Ok. A PDF copy of it exists on b-ok . org. I downloaded it. 330+ pages. It _seems_ to be taking a very deep approach to information theory into the territory that you’re familiar with – that of the philosophers.I’ve barely dipped my toes in philosophers but I am deeply steeped in Claude Shannon’s information theory.So, perhaps this is the crossover I need.
Ok, I don’t know who this Deleuze is, but I should probably learn something about Deleuze BEFORE attempting to tackle this.”I wish to treat information in a very special, yet careful, way where a metaphysics of information can emerge without
ontologizing the term, and without exacerbating information theorists who have long since developed parallel ways of understanding and measuring information.”
Fear of breaking lamp on other car. Owner of lamp makes loud noise at you for breaking lamp. Lamp owner shakes fist, threatens dangerous paper resulting in handcuffs and a new undesired home.
That we so freely give 2000 lb death machines to children and encourage their usage as a rite of passage like circumcision or your first alcohol poisoning / drug overdose is one of the many strange aspects of culture.
and now I got this one. I understand it yet feel as if I shouldn’t understand it. Am I really going to tackle a 330pg book taking a philosopher’s interpretation of information theory through what he believes a French philosopher’s approach might have been had that French philosopher tackled information theory?
Ok, so looks as if this philosopher focuses on the ” virtual-actual distinction” and never gets to the point of developing an ontology. Fascinating.
oh wait… is it just gonna be another “the unfoldingness of the mayhaps”? I have a feeling it is . Maybe it’ll use fractals to bridge the gaps hence information theory. If he gets into some meaty math concepts that I know, I’ll be impressed. If it’s flowery, it may be a quick skim.
Ok: Looks like it might not be too hard to read. I know this kind of style:
“I hope here to advance a step further toward settling the question of information’s ontological status without subordinating it to Being, but also without relegating it to the transcendent or mind-dependent status of the immaterial or abstract by respecting the possibility of information’s material autonomy. In order to do so, we have elected to understand the speci? c problem through a Simondonian-Deleuzian lens so that therefore we can understand the speci? c character of Becoming as a replacement for the ? xity of Being, and apply this to our exploration of information as that which might be expressed in Deleuzian terms as part of a process rather than a state (although in some cases information does say something “informative” about states).