Skip to main content

Mind the Gap: Transitions Between Concepts of Information in Varied Domains

Part of the Studies in History and Philosophy of Science book series (AUST,volume 34)

Abstract

The concept of ‘information’ in five different realms – technological, physical, biological, social and philosophical – is briefly examined. The ‘gaps’ between these conceptions are discussed, and unifying frameworks of diverse nature, including those of Shannon/Wiener, Landauer, Stonier, Bates and Floridi, are examined. The value of attempting to bridge the gaps, while avoiding shallow analogies, is explained. With information physics gaining general acceptance, and biology gaining the status of an information science, it seems rational to look for links, relationships, analogies and even helpful metaphors between them and the library/information sciences. Prospects for doing so, involving concepts of complexity and emergence, are suggested.

Keywords

  • Meaningful Information
  • Living Thing
  • Information Concept
  • Information Term
  • Physical Realm

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-6973-1_6
  • Chapter length: 21 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-94-007-6973-1
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

References

  • Adler, J. 2010. Epistemological problems of testimony. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta (Winter 2010 edition) [online]. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/testimony-episprob. Accessed 6 Aug 2012.

  • Atkins, P. 2007. Four laws that drive the universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audi, R. 1997. The place of testimony in the fabric of knowledge and justification. American Philosophical Quarterly 34(4): 405–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auletta, G. 2011. Cognitive biology: Dealing with information from bacteria to minds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avramescu, A. 1980. Coherent information energy and entropy. Journal of Documentation 36(4): 293–312.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Baltimore, D. 2002. How biology became an information science. In The invisible future, ed. P.J. Denning, 43–55. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrow, J.D. 2007. New theories of everything. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrow, J.D., P.C.W. Davies, and C.L. Harper. 2004. Science and ultimate reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, J., and J. Seligman. 1997. Information flow: The logic of distributed systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, M. J. 2005. Information and knowledge: An evolutionary framework for information. Information Research 10(4): paper 239 [online]. http://informationr.net/ir/10-4/paper239.html. Accessed 9 Sept 2012.

  • Bates, M.J. 2006. Fundamental forms of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57(8): 1033–1045.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bawden, D. 2001. The shifting terminologies of information. ASLIB Proceedings 53(3): 93–98.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bawden, D. 2007a. Information as self-organised complexity: A unifying viewpoint. Information Research 12(4): paper colis31 [online]. http://informationr.net/ir/12-4/colis/colis31.html. Accessed 9 Sept 2012.

  • Bawden, D. 2007b. Organised complexity, meaning and understanding: An approach to a unified view of information for information science. ASLIB Proceedings 59(4/5): 307–327.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bawden, D. 2012. On the gaining of understanding; syntheses, themes and information analysis. Library and Information Research 36(112): 147–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bawden, D., and L. Robinson. 2012. Introduction to information science. London: Facet Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belkin, N.J. 1978. Information concepts for information science. Journal of Documentation 34(1): 55–85.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Belkin, N.J., and S.E. Robertson. 1976. Information science and the phenomenon of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 27(4): 197–204.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Berners-Lee, T., and L. Kagal. 2008. The fractal nature of the semantic web. AI Magazine 29(3): 29–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brillouin, L. 1962. Science and information theory, 2nd ed. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brookes, B.C. 1980. The foundations of information science. Part III. Quantitative aspects: Objective maps and subjective landscapes. Journal of Information Science 2(6): 269–275.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Buckland, M. 1991. Information as thing. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 42(5): 351–360.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Budd, J. 2013. Re-conceiving information studies: A quantum approach. Journal of Documentation 69(4), in press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, P. 2010. The many worlds of Hugh Everett III. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capurro, R., and B. Hjørland. 2003. The concept of information. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 37: 343–411.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P., and S. Holwell. 1998. Information, systems and information systems: Making sense of the field. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, C. 1994. Operationalizing the notion of information as a subjective construct. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 45(7): 465–476.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cornelius, I. 2002. Theorising information for information science. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 36: 393–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dartnell, L. 2007. Life in the universe: A beginner’s guide. Oxford: Oneworld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P., and N.H. Gregersen. 2010. Information and the nature of reality: From physics to metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Day, R.E. 2005. Clearing up “implicit knowledge”: Implications for knowledge management, information science, psychology, and social epistemology. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 56(6): 630–635.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Denbigh, K. 1981. How subjective is entropy? Chemistry in Britain 17(4): 168–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, D. 2011. The beginning of infinity: Explanations that transform the world. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dretske, F.I. 1981. Knowledge and the flow of information. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, T.L., and J.S. Semura. 2007. Information loss as a foundational principle for the second law of thermodynamics. Foundations of Physics 37(12): 1767–1773.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L. 2005. Power laws in the information production process: Lotkaian informetrics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floridi, L. 2010a. Information: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floridi, L. 2010b. The philosophy of information: Ten years later. Metaphilosophy 41(3): 402–419.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Floridi, L. 2011a. Semantic conceptions of information. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta (Spring 2011 edition) [online]. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/information-semantic. Accessed 6 Aug 2012.

