
Gleick's new book on information theory - isomorph
http://around.com/the-information
======
davepeck
I'm reading "The Information" right now.

Gleick's book takes a wide and multidisciplinary view of information. It
traces our history through the lens of information and then turns to examine
the cultural impact of Shannon's work. It's fascinating how the formalization
of information just 60 years ago has so deeply impacted our world.

The prologue about Shannon's time at Bell Labs is an elegant, even beautiful,
exposition of information theory's importance. As introductions go, I'd rank
it up there with the introductions to Will Durant's "Story of Philosophy"[1]
or Andrew Steane's "Quantum Computing" [2].

So far, at least, "The Information" hasn't dug into the technical details of
information theory. That's probably fine and does not appear to be Gleick's
intent.

\---

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Story-Philosophy-Opinions-Greatest-
Phi...](http://www.amazon.com/Story-Philosophy-Opinions-Greatest-
Philosophers/dp/0671739166)

[2] <http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9708022>

------
Volscio
Kevin Kelly interviewed Gleick about the book in last month's Wired:

<http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/02/mf_gleick_qa/all/1>

Kelly: The extreme view would be that all these bits that make up atoms are
running on a very big computer called the universe, an idea first espoused by
Babbage.

Gleick: That makes sense as long as this metaphor does not diminish our sense
of what the universe is but expands our sense of what a computer is.

Kelly: But as you note, some scientists say that this is not a metaphor: The
universe we know is only information.

Gleick: I’m not a physicist, but that concept resonates with something that we
all recognize: Information is the thing that we care most about. The more we
understand the role that information plays in our world, the more skillful
citizens we will be.

~~~
mckoss
_And it was only after the invention of the telegraph that we understood that
our nerves carry messages, just like wires. When we look back through history,
we can see that a lot of different stories all turn out to be stories about
information._

It's these kind of statements that drive me nuts about Gleick. If you don't
pay much attention, it almost sounds profound. But when you examine it, you
realize the statement is almost devoid of meaning.

And, to top it off, he gets the facts wrong, and implies a causal relation
when there is none to be found. Galvani did experments on the muscles of frogs
in 1791, and proved that electrical impulses could animate movement. The
telegraph invention came several decades later.

I just get the feeling Gleick doesn't really understand what he's writing
about, or dumbs it down so much for a lay audience that the facts get mangled.

~~~
sheffield
> _Galvani did experiments on the muscles of frogs in 1791, and proved that
> electrical impulses could animate movement._

Galvani show us that there is _something_ , but it was only after the
invention of telegraph that we understand, that it's _information_ , what's
transferred on nerves.

~~~
mckoss
But there is no evidence to show any sort of causal cross over between the
two. You can wave your hands, and say that "obviously" people didn't
understand X until we had Y - but there is no historical reference being made
to support this claim. Gleick just throws it out because it "sounds right" to
him (and us) given our current historical context.

A popular science writer is not a trained historian or academic; but I do
think readers of this genre deserve a level of journalistic integrity and
depth that is missing here (note: I've NOT read The Information - and am
basing my opinion on Gleick's past work and a recent interview about the
book).

------
mark_l_watson
Cool - I just bought it for my Kindle. Gleick is a master of digging into some
interesting branch of science and how it affects society. In the 1980s, I
added Common Lisp chaos theory examples to my first Springer Verlag book,
inspired by his wonderful book _Chaos_. I can't wait to savor the new book.

~~~
mckoss
Why did you find Chaos to be wonderful? I found many inaccuracies when I read
it. Seemed more like a fluff piece designed to ride a popular wave about the
topic at the time it came out.

~~~
thaumaturgy
Do you always eat only the finest meals, freshly prepared, with only the
highest-quality meats and produce?

Sometimes an In-n-Out burger can be "wonderful".

I, too, enjoyed Chaos. Regardless of its inaccuracies -- wherever they are --
it presents the topic very well, introducing it without being dry or
unreadable. It held my attention throughout the book, and I still remember
specific parts of it. I wouldn't mind reading it again, either.

Books, like business, can have different markets and do different things well.
I think what Gleick lacks in writing a textbook, he makes up for in
approachability.

~~~
mckoss
Fair enough. I was just a bit surprised by the effusive comments on this
thread when my experience was quite the opposite.

For my money, I've much more enjoyed the writings of Martin Gardner, or Bill
Bryson.

~~~
zem
if you like gardner and bryson, you should like ian stewart too

------
kirpekar
I worked in the non-linear dynamics field for a few years and was never
impressed by Gleick's book on Chaos. Maybe this one is better ...

~~~
alayne
I'd be interested in any recommendations you have for books about chaos/non-
linear systems. I read Chaos in high school and it was a starting point for me
to later explore fractals, IFSs, and attractors. My math skills were never
good enough to study dynamic systems in college, but I still enjoyed learning
about it at some level.

Since I've read several of Shannon's papers and other mathematical treatments
of information theory (e.g. Kullback), I suspect this book will not shed
additional technical light for me. However I can't deny that Gleick's writing
has an inspirational quality to it that is engaging, as long as you are not
reading it as a scientific treatment. I also read Genius and I understand why
Gleick is considered almost along the lines of nonfiction fanfic.

~~~
psykotic
> I'd be interested in any recommendations you have for books about chaos/non-
> linear systems

Strogatz's Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos might be a good place to start. It's
not mathematically sophisticated at all, e.g. there are few proofs and
topological methods are at best implicitly present; but it still has some real
mathematical meat on it.

------
taylorlb
Enjoying reading the book so far, but also worth checking out, and what turned
me on to it in the first place, is Freeman Dyson's review in NY Books.

[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/how-
we-...](http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/how-we-
know/?pagination=false)

------
da5e
I'm just on page 4 of 426 and I've already got an intellectual boner for this
book. Gleick's Chaos (technically perfect or not) was a huge revelation for me
and gave me a truckload of rich metaphors to better understand the world. I'm
expecting the same from The Information. AT&T in 1950 sounds a lot like
Google. "[It] did not demand instant gratification from its research
division."

------
gsivil
Also the author of "Chaos: Making a New Science"

~~~
mckoss
I didn't like Chaos or Feynman - and haven't read Gleick since. I find his
type of popular science writing to be imprecise and even inaccurate.

