Anyone who has read a book about Pompeii, and seen the picture of one of the casts of the victims, know that it is wise to stay too long in the neighborhood of a rumbling volcano. This silent testimony is given by a man who was vaporized in the first few seconds after he was covered by hot ash. Nothing is left of him except the space his body occupied before it turned to smoke.
One of the milestones of the science of archeology is the process of pouring plaster into the cavity left by our unfortunate but (word for not making a decision fast) friend. The concept of making someting (a casting) from nothing (the space our friend occupied) is not patentable. It is valuable. It is the basis of many insights and discoveries in science. In itself, it is an insight, a discovery. The process of casting the void, of pouring a mixture of plaster and water of a certain consistency and character into a hole drilled into a high point in the cavity is a discovery, an invention.
The idea of somehow working something that is not there is fundamental to science. Many discoveries involve collecting all of the information about something and then "seeing" what is not there. Our most popular TV Detectives, such as Columbo and Jessica Fletcher, solve the crime by looking at a photo of the crime scene and finally seeing the clue that is not there. "Look at the picture, on the dresser, there is no ....!", Jessica says. The missing "thing" is usually the determinant factor in nailing the criminal. The "nail" is driven by a sequence of logic which is inescapable. ...therefor YOU did it. QED. Jessica "knows" who did it before we the audiance does. The audiance figures it out one a a time, pop, pop, pop, like flashbulbs going off, or popcorn popping. Jessica is a "wise" sleuth.
Every one of us seems to have a working definition of words (which represent concepts) like "knowledge" and "wisdom". At an earlier time in my like I probably would have just defined what I want these terms to mean specifically and gone on about my work. But now I am compelled to admit that I cannot invent a definition, I must discover the definition that already exists in peoples minds. Each mind has its own. Collectively, those minds which interact to form out mainstream of language, creat a consensus, working definition.
Douglas Hoffstatter, in ... , says there is no such thing as "the" human mind, there is only "a" human mind. And another, and another, .... all of us. All participants in a language, writers, talkers, listeners, comentators, each affects the current working meaning of each word in the language. Sub-groups and splinter groups, such as scientists and teen agers, use old words for new specific or unique meanings. Often, the meanings are shifted to encompass new (they think) experiences for teenagers. What used to be "cool" is now "xxxx". Meanings of teenager words changes with clothing styles and, of course, with the membership. Scientists tend to nail down words with permanent, specific, definitions, which may become decoupled from the living language itself, such as "entropy" or "bit". These two particular words are frozen in time by Claude Shannon's formulation of Information Theory.
Today, we see the bizarre situation of words with specific mathematical definitions re-entering the language, with a bucket full of loaded meanings, being used by nearly everyone to convey meanings which are extended from the specific theoretical to include a near mystical experience of knowing. In other words, we see technologists use the word "information", with its preloaded, undefined, extended technical meanings, in a context where most ordinary, non-technical speakers, would use the word "knowledge".
Bill Bottorff
July 19, 1996
To WIK Home Page
To bbott Home Page
To AusBComp Home Page
email the Bill Bottorff
bbott@ausbcomp.com