(1) Replying Quiao --
On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan < [email protected]> wrote: Message from Qiao Tian-qing ---------------------------------------------------------- Dear FISers There is another general theory of information (GTIA). I consider, The customarily named information is the collection of three kinds of things´ attributes: things themselves (including cause or effect formed through their interaction), the attributes of things that someone thinks and simulates, and the attributes of tools someone or something uses when considers, expresses, or simulates something. The first kind of attributes of things is based on facts, for example, the three states of water, someone is swimming. This are physical, chemical, biological, social or any other properties of things, irrefutable and objective, which have nothing to do with any expressive way related to the thing (such spoken and written languages, music or pictures). This relates to the semiotic work of Jacob von Uexküll ('Biological Theory', 1925), who suggested that each species has its own sensory equipment, and finds/ lives in a different world from other species. It could be said that this was an early postmodern text. It is now in the standard (Peircean) background of semiotics. The second kind is related with the inner thoughts, or expressions through talk, or sentence, namely, some attributes of things that someone can find; or the attributes of things that could be simulate according to science and technology. Here we find Bidgman's 'operationalism' in his 1927 'The Logic of Modern Physics'. The third kind is the attributes of tools used by someone (or something) when he himself thinks, or expresses, or simulates something, i.e. the state of brain neurons when he thinks, the line trend of words when writes, the vibration frequency and intensity of sound when speaks, the bit of circuit devices in a computer, or the models of devices used in an experiment, etc. This again relates to the above. ------------------------------------------------------- (2) Then to Pedro, Krassimir and Loet: Pedro Says: But a new framework (way of thinking) is needed where we somehow de-anthropogenize the field, getting it partially free of the above circularity: "because I am philososphically or disciplinarily configured that way, info is this and that for me". My usual argument in this list has been that a few "informational entities" have to be taken as model systems, and then a comparative study undertaken. Now what I would ad is that a previous new "theory of mind" has to be advanced, a little bit at least. And Krassimir says: What we may do is to invite everybody to present from his/her point of view one or more (own or not) information theories. The texts we will organize in a book for free access from all over the world. Loet says: The need for a general theory of information can therefore be understood psychologically, but this is itself a special subject of possible theorizing. J The inference to a general theory is not warranted by this (empirical) philosophy of science. I have just completed an attempt to sketch of a very general theory of information written for a special issue of the new journal "Information" based on the FIS 2010 Beijing conference. In this paper I suggest that semiotics is subsumed by information theory and that this in turn is subsumed by thermodynamics. Thus -- {thermodynamics {information theory {semiotics}}} This is based on my generalization of the Shannon definition of information, as: information is a reduction in uncertainty = choosing; Bateson: information is a difference that makes a difference (to an interpreting system) Thermodynamic: information is any constraint on entropy production STAN
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
