Not so if the book has been translated into Arabic. Now the reader can
discern no meaning in the letters. The text conveys almost no
information to the reader, yet the linguistic informa- tion contained by
the book is virtually the same as in the English original. The reader,
familiar with books will still recognise two things, however: First,
that the book is a book. Second, that the squiggles on the page
represent a pattern of abstractions which probably makes sense to
someone who understands the mean- ing of those squiggles. Therefore, the
book as such, will still have some meaning for the English reader, even
if the content of the text has none. Let us go to a more extreme case.
Not a book, but a stone, or a rock with engravings in an ancient
language no longer under- stood by anyone alive. Does such a stone not
contain human information even if it is not decipherable? Suppose at
some point in the future, basic knowledge about linguistics and clever
computer aids allow us to decipher it? Or suppose someone discovers the
equivalent of a Rosetta stone which allows us to translate it into a
known language, and then into English? Can one really say that the stone
contained no information prior to translation? It is possible to argue
that the stone, prior to deciphering contained only latent information.