the concept of self-processing information and ultimately to a microscopic (quantum) theory of information.”

This obviously isn’t just an appeal to quantum mechanics for fun or for perceived credibility. If we look at section 9.2 he states informally that a quantum of X, whatever X may be, is the smallest indivisible unit of X. So a quantum theory of information is about indivisible units of information. Since information must ultimately be self-processing we end up with info-cognition: dual-aspect state-processing quanta of “information”, though I have to argue at this point it becomes more than what we would typically consider to be information.

I can’t help but see a connection between this and syndiffeonesis. Except, in this case, instead of medium and state it appears to be state and processing. I have to suspect I’m missing something and that one quanta of info-cognition is one unisection operator that recursively performs unisection on some minimal input and where the processing of the info-cognition is equivalent to the medium resulting from the unisection operation. Still not quite sure how that would work.

Further in the section Langan suggests that the theory of information is in line for the same extension that transforms propositional logic into predicate logic and then model theory. Still not sure how all this fits together but I’m guessing he’s managed to put it into a fairly compressed package. I also wonder why he chose model theory rather than proof theory, and for much the same reason he once questioned his calculus teacher: reality changes and computes whereas model theory seems more static. Proof theory seems more fit to change.