  • Floridi, L. 2011b. The philosophy of information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Frické, M. 2009. The knowledge pyramid: A critique of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of Information Science 35(2): 131–142.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Frieden, B.R. 1999. Physics from Fisher information: A unification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furner, J. 2010. Philosophy and information studies. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 44: 161–200.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gatlin, L.L. 1972. Information theory and the living system. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gell-Mann, M. 1995. The quark and the jaguar, revised ed. London: Abacus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gell-Mann, M., and S. Lloyd. 1998. Information measures, effective complexity and total information. Complexity 2(1): 44–52.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gleick, J. 2011. The information: A history, a theory, a flood. London: Fourth Estate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goonatilake, S. 1991. The evolution of information: Lineages in gene, culture and artefact. London: Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, B. 2011. The hidden reality: Parallel universes and the deep laws of the cosmos. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargatti, I. 2006. The Martians of science: Five physicists who changed the twentieth century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, R.V.L. 1928. Transmission of information. Bell System Technical Journal 7(3): 535–563.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hazen, R.M., P.L. Griffin, J.M. Carothers, and J.W. Szostak. 2007. Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(suppl. 1): 8574–8581.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hjørland, B. 2007. Information: Objective or subjective/situational? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58(10): 1448–1456.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hjørland, B. 2008. The controversy over the concept of “information”: A rejoinder to Professor Bates. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60(3): 643.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, K. 1984. Negentropy and the evolution of chemical recruitment in ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). Journal of Theoretical Biology 106(4): 587–604.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Karnani, M., K. Pääkkönen, and A. Annila. 2009. The physical character of information. Proceedings of the Royal Society A 465(2107): 2155–2175.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kier, L.B. 1980. Use of molecular negentropy to encode structure governing biological activity. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 69(7): 807–810.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kvanvig, J.L. 2003. The value of knowledge and the pursuit of understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Landauer, R. 1991. Information is physical. Physics Today 44(5): 23–29.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Le Coadic, Y.F. 1987. Modelling the communication, distribution, transmission or transfer of scientific information. Journal of Information Science 13(3): 143–148.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Leff, H.S., and A.F. Rex. 1990. Maxwell’s Demon: Entropy, information, computing. Bristol: IOP Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leff, H.S., and A.F. Rex. 2002. Maxwell’s Demon 2: Entropy, classical and quantum information, computing. Bristol: IOP Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y., and R. Rousseau. 2012. Towards a representation of diffusion and interaction of scientific ideas: The case of fiber optics communication. Information Processing and Management 48(4): 791–801.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, S. 2001. Measures of complexity: A nonexhaustive list. IEEE Control Systems Magazine 21(4): 7–8.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, S. 2006. Programming the universe. London: Jonathan Cape.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, S. 2010. The computation universe. In Information and the nature of reality: From physics to metaphysics, ed. P. Davies and N.H. Gregersen, 92–103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, L. 2012. Meanings of information: The assumptions and research consequences of three foundational LIS theories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(4): 716–723.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Machlup, F., and U. Mansfield. 1983. The study of information; Interdisciplinary messages. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacPherson, K. 2008. Leading physicist John Wheeler dies at age 96 [obituary]. Princeton University News Archive. http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S20/82/08G77. Accessed 15 May 2012.

