For the GGU-model, What is Specific Information?
In what follows, a few terms taken from the book "Science Declares Our Universe is Intelligently Designed" are used. However, even without having the terms defined, you should be able to get a basic idea as to the content of the phrase "specific information."
The phrase specific information is used 97 times in this book. It is employed in various contexts so that the reader can gain an intuitive idea as to what this primitive notion entails. One comprehends a primitive entity by describing its properties. Notice that many different individuals using many different languages can observe the same event. They can then describe, in their own language, their sensory-produced observations. Each individual has comprehension via the meanings they mentally associate with these different language forms. Physical science applied throughout the world depends upon having a fixed mental meaning for these language described sensory-impressions. The meaning needs to be, some how or other, unique. Specific information applies to this unique feature. But, for applications to physical or physical-like processes, informational instructions are the most significant specific information aspect.
As is well known, Shannon information is not "information" in the sense of being meaningful. It refers to statistical notions relative to communicating strings of symbols. This form of "information" is independent from any "meanings" for such strings of symbols. Gitt (1997) information is an immaterial notion that applies to "communicating" strings of symbols (codes) that are "meaningful" to a both a sender and a receiver. In this case, specific information is based upon the verb "to inform." For the GGU-model, specific information uses a basic concept - "to give form to." Hence, this is the reason informational instructions are significant. Depending upon the tools one uses, each general description F is directly associated with an instruction r(F), a member of our language L, that as directed by r(F) when the tools are applied the object being described by F is produced. An important requirement is that no instruction is an F. Further, any finite collection of instructions can be written as one instruction. For the GGU-model, the instruction gives exact details as to how the subparticles are to be combined together in order to duplicate exactly the informational content of each F. The notion of instructions is taken from the information notion used in biology. There is an operator G, modeled after human activities, that uses an instruction and produces all requisite subparticle combinations.
Most mathematical models for physical behavior model properties. They represent notions that do not actually appear in the physical-world. That is, "Nature" does not stamp the properties on the objects themselves so that the properties are directly observed. In most applied cases, mathematics deals with symbols that "represent" physical properties but the symbols themselves are not the actual properties. On the other hand, basic mathematical logic studies the symbols themselves independent from any meanings one might apply to the symbols. But then the symbols studied can be interpreted in various applied and physical ways. As far as I can determine, the GGU-model is the first mathematical model that uses observed physical objects and observed behavior as they are "represented" by members of a broadly defined "language" and various operators that are modeled after definable human mental activities. For example, the basic operator *S is not concerned with any universe dependent properties.
Technically, two different notions are used. The first notion is a meaningful sensory-produced description while the second is the actual physical event that corresponds to the description.
A physical event is a physical form, a pattern, a physical phenomenon, a "real" physical object or system in the sense that it either yields human or machine sensory-impressions or is accepted to exist by a science-community.Descriptions are represented by a symbol like F(i) that represents any member of the set all equivalent sensory-produced descriptions. The "i" denotes a moment in primitive time and this moment is noted within the F(i) word-form. The F(i) corresponds to an actual physical event often denoted by E(i). The term equivalent means that and member of the set of equivalent descriptions yields the same event via the G operator. Recall that "operators" have other technical names such as "functions" and throughout physical science many operators represent a collection of physical processes. Prior to 2004, using GGU-model terminology, technical procedures did not exist to model the correspondence between the specific information contained in a description and the results obtain by G. However, this is no longer the case. There is now a model for the idea of "specific information" via the instruction notion that faithfully reproduces the description. The following restates the basic requirements.
In the GGU-model, and an instruction |||(i) is directly associated with F(i), where F(i) faithfully describes all sensory impressions or assumed impressions that described a specific physical form E(i). The instruction |||(i) is the same for any equivalent description. The instruction gives exact details as to how the ultrasubpartricles are to be combined together in order to duplicate exactly each F(i). Each |||(i) and the operator G discussed in the article Fundamental Processes form a type of bridge between sensory-produced descriptions and the things being described.
