Information and Biblical Logos Revisited

ABSTRACT

The paper discusses how modern theories of information converge with the Biblical concept of Logos. We begin with a condensed review of the various concepts of information. We then present some informational interpretations of Biblical Logos and compare them with modern theories of information, specifically the general theory of information (GTI). In closing, we point out some aspects of this study that warrant further analysis. Our informational interpretations of Biblical Logos are based on a paper by Henrik Gregersen.

KEYWORDS:

• Information
• Biblical Logos
• GTI
• physical information
• ontological information
• theories of information

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Dr. Lukasz Mscisławski for his insightful comments and suggestions for the draft of the paper.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 For the historical notes about the concept of information see, Arjan Vreeken, The History of Information: Lessons for Information Management (2005), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279641557_The_History_of_Information_Lessons_for_Information_Management; James Gleick, The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood (New York, NY: Pantheon, 2011); Peter Adriaans, “Information,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta (2020), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/information/.

2 Information as natural phenomenon has long existed in the vague and foggy, quasi-theological, poetic, pre-scientific intuitions of Tao or Dao, Logos (in the sense intended by Heraclitus), the ancient cosmological theories of Plato’s forms, Aristotelian eidos, and Democritus’ atomic theory of the universe and matter. On Tao see Alan Chan, ‘Laozi’, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 Edition), ed. E. N. Zalta. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University (2018). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/laozi/ (accessed March 31, 2020), on Plato, Aristotle, and Democritus see Carlo Rovelli, Reality is Not What it Seems (New York: Allen Lane, 2016). Heraclitus used the word Logos to denote a principle of order and knowledge that is common to all, On Logos see Robert Audi, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Logos can take several meanings, however, depending on the historical period or the philosophical school it is being used within. On meaning of Logos see e.g., Audi 1999; Jean Bollack, The Art of Reading: From Homer to Paul Celan, trans. C. Porter and S. Tarrow with B. King, edited by C. Koenig, L. Muellner, G. Nagy, and S. Pollock. Hellenic Studies Series 73. (Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies, 216).

3 The concept of Biblical Logos has been considered as a kind of pre-intuitive understanding of information as a rational, formative element of nature (see, for example, the articles by Peacoke, Ward, Haught, and Welker in Davis and Gregersen’s collection of essays; Paul Davies and Niels Henrik Gregersen, Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).

4 Henry Gregersen, “God, Matter and Information: Towards the Stoicizing Logos,” in Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics, ed. Paul Davies and Niels Henrik Gregersen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 405–444.

5 Gregersen, “God, Matter and Information,” 439.

6 Mark Burgin, Theory of Information (San Francisco: World Scientific Publishing, 2010).

7 For more on the quantification of information, see e.g. Claud Shannon, “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” The Bell System Technical Journal 7 (1948), 379–423; John R. Peirce, Symbols, Signals and Noise (New York: Harper Torch Books, 1961); Claud C. Shannon, and Warren Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communication (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1964); Andrej N., Kolmogorov, “Three Approached to the Quantitative Definition of Information,” Problemy Pieredachi Informatsii 3:1 (1965), 3–11; George J. Klir, and Tina A. Folger, Fuzzy Sets, Uncertainty, and Information (Delhi: PHI learning Private Limited, 1988); S. John, Information Theory and Evolution (London: World Scientific, 1993); Ray Solomonoff, “The Discovery of Algorithmic Probability,” Journal of Computer and System Sciences 55:1, 73–88; Roy B. Friden, Physics from Fisher Information (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998); Burgin, Theory; James V. Stone, Information Theory (Sheffield: Sebtel Press, 2015); Gregory Chaitin, Algorithmic Information Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Gregory Chaitin, “Information, Randomness and Incompleteness,” Papers on Algorithmic Information Theory, IBM Research, Yorktown Heights (1997); Alexander Ly, Maarten Marsman, Josine Verhagen, Raul Grasman and Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, A Tutorial on Fisher Information, https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.01064. Vol. X (2017), (accessed December 12, 2019).

8 The GDI’s model is based loosely on the OSI model of computer networks, where there are different levels of abstractions for interpreting data. Nevertheless, the similarities between the GDI and the OSI model mostly lie in the concept of nested levels of abstractions rather than in the formal models in themselves. On the OSI model see e.g. Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks, 4th ed. (New York: Prentice-Hall, 2002).