  • Madden, D. 2004. Evolution and information. Journal of Documentation 60(1): 9–23.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J. 2010. The concept of information in biology. In Information and the nature of reality: From physics to metaphysics, ed. P. Davies and N.H. Gregersen, 123–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, I. 2007. A history of thermodynamics: The doctrine of energy and entropy. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyquist, H. 1924. Certain factors affecting telegraph speed. Bell System Technical Journal 3(2): 324–346.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ottaviani, J.S. 1994. The fractal nature of relevance: A hypothesis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 45(4): 263–272.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, E.B. 1974. Information and society. In Library and information service needs of the nation: Proceedings of a conference on the needs of occupational, ethnic and other groups in the United States, ed. C.A. Cuadra and M.J. Bates, 9–50. Washington, DC: U.S.G.P.O.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patten, B.C. 1961. Negentropy flow in communities of plankton. Limnology and Oceanography 6(1): 26–30.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pickover, C.A. 2008. Archimedes to Hawking: Laws of science and the great minds behind them. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piwowarski, B., L. Frommholz, M. Lalmas, and van K. Rijsbergen. 2010. What can quantum theory bring to information retrieval? In Proceedings of 19th ACM conference on information and knowledge management, 59–68. New York: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piwowarski, B., M.R. Amini, and M. Lalmas. 2012. On using a quantum physics formalism for multidocument summarization. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(5): 865–888.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. 1962. Personal knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qvortrup, L. 1993. The controversy over the concept of information. An overview and a selected and annotated bibliography. Cybernetics and Human Knowing 1(4): 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reading, A. 2011. Meaningful information: The bridge between biology, brain and behavior. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, J. 2011. The wisdom hierarchy: Representations of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of Information Science 33(2): 163–180.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Salthe, S.N. 2011. Naturalizing information. Information 2: 417–425 [online]. http://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/2/3/417. Accessed 9 Sept 2012.

  • Saunders, S., J. Barrett, A. Kent, and D. Wallace (eds.). 2010. Many worlds? Everett, quantum theory and reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrödinger, E. 1944. What is life? The physical aspect of the living cell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C.E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27(3): 379–423.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C.E., and W. Weaver. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, D., and C.H. Davis. 1983. Entropy and information: A multidisciplinary overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 34(1): 67–74.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Smolin, L. 2000. Three roads to quantum gravity: A new understanding of space, time and the universe. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stonier, T. 1990. Information and the internal structure of the universe. Berlin: Springer.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Stonier, T. 1992. Beyond information: The natural history of intelligence. Berlin: Springer.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Stonier, T. 1997. Information and meaning: An evolutionary perspective. Berlin: Springer.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Szilard, L. 1929. Über die Entropieverminderung in einem thermodynamischen System bei Eingriffen intelligenter Wesen. [On the decrease of entropy in a thermodynamic system by the intervention of intelligent beings.] Zeitschrift für Physik 53(6): 840–856. [Translated into English by A. Rapoport and M. Knoller, and reproduced in Leff and Rex (1990), pp 124–133.]

    Google Scholar 

  • Terzis, G., and R. Arp (eds.). 2011. Information and living systems: Philosophical and scientific perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonioni, G. 2008. Consciousness as integrated information: A provisional manifesto. The Biological Bulletin 215(3): 216–242.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tribus, M. 1964. Information theory and thermodynamics. In Heat transfer, thermodynamics and education: Boelter anniversary volume, ed. H.A. Johnson, 348–368. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedral, V. 2010. Decoding reality: The universe as quantum information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedral, V. 2012. Information and physics. Information 3(2): 219–223.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Von Baeyer, C. 2004. Information: The new language of science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, D. 2012. The emergent multiverse: Quantum theory according to the Everett interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Weart, S.R., and G.W. Szilard (eds.). 1978. Leo Szilard: His version of the facts. Selected recollections and correspondence. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, N. 1948. Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal and the machine. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, N. 1956. I am a mathematician. London: Victor Gollancz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zins, C. 2007. Conceptual approaches for defining data, information and knowledge. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58(4): 479–493.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Zurek, W.H. 1989. Algorithmic randomness and physical entropy. Physical Review A 40(8): 4731–4751.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Zurek, W.H. (ed.). 1990. Complexity, entropy and the physics of information, Santa Fe institute series. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Robinson, L., Bawden, D. (2014). Mind the Gap: Transitions Between Concepts of Information in Varied Domains. In: Ibekwe-SanJuan, F., Dousa, T. (eds) Theories of Information, Communication and Knowledge. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol 34. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6973-1_6

Download citation