The time has come to kneel on the ground, press our ears on the earth, and try to listen to the voices of the early Masters. It is difficult, of course, to shed today's mindset and to successfully transport our conscience to another era without demurring. Today's environment resonates with the motifs of the information revolution (global information infrastructure, the internet, wireless communications, smart antennas, multimedia, etc., etc.). Where does Information Theory fit in the kaleidoscope? Does it permeate every component of this vibrant relief or is it simply confined to the glue that holds the pebbles together? Is it limited within the perimeter of this dazzling picture or does it extend well beyond it?
Now, these are not simple matters to ponder; hence, trying to look back and consulting "the source" should be helpful. This means that we must transport our minds a good deal backwards in time. Can we recreate the mindset of that era? Well, let's try. It is 1955-56, right in the middle of the Cold War. Ford Motor Co. has not yet launched the Mustang, Richard Nixon is Vice-President of the United States, Maria Callas is the reigning opera diva, the cost of a round-trip transatlantic flight is about $600 (perhaps, the world has not changed that much, after all), IEEE has not yet been created (well, in that case, the world has definitely changed(!)), and L.A. DeRosa is the President (then called Chairman) of the Information Theory Society (then known as the Professional Group on Information Theory of the IRE). Shannon has published his famous paper just eight years ago and the "Sun" of the Information Age is fledglingly rising. The birth of Information Theory has already caused a good-size "splash" in the scientific community and, unbeknownst to most, the deep processes that will give birth to the information revolution have already impregnated the evolution of technology. Nonetheless, there is a rather serious controversy concerning the role and reach of Information Theory.
Let's hear more closely; this is the voice of Norbert Wiener, editorializing in the December '55 issue of the IT Transactions: "Information Theory has been identified in the public mind to denote the theory of information by bits, as developed by C.E. Shannon and MYSELF" (emphasis added). He then goes on to complain that the perception of the field "is beginning to suffer from the indiscriminate way in which it has been taken as a solution of all informational problems, a sort of magic key". And he proceeds to plead that the field should "return to the point of view from which it originated: that of the general statistical concept of communication".
However, he continues his soliloquy and introduces an interesting slant to his plea. He states that a message is, after all, nothing more than a time-series and, hence, the entire field is naturally a branch of statistical theory which, in turn, is allied to the ideas of Willard Gibbs in statistical mechanics, which are showing an "applicability and fertility in many branches of science other than communication theory and, in my opinion, in all branches of science whatever"(!)
What a giant coup in logical ... restructing! He proceeds to assert that the whole of physics is at root a statistical theory and quantum theory is strictly ... a branch of the theory of time series. Thus, he concludes, communication theory should be studied as one item in an entire context of related theories of a statistical nature and that "it should not lose its integrity by becoming a special vested interest attached to a certain set of slogans and cliches".
Now, Norbert Wiener has worked with broad strokes on an immense scale and has had an impact of granite solidity. And yet, his statements in that editorial seem to be in subtle contrast to the views that Shannon himself presented in the pages of the same journal just months later (March '56). It is also interesting that Wiener already refers to Shannon's yet to be published views as if he had early knowledge of Shannon's editorial. That editorial (the celebrated ``Bandwagon") begins with a similar line of lamentation by stating that "our fellow scientists in many different fields, attracted by the fanfare and by the new avenues opened to scientific analysis, are using these ideas in their own problems. Applications are being made to biology, psychology, linguistics, fundamental physics, economics, the theory of organization, and many others. In short, information theory is currently partaking of a somewhat heady draught of general popularity". However, he proceeds to admonish the community and to suggest that two things be done. First, "workers in other fields should realize that the basic results of the subject are aimed in a very specific direction, a direction that is not necessarily relevant to such fields as psychology, economics, and other social sciences". And, secondly, the IT community must keep its own house in first-class order. This, he elaborates, means that "authors should submit only their best efforts, and these only after careful criticism by themselves and their colleagues. A few first rate research papers are preferable to a large number that are poorly conceived or half-finished. The latter are no credit to their writers and a waste of time to their readers."
Now, these are golden words. The IT community has perhaps chosen this advice as the most precious legacy that its founder bestowed. By practicing it consistently over the ensuing forty years, it has earned the esteem and reputation for quality that it enjoys within the broader scientific community.
But notice that, although not in contradiction to Wiener's view, Shannon's advice placed the emphasis differently. Wiener appealed to PGIT to broaden its scope by urging the Transactions to "steadily set their face against this comminution of the intellect" which a narrower interpretation of the field might imply. By contrast, Shannon urged a line of purity and caution and emphasized his belief "that many of the concepts of information theory will prove useful in these other fields -- and, indeed, some results are already promising -- but establishing of such applications is not a trivial matter of translating words to a new domain, but rather the slow tedious process of hypothesis and experimental verification".
Faced with these subtle assessments what might you have thought at that time? And with all the hindsight (or is it confusion) of the last half-century, what do you think today? This controversy that was addressed eloquently by these two giants in their respective editorials led the hapless DeRosa to follow-up with an editorial of his own in the June '56 issue of the Transactions, in which he basically solicited input from the readers. He said that "the expansion of the applications of Information Theory to fields other than radio and wired communications has been so rapid that oftentimes the bounds within which the Professional Group interests lie are questioned. Should an attempt be made to extend our interests to such fields as management, biology, psychology, and linguistic theory, or should the concentration be strictly in the direction of communication by radio or wire"? He noted that some views favored that the scope of the Society be broadened to "include the interests of Psychology, Biology, and other branches of the Arts and Sciences". In so doing, the argument went, the community would truly end up addressing the ultimate "problem of communication from one subjective sensory to another (the over-all brain-to-brain terminals)". Now, isn't this an interesting thought? At the same time, he acknowledged, there are other views that the field "confine itself to adapting the generic developments of Information Theory to the specific field of radio, electronics, and wire communication, foregoing all ties with computers, television, telemetry, management, automation, or circuit theory". And he concluded by soliciting the views of the readers.
So, having heard these dim voices from the past let us lift our ears from the ground, dust off our clothes, and immerse ourselves again in today's blazing sun of the information revolution. What is the answer today?
A penny for your thoughts.