9 We need to point out that many researchers perceive quantum information as a purely physical property of matter, not related in any way to cognitive systems. For more about the different kinds of epistemic information, see Yehoshua Bar-Hillel and Rudolf Carnap, “Semantic Information,” The British Journal of Philosophy of Science 4:14 (1953), 147–157; Bertram Brookes, “The Foundations of Information Science. Part I. Philosophical Aspects,” Journal of Information Science 2 (1980), 125–133; Randy Rucker, Mind Tools (Minneola: Dover Publications, Inc., 2013) (first published in 1987); Keith Devlin, Logic and Information (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2991); Robert M. Loosee, “A Discipline Independent Definition of Information,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 48:3 (1998), 254–269; Fred Dretske, Knowledge and the Flow of Information (Cambridge: CSLI Publications, 1999); Luciano Floridi, Information. A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: University Press, 2010); Luciano Floridi, The Philosophy of Information (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013); Luciano Floridi, “Semantic Conceptions of Information,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/information-semantic/ (accessed March 10, 2021); Wolfgang Lensky, “Information: Conceptual Investigation,” Information. Open Access Journal (2010), 74–118, www.mdpi.com/journal/information; David Vernon, Artificial Cognitive Systems. A Primer (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2014); Subrata Dasgupta, Computer Science. A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016); Robert Millikan, Beyond Concepts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017); Sean Carroll, The Big Picture on the Origins or Life, Meaning and the Universe Itself (London: OneWord, 2017).

10 On natural information see (e.g., Dretske, Knowledge, 1999; Andrea Scarantino and Gualtiero Piccinini, “Information Without Truth,” Metaphilosophy 41: 3 (2010), 313–330; Gualtiero Piccinini and Andrea Scarantino, “Information Processing, Computation and Cognition,” Journal of Biological Physics 37 (2011), 1–38; Daniel M. Kraemer, “Natural Probabilistic Information,” Synthese 192:9 (2015), 2901–2919; John Symons, “Teleosemantics and Natural Information,” in The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Information, ed. L. Floridi (New York: Routledge, 2016); Ruth Millikan, Beyond Concepts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017); Ben Baker, “Natural Information, Factivity and Nomicity,” Biology and Philosophy 36 (2021), 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-021-09784-4.

11 On biological information (DNA, RNA) or inter- and intra-cellular functions see John Maynard Smith, “Concept of Information in Biology,” Philosophy of Science 67 (2000), 177–194; Thomas D. Schneider, “Evolution of Biological Information,” Nucleic Acids Research 28:14 (2000), 2794–2799, doi: 10.1093/nar/28.14.2794; Paul E. Griffiths, “Genetic Information: A Metaphor in Search of a Theory,” Philosophy of Science 68 (2001), 394–412; Peter Godfrey-Smith, “On Genetic Information and Genetic Coding,” in The Scope of Logic, Methodology, and the Philosophy of Science,  Vol. II, ed. P. Gardenfors, J. Wolenski and K. Kajania-Placek (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2002), 387–400; Eva Jablonka, “Information: Its Interpretation, Its Inheritance and Its Sharing,” Philosophy of Science 69 (2002), 578–605; Juan G. Roederer, “On the Concept of Information and Its Role in Nature,” Entropy: International and Interdisciplinary Journal of Entropy and Information Studies 5 (2003), doi:10.3390/e5010003; Juan G. Roederer, “Information and Its Role in Nature,” Information and Its Role in Nature: The Frontiers Collection (Berlin- Heildelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2005). doi:10.1007/3-540-27698-X; Urlich Stegmann, “Genetic Information as Instructional Content,” Philosophy of Science 72 (2005), 425–443; Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); George Terzis, and Robert Arp, eds., Information and Living Systems: Philosophical and Scientific Perspectives, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011); Peter Godfrey-Smith and Kim Sterelny, “Biological Information,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2016 Edition), ed. E.N. Zalta. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University (2016). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/information-biological/ (accessed March 31, 2020); Barton Moffat, “Philosophy of Biological Information.” in The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Information, ed. L. Floridi (New York: Routledge, 2016); Aaron Sloman, The Meta-Morphogenesis (M-M) Project Alternative title: The Self-Informing Universe (2022). https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk//research/projects/cogaff/misc/meta-morphogenesis.html (accessed July 1, 2023).

