Cari Tutti e Caro Krassimir, anche per la qualità del Tuo stile, mi rendo conto delle difficoltà che Vi provoco. Ma non è certo per mancanza di rispetto che uso la lingua italiana. Anche se avessi una maggiore e migliore conoscenza dell'inglese, non riuscirei mai a comunicarvi tutto ciò che il mio pensiero pensante produce con un linguaggio diverso dal mio. Continuerò a seguire la discussione-dibattito a cui date luogo e non vi costringerò più a leggere versi in lingua italiana. Nel salutarVi Tutti, Vi ringrazio per quel che mi avete insegnato e m'insegnerete ancora. Francesco Rizzo.
2014-08-25 15:51 GMT+02:00 Stanley N Salthe <[email protected]>: > Bob wrote: > > Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like > Helmholz & Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to > information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the > exergy becomes RT times the mutual information among the molecules > > S: So, the more organized, the more potential available energy. > > > I happen to be a radical who feels that the term "energy" is a construct > with little ontological depth. > > S: I believe it has instead ontological breadth! > > It is a bookkeeping device (a nice one, of course, but bookkeeping > nonetheless). > It was devised to maintain the Platonic worldview. Messrs. Meyer & Joule > simply > gave us the conversion factors to make it look like energy is constant. > > S: It IS constant in the adiabatic boxes used to measure it. > > *Real* energy is always in decline -- witness what happens to the work > functions I > just mentioned. > > S: In decline in the actual material world that we inhabit. That is, the > local world -- the world of input and dissipation. I think the information > problem may be advanced if we try to explain why the energy efficiency of > any work is so poor, and gets worse the harder we work. This is the key > local phenomenon that needs to be understood. > > STAN > > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:40 AM, John Collier <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Nice post, Bob. I agree pretty much. Brooks and Wiley got slammed by >> Morowitz for using the *Real* energy in their book, which being about >> biology is the only sensible notion of energy. >> >> There is still a need for a clear dimensional analysis of the relation(s) >> between information and energy. I work on that periodically, but only >> minimal progress so far. Perhaps I can focus on it better now that I am >> retired. >> >> John >> >> At 02:11 AM 2014-08-22, Robert E. Ulanowicz wrote: >> >>> Dear Joseph, >>> >>> Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like >>> Helmholz & Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to >>> information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the >>> exergy becomes RT times the mutual information among the molecules. >>> >>> I happen to be a radical who feels that the term "energy" is a construct >>> with little ontological depth. It is a bookkeeping device (a nice one, of >>> course, but bookkeeping nonetheless). It was devised to maintain the >>> Platonic worldview. Messrs. Meyer & Joule simply gave us the conversion >>> factors to make it look like energy is constant. *Real* energy is always >>> in decline -- witness what happens to the work functions I just >>> mentioned. >>> >>> Well, enough heresy for one night! >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Bob U. >>> >>> > Dear Mark and All, >>> > >>> > I return belatedly to this short but key note of Mark's in which he >>> > repeats his view, with which I agree, that Energy is a kind of >>> > information and information is a kind of energy. >>> > >>> > My suggestion is that it may be useful to expand this statement by >>> looking >>> > at both Information and Energy (mass-energy) as emergent properties of >>> the >>> > universe. Since we agree they are not identical, we may then look at >>> how >>> > the properties differ. Perhaps we can say that Energy is an extensive >>> > property, measured primarily by quantity, and Information is an >>> intensive >>> > property. The difficulty is that both Energy and Information themselves >>> > appear to have both intensive and extensive properties, measured by >>> vector >>> > and scalar quantities respectively. I am encouraged to say that this >>> > approach might yield results that are compatible with advanced theories >>> > based on the sophisticated mathematics to which Mark refers. >>> > >>> > I would say then that in our world it is not the question of which is >>> more >>> > fundamental that is essential, but that Energy and Information share >>> > properties which are linked dynamically. In this dialectical >>> > interpretation, the need for a 'demon' that accomplishes some >>> function, as >>> > in the paper referred to in John's note, is a formal exercise. >>> > >>> > Thank you