I present two illustrations for how instructions seem to behave. Let E(i) represent a real physical event. Let F(i) represent one of the apparent equivalent descriptions for this physical event. Let |||(i) represent the corresponding instruction. The instruction |||(i) is applied by the *hyperfinite summation process *G and then with the application of the st operator, the corresponding physical event E(i) is faithfully produced. The instruction |||(i) is also called the M-process. Let => mean "yields." Here is a simple GGU-model illustration for this correspondence.
(1) F(i) + (F(i),|||(i)) => |||(i) then |||(i) + (|||(i), E(i)) => E(i)
The + operation denotes a "process" that need not be identified. However, the + also can be described as a basic "rule" that can be described in terms of a higher-intelligence process. Using this terminology, from F(i) and (1) application of a higher-intelligence process yields E(i). The complete set of all {(F(i),|||(i))} form a logic-system of considerable importance. It is the rules required to apply this logic-system that yield the higher-intelligence signature. Consider the set {(F(i),|||(i)),(|||(i),E(i))} = A, where i varies over primitive time. Then A also forms a logic-system, where E(i) is a representation for an event. Denote the general logic-system procedures by the +. The following scheme (2) models this process.
(2) {F(i)} + A => {E(i)}.
Hence, (2) reveals an ID-signature for the entire process of taking each F(i) and producing a physical event via an instruction. Of course, this fact can be ignored and the + process need not be so identified. It's a matter of choice or maybe evidence. The forms (1) and (2) can be extended to physical-like substratum events.
Since our universe exists, then one can assume from indirect evidence that "something" that "behaves" like (2) exists. Further, the procedure has an intelligent design *signature. (See * below.) These results can be rationally assumed to be an added feature or refinement that is purposely created so that human beings can deduce from such sensory-produced descriptions physical-system properties. These properties allow us to build our man made universe and predict physical behavior. This assumption can be selected even if one claims that such indirect evidence also satisfies a rather improbably evolutionary process.
Here is another analogue model for specific information and instructions. For this illustration, when specific information is applied and produces a specific form, it appears to correspond to a logical process. Consider the image notion as displayed by a TV or computer screen. One can devise a displayable program that will allow the screen to show pigs flowing over Washington DC. The program represents all of the "physical laws" that would yield this behavior. Although the program language is fixed, an alteration in the program leads to an alteration in pig behavior. However, it is the inner logical workings of the computer that would translate this program into the images on the screen. Note that these inner workings would not function in this manner unless instructions were presented in a translatable program language and, of course, translated in such a manner that yields specific actions. You could consider the "translation into appropriate action" process and the results of this translation process as an analogue model for the "operational content" of the instructions as represented by computer program. (Of course, although not completely necessary, it can be rationally assumed that the program was constructed by application of the "mind" of the programmer.)
Although not relevant to the displayed forms (1) and (2), it is interesting to note that there is a comprehensive instruction H' that can be used in place of each |||(i) that leads not just each E(i), but all of them even when the set of F(i) is infinite or includes pure descriptions for physical-like events that take place in the substratum. Please note that the statistical modeling using Shannon information is not relevant to GGU-model specific information and instructions as discussed above.
*Such signatures need not be related to what constitutes an ordinary language direct signature. For example, consider an unsigned painting. An expert studies the brush strokes, the colors, the canvas, and many other procedures the artist has followed to create the images. He then announces that, in all likelihood, Johanna produced the painting. The investigated features correspond to Johanna's methods and are considered a signature.
Eccles, J. and D. N. Robinson. 1984. The Wonder of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind. The Free Press, NY.
Gitt, W. 1997. In the Beginning Information. CLV - Christiche Literatur-Verbreitung e.V. Bielefeld, Germany.
Herrmann, R. A. 2004. Nonstandard consequence operators generated by mixed logic-systems. http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0412562
Herrmann. R. A. 2001. Hyperfinite and standard unifications for physical theories. International Journal for Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, 28(2). For typographical corrections, see the paper archived at http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0105012
Herrmann, R. A. 1999. Information theory, consequence operators, and the origin of life, C. R. S. Quarterly 36:125-134. Erratum 37:136