12 (For more on the various interpretations of this type of information, see the following works: Richard, Weizsäcker von, Die Einheit der Natur (Munchen: Verlag, Berlin, 1971), Polish edition (Warszawa: PIW, 1971); Krzysztof Turek, “Filozoficzne aspekty pojęcia informacji,” Zagadnienia Filozoficzne w Nauce (in Polish) I (1978) 32–41; John Collier, “Intrinsic Information,” in Information, Language and Cognition: Vancouver Studies in Cognitive Science, Vol. 1., ed. P.P. Hanson (Originally University of British Columbia Press, now Oxford University Press, 1990/1989), 390–409; Tom Stonier, Information and the Internal Structure of the Universe (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990); Jos De Mull, “The Informatization of the Worldview,” Information, Communication & Society 2:1 (1999), 69–94; John Polkinghorne, Faith, Science & Understanding (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000); Bayers von, 2006; Charles Seife, Decoding the Universe (London: Viking, 2006); Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic, Alan Turing’s Legacy: Info-computational Philosophy of Nature, 2012, http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.1033.pdf (accessed October 7, 2015); Cesar Hidalgo, Why Information Grows? (London: Penguin Books, 2015); Frank Wilczek, A Beautiful Question (London: Penguin Books, 2015); Carroll, The Big Picture; Rovelli, Reality; Paul Davies, The Demon in the Machine (New York: Allen Lane, 2019); Roman Krzanowski, Ontological Information (New York, NY, USA; London, UK; Singapore: World Scientific, 2022); Rolf Landauer, “Information is Physical,” Physics Today, 44 (1991), 23–29; Rolf Landauer, “The Physical Nature of the Information,” Physics Letters A 217 (1996), 188–193; Rolf Landauer, “Information is a Physical Entity,” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 263 (1999), 63–67; Mark Burgin and Rao Mikkilineni, “Is Information Physical and Does It Have Mass?” Information 13:11 (2022), 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13110540; Łukasz Mscislawski, “Is Information Something Ontological, or Physical or Perhaps Something Else? Some Remarks on R. Krzanowski Approach to Concept of Information,” Philosophical Problems in Science 73 (2022), 147–169.

13 For more about the GTI, see Burgin, Theory; Burgin, The General Theory; Mark Burgin and Rainer Feistel, “Structural and Symbolic Information in the Context of the General Theory of Information,” Information 8:4 (2017), 139. https://doi.org/10.3390/info8040139; Burgin and Mikkilineni, Is Information Physical; Mark Burgin and Roman Krzanowski, “World Structuration and Ontological Information,” Proceedings 2022 81:93 (2022).

14 See Burgin, Theory; Burgin, The General Theory.

15 “ … how the scientific and philosophical reflections … on … information … may elucidate. Cosmological claims inherent in … Christianity”, Gregersen, God, 430.

16 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome. It”. Kings James Version. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201&version=KJV

17 Kings James Version. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201&version=KJV

18 Gregersen, God, 434.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid.

21 Gregersen, God, 432.

22 Ibid.

23 Kings James Version. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201&version=KJV

24 Gregersen, God, 437.

25 Ibid.

26 The concept implies that information constitutes the fabric of reality. The claim is conjecture rather than a scientific statement, and it is used by Gregersen in his discussion of Biblical Logos. Further, Gregersen’s information universe has nothing to do with pantheism or pan-informationalism, meaning that he does not refer to these concepts in his paper.

27 Gregory Batenson, Mind and Nature (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1979).The actual meaning of “a difference that makes a difference” has been disputed. For the details of the discussion see Aaron Sloman, What did Bateson Mean When He Wrote “information” is “a difference that makes a difference”? (2018), https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/cogaff/misc/information-difference.html (accessed July 1, 2023).

28 Gregersen, God, 439.

29 Ibid.

30 One may argue that there exists a complete separation of Biblical Logos and the GTI. They both have roots in Plato’s metaphysics, but as most of Western philosophical metaphysics share such roots, such an argument would not have much import because it could be applied to almost any Western philosophy.

31 See e.g. Stephen Boutler, Why Medieval Philosophy Matters? (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019).

32 Gregersen is not alone in his informational perspective on Biblical Logos. See the collection of papers by Arthur Peacocke, Keith Ward, John Haught, Michael Welker edited by Davies and Gregersen, Information, 2011.

33 Even when they claim the presence of Smith’s notorious “invisible hand” directing the evolution of AI.

34 This should not be taken as an endorsement of Wittgensteinian perspective on language.

35 This problem touches on the incommensurability of scientific theories when we look at Biblical Logos and the GTI as two kinds of scientific theories about the universe. Two theories may use the same language but mean different things, or they may use different languages but mean the same things. Nevertheless, the commensurability of Biblical Logos with the GTI as theories about nature lies beyond the scope of this paper. See the discussion on the incommensurability of theories in works by Alexander Bird, Philosophy of science (London: Routledge, 2002; William Newton-Smith, The Rationality of Science (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Roman Krzanowski

Roman Krzanowski currently works at the Department of Philosophy, Uniwersytet Papieski Jana Pawla II. Roman’s current projects include “Fundamental problems in ethics, epistemology and computing arising in autonomous robotics”, “Philosophy of Information and the concept of information and its ontology”, and “Future of technology-driven societies”.