khafra comments on Open Thread: April 2010, Part 2 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: Unnamed 08 April 2010 03:09AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (194)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: CannibalSmith 08 April 2010 12:34:32PM -1 points [-]

Help me, LessWrong. I want to build a case for

  1. Information is a terminal value without exception.
  2. All information is inherently good.
  3. We must gather and preserve information for its own sake.

These phrasings should mean the exact same thing. Correct me if they don't.

Elaboration: Most people readily agree that most information is good most of the time. I want to see if I can go all the way and build a convincing argument that all information is good all of the time, or as close to it as I can get. That misuse of information is problem about the misuser and not the information ("guns don't kill people"). Specific cases include: endangered species (DNA is best stored in living organisms), viruses (all three kinds), forbidden books, child pornography and other shocking information, free speech, Archive.org, The Rosetta Project, research on race.

Please post arguments and counterarguments in their own comments and separately from general discussion comments.

Comment author: khafra 08 April 2010 12:53:52PM 4 points [-]

One thing you may want to address is what you mean by "gather and preserve information." The maximum amount of information possible to know about the universe is presently stored and encoded as the universe. The information that's useful to us is reductions and simplifications of this information, which can only be stored by destroying some of the original set of information.

Comment author: Document 08 April 2010 09:41:11PM *  1 point [-]

In other words, "information" in this case might be an unnatural category.

Comment author: khafra 08 April 2010 10:47:42PM 1 point [-]

Yes. CannibalSmith's usage sounded to me somewhere indeterminately in between the information theoretic definition and the common meaning which is indistinct but similar to "knowledge." My request for clarification assumes the strictly information theoretic definition isn't quite what he wanted.

Comment author: CannibalSmith 08 April 2010 04:21:00PM 0 points [-]

My mom complains I take things too literally. Now I know what she means. :)

Seriously though, I mean readable, usable, computable information. The kind which can conceivably turned into knowledge. I could also say, we want to lossly compress the Universe, like an mp3, with as good a ratio as possible.