>As a point of fact, a randomly chosen sequence has more information in it
>than an ordered sequence
Since our consideration centers on semantics and not on facts, let me attempt
to define my perspective on information:
1. A random sequence in isolation contains no information whatsoever. It
has nothing to say about anything,and thus has no information, no inherent
meaning.
2. A sequence of apparently random numbers may in fact be information-rich.
For example a portion of the value of pi may appear to be random, but is in
fact information-rich in its context as a part of the value of pi.
3. Context will always determine whether any sequence of digits or whatever
is actually information rich. If the random numbers are coming from
somewhere out there in the solar system, they may in fact be
information-rich. The same can be said for any measurement of anything.
But the information is contextual, and without an appropriate cipher, it is
effectively void of information.
4. A sequence of bases in a DNA molecule is information rich if when the
appropriate ciphers are applied, it yields a function related to the
functioning of some biological organism that contains the DNA.
5. A sequence of random bases in DNA is not information-rich, since it
does not yield a function related to the functioning of some biological
organism that contains the DNA
6. Compressability alone (apart from the necessary ciphers) may not be a
useful criterion for information content.
A useful working definition for information is: data combined with a context
for meaningful interpretation. While not everyone would agree with this
definition, I think it is generally in accord with the principles of
information theory as I understand it.
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu