I've said more about this is a later post.

2008-09-10T09:00:38.309+01:00

I haven't read Dretske, but from what you say here...

2008-09-06T11:21:00.000+01:00

I haven't read Dretske, but from what you say here I think he over-simplifies. Strictly, if r2 then (s1 or s2 or s3). That is certainly information. And we can say "s4 causes (r1 or r3 or r4)", and "s4 causes r1 sometimes", which is all information too, even though there's uncertainty in there.

I believe we should consider there is a physical connection between B and C, even though it's not direct, but via A. When he says "C contains information about B", that is not a simple fact but requires knowledge of the A->B and A->C connections. Information and causation fit together very well when properly analysed. Personally, in the most general terms, I see causation, information flow and energy flow as three different aspects of one phenomenon.

Comments on Intropy: Information, causality and the EPR paradox

I've said more about this is a later post.

I haven't read Dretske, but from what you say here...