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, in a definable sense, it is not itself unique.
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. Specific information is based upon the verb "to inform." Specific information uses a basic meaning for this verb - "to give form to."
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 operators taken from mathematical logic. 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 symbols like F that represents equivalent sensory-produced descriptions. The F corresponds to an actual physical event often denoted by E. Prior to 2004, technical procedures did not exist to model this correspondence using GGU-model terminology. However, there exists the idea of "specific information."
In the GGU-model, (physical) specific information g(i) is considered as "something" "contained in" or "associated with" F(i) that gives a specific physical form E(i) to F(i). It is a type of bridge between sensory-produced descriptions and the things being described. To correspond to a basic property of the frozen segments (freeze frames) F(i), it is required that for any nonempty finite set of events, say {E(1), E(2),. . . , E(n)}, where each E(i) corresponds to g(i), there exists specific information G that gives the same E(1) as does g(1), the same E(2) as does g(2), . . ., the same E(n) as does g(n). This is the sense in which specific information is not unique.(Due to how the creationary attributes of God are Biblically presented and modeled, for a theologically interpretation, consider specific information as a substratum "substance" that gives physical form to His "thoughts.")
There is now a correspondence between "symbols" that represent physical objects and events, and the actual physical objects and events as they exist or occur in our physical world. The Herrmann (2004) paper on mixed logic-systems, implies that specific information as presented by symbols satisfies the general properties for finite consequence operators. Using the correspondence, this implies that the corresponding physical objects and events should also satisfy the basic properties of a consequence operator.
I present two illustrations for how specific information seems to behave. Let {E} represent a real physical event. Let {a} represent one of the apparent equivalent descriptions for this physical event. Let {|||} "represent" stuff that might exist and not be part of our physical world, but is physical-like and it has a few properties. Let => mean "yields." Here is a simple GGU-model illustration for this correspondence.
{E} => {a} then {a} + {(a,|||)} => {|||} then {|||} + {(|||,E)} => {E}.
This illustration can be re-expressed in various ways such as
{|||} then {|||} + {(|||,E)} => {E} => {a} then {a} + {(a,|||)} => {|||}. Etc.
It's the {|||} + {(|||, E)} part that relates {|||} to {E} via {(|||, E)}. The set {(a,|||)} is an example of a mixed logic-system. The + operation denotes a "process" that need not be identified. However, the + also can be described as a basic "rule." The "rule" can be described in terms of a mental procedure. But, by definition, this is a procedure that applies only to a higher intelligence. Of course, such a signature can be ignored and the + process need not be so identified. It's a matter of choice or maybe evidence.
Is this but an illustration having nothing to do with reality or are there actual objects g that correspond to the symbols |||? Can one drop the "might" from the phrase "stuff that might exist" and let them be actual physical-like objects? One could speculate that the ||| represents an object that does exist in the substratum or at a "higher level" so to speak.
It is predicted in the technical paper The existence of comprehensive specific information that there exists a single specific information object H that yields each standard event taken from an event sequence. The H is the bridge between each member of a "developmental paradigm," each member of which describes an event, and the event itself.What evidence exists that seems to imply that such ||| things exist? Well, {|||} is needed to generate special ultralogics such as those generated by {(a,|||)} and {(|||,E)}. Evidence for existence of such relations comes from various sources. Theologically, they can be used to produce miracle events. They can be used to explain mental influences. And, relative to mental influences, Eccles and Robinson (1984) postulate that there may be some type of immaterial medium, not displayed by laboratory machines, that mediates mental influences. Biblically, there seems to be only one created entity that could be, at the least, related to such an immaterial medium. This is the human supernatural spirit. Since the GGU-model implies that we can have, as yet, no in-depth comprehension about ultranatural events, ultranatural rules and the like, I do not contend that this immaterial medium IS the human spirit. All I can generally state is when the set {|||} is used to produce an event, then the event corresponds to a description produced either by means of human or machines sensors or scientific theories. Further, the procedure has an (higher) 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.
Here is another analogue model for specific information. 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 the instructions or laws that would require 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 these programs into the images on the screen. It is the inner logical workings restricted to specific instructions that are guided by "computer information," information that appears related to specific information, and that leads to the displayed images. Note that these inner workings would not function in this manner unless the 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 specific information as represented by computer information. (Of course, although not completely necessary, it can be rationally assumed that specific information is related to the "mind" of the programmer.)
In the physical world and using the subparticle notion, a consequence operator applied to an ultraword, yields the operational content, the subparticle formations, for the specific information represented by the ultraword. Thus, the notion of specific information is understood not as you would a material entity but rather operationally. A simple set-theoretic notion allows one to compare, in certain cases, the "amount" of specific information "contained within" an image. Within our universe, variations in a physical event, not accounted for by a description, are accounted for by universe dependent consequence operators or ultranatural laws. Hence, statistical modeling using Shannon notions is not relevant to specific information as here described.
*Such signatures need not be related to a language. 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