Maybe, from the perspective of “linked age”, “linked data” age, “semantic web” (aka links everywhere)
we will see clearer the information itself.

But what I most liked in David’s talk, were the remarks (forgive me if my rendition is not exact,
En is my SL):

“I’m not thinking about a link in terms of HTML underneath it.(…) I’m thinking about the link as about a bit of language.

And much of what I said about links is just a languages is true about language itself, it is because links are usually linguistic and almost always semantic even if not always linguistic.
That they have the properties that I pointed to.
And in some ways the fundamental debate between the ages, I think, is actually the one between the
information and language.”

I think David touched the essence of the most important philosohpical debate that is going on today.
And I’m happy, web and information technology have something to tell us about the essence … of thought.

He then goes on to talk about how one can get angry about a letter that is not received. The lack of the letter is information for the person who hopes to receive it.

Shannon, and others, make the point that the receiver controls the message. If the receiver doesn’t receive the message then there is no information regardless of what has been sent.

This in turn suggests that one person’s noise is another person’s information.

It is a difficult problem since every receiver defines what information is to him, her or it.

Ethan’ thank you SO much for this act of real time journalism and essay writing. And for your friendship.

Love,

David