Message from John Collier ---------------------------------------------- At 10:27 PM 2011/04/27, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic wrote:
Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5663F8A6694A73468C89A06AAE92B2B604436807642BMBXCLUSTERm_" Stan, I have a question. I don't understand why thermodynamics in the expression: {thermodynamics {information theory {semiotics}}} Our brains are very much about electrical signal processing.And a lot of information processes in the world are not thermodynamic processes in the first place.Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say: {physics {information theory {semiotics}}}
Hello all.I've been quiet as I have not had enough time to keep up on this discussion, though I find it interesting. I just quit my job as Head of School, though, and hired someone to do my teaching, so all of a sudden I have more time. I could not get behind the insane reorganization going on at our university, which is pointless, costly, demoralizing to staff, and heading for a train wreck. As Head I had to get behind it, and it was not nice for me. Enough of that.
Gordana's formulation also works, as physics is more general (though people like Wheeler, Gell-Mann and a lot of other very good physicists would say it is {information {physics ...., but of course they don't know what they are talking about ;-)). Stan wants to include thermo as he wants to bring in entropy (as would I in many cases, certainly where there is semiotics). However, there are reversible physical processes, and it is possible to build a reversible universal Turing machine equivalent out of particles in classical Newtonian physics, which is close enough for engineering purposes. Given this, it is a short step to say that all physical processes, reversible or not, have Turing machine equivalents, and hence are equivalent to computations. And then we are back to something approaching those eminent physicists who are so obviously wrong. In any case, I think it is safe to say that {thermo {semiotics}}, though I do not have a proof, like I do for {information theory {physics}}. Why not information theory = physics? Well, I don't want to rule out as a matter of meaning that there is no non-physical ectoplasmic but causal realm.
Please excuse my facetious attitude, but I am getting fed up with people not making clear (or at least being sensitive to) which manifestation of information they are talking about. As a crude guide, I attach a diagram that I find helpful.
In any case, I think that both Gordana and Stan have points, but both miss the larger, more inclusive picture.
My best, John ---------------------------
<<inline: Information Hierarchy.gif>>
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
