I think that works for satisfying the natural latent criterion, but interoperable semantics has a skewness/metric requirement you haven’t addressed yet? Like if you show someone a video of an eddy and tell them this is what’s called an “eddy”, what lets them infer that the “eddy” is the eddy (and could be other eddies in other circumstances), rather than e.g. the “eddy” referring to the fluid or the video or the background or the center or whatever? You need some metric of importance, and the only such metric information theory has is evidence, but evidence is, as far as I can tell, not the right metric for this in general.
I think that works for satisfying the natural latent criterion, but interoperable semantics has a skewness/metric requirement you haven’t addressed yet? Like if you show someone a video of an eddy and tell them this is what’s called an “eddy”, what lets them infer that the “eddy” is the eddy (and could be other eddies in other circumstances), rather than e.g. the “eddy” referring to the fluid or the video or the background or the center or whatever? You need some metric of importance, and the only such metric information theory has is evidence, but evidence is, as far as I can tell, not the right metric for this in general.