# A Dialogue Concerning the Essence and Role of Information in the World System
## 2 The Dialogue  
**M**: Let's discuss the problems of the essence of information and how it is possible to define it. **J**: My interest in the topic of information results from becoming acquainted with the work of [PERSON] and [PERSON] [20]. In turn, it introduced me to the works of [PERSON] and [PERSON] [21; 22]. Eventually, I identified the problem of understanding information as an essential issue for answering fundamental questions that have eluded explanation. One of my explorations led me to publications of [PERSON], where he introduces a definition of information as \"a difference which makes a difference\" [23; 24]. This is certainly very different from the belief that information is a fundamental quantity of the universe, implying that we humans are able to identify it as existing everywhere and use it to our advantage [25; 26; 27; 28]. This point of view appeared with the creation of cybernetics and the construction of computers during World War II, demonstrating that machines can have what before were considered as exclusively human capabilities. **M**: It looks like you are suggesting taking [PERSON]'s statement that _information is the difference which makes a difference_[23] as an ultimate definition of information. **J**: Indeed, [PERSON]'s simplicity of definition is certainly attractive as a starting point, and many researchers always seemed to accept this definition, but no one seemed to go beyond this phrase. As I developed my interest in [PERSON], I more and more appreciated his musings while making them my own. One interesting aspect of [PERSON]'s statement is its subjective aspect, which is atypical in the world where \"true\" scientists emphasize the objective aspect of everything. This apparent contradiction is certainly something that needs to be taken seriously as the following questions come into view. How does one become an objective scientist if he or she is a subjective being? Does not [PERSON]'s statement hold the promise of simultaneous subjectivity and objectivity? **M**: Okay, taking [PERSON]'s statement as a candidate for a definition of information, its thorough analysis shows that it is as deceptive as it is beautiful. First, without a sufficiently exact definition of difference, this is not a definition, as it is wrong to define one unknown term through another unknown term. This is a logical fallacy. Second, even if we take the mundane meaning of the word _difference_, we may come to the conclusion that anything is a difference because anything is different from something else. Besides, being different, anything makes this difference and thus, we have to logically conclude that anything is information. This makes the concept of information void from a scientific point of view. Fortunately, this is not true, and the concept of information is not only meaningful but is becoming one of the pillars of contemporary science. **J**: I fully understand your concern about logical consistency and general confusion when the word \"difference\" is used. That is why I said that _information as a difference which makes a difference_ is only a starting point. To get a measure of what difference means, we can appeal to its dictionary definition in the Merriam-Webster Online Collegiate Dictionary [29]: (1) the quality or state of being dissimilar or different; and (2) an instance of being unlike or distinct in nature, form, or quality. So, indeed, we are in agreement, though at first glance we seem to be in a logical quandary and great confusion. However, let me remind you that context is very important in any situation. We have to ask, who determines these differences? We are certainly talking about human beings, such as [PERSON] or ourselves, who are determining these differences. Sometimes, they can be very complex differences such as the ones we might experience in looking at and analyzing an abstract painting that compounds many different levels and guises of differences that are possible to distinguish. Luckily for us, that is not where we begin our process of distinguishing differences.