and best wishes, >>> > >>> > Joseph >>> > >>> > >>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > From: Burgin, Mark >>> > To: Joseph Brenner >>> > Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 9:19 PM >>> > Subject: Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. >>> Quintuples? >>> > >>> > >>> > Dear Joseph and Colleagues, >>> > An answer to "the perhaps badly posed question of whether information >>> or >>> > energy is more fundamental" is given in the book M.Burgin, Theory of >>> > information. The answer is a little bit unexpected: >>> > Energy is a kind of information and information is a kind of energy. >>> > It's a pity that very few researchers read books with advanced theories >>> > based on sophisticated mathematics. >>> > >>> > Sincerely, >>> > Mark Burgin >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 7/31/2014 2:40 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote: >>> > >>> > Dear Krassimir and Colleagues, >>> > >>> > I have followed this discussion with interest but not total >>> agreement. >>> > As I have commented to Krassimir previously, I feel that his system, >>> > based on symbols as outlined in his paper, is too static to capture the >>> > dynamics of complex information processes and their value (valence). It >>> > suffers from the same problems as that of Peirce and of set-theoretic >>> > approaches, namely, a certain arbitrariness in the selection and number >>> > of independent elements and their grounding in nature (or rather >>> absence >>> > of grounding). >>> > >>> > If you will permit a naïve but well-intentioned question, why not >>> have a >>> > theory whose elements are quintuples? Would this not be a 'better', >>> more >>> > complete theory? This opens the possibility of an infinite regress, but >>> > that is the point I am trying to make: the form of the theory is, to a >>> > certain extent, defining its content. >>> > >>> > The /development/ of any GIT should, from the beginning I think, >>> > recognize the existence in real time, so to speak, of any new >>> > suggestions in the context of other recent contributions of a different >>> > form, such as those of Luhn, Hofkirchner, Marijuan, Deacon, >>> > Dodig-Crnkovic, Wu and so on. Several of these already permit a more >>> > directed discussion of the perhaps badly posed question of whether >>> > information or energy is more fundamental. Otherwise, all that work >>> will >>> > need to be done at the end. In any case, the GIT itself, to the extent >>> > that it could be desirable and useful, would also have to have some >>> > dynamics capable of accepting theories of different forms. 20th Century >>> > physics sought only identities throughout nature and the balance is now >>> > being somewhat restored. I think keeping the diversity of theories of >>> > information in mind is the most worthwhile strategy. >>> > >>> > One of the values of Krassimir's approach is that it recognizes the >>> > existence of some of these more complex questions that need to be >>> > answered. I simply suggest that process language and a recognition of >>> > dynamic interactions (e.g., between 'internal' and 'external') could be >>> > part of the strategy. >>> > >>> > Best wishes, >>> > >>> > Joseph >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>> > From: Krassimir Markov >>> > To: Jerry LR Chandler ; FIS ; Pridi Siregar >>> > Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 10:42 AM >>> > Subject: [Fis] Information quadruple >>> > >>> > >>> > Dear Jerry, Pridi, and Colleagues, >>> > >>> > Thank you for the nice comments! >>> > >>> > To answer to questions I have to present next step from the GIT >>> > (General Information Theory) we are developing. >>> > >>> > Let remember in words (below "Infos" is abbreviation from >>> "Information >>> > Subject", it is an intelligent natural or artificial agent (system)): >>> > >>> > Information is quadruple (Source, Recipient, Evidence, Infos) or >>> > formally i = (s, r, e, I) >>> > >>> > The nest step is to define elements of the quadruple: >>> > >>> > s and r are structured sets; >>> > e is a mapping from s in r which preserves (all or partial) >>> structure >>> > of s and resolves any information expectation of I >>> > >>> > I expect new questions: >>> > - what is an "intelligent agent" >>> > - what is "information expectation" >>> > - ... >>> > >>> > If it is interesting, answers to these questions may be given in >>> > further letters. >>> > >>> > *** >>> > >>> > Now I want to make some comments to letters received (their full >>> texts >>> > are given below my answers). >>> > >>> > Pridi: "information cannot be viewed in any absolute sense but as >>> > internal representations of "external patterns"" >>> > Kr.: Yes, the "reflection" is a property of Matter, "information" >>> is >>> > a reflection for which the information quadruple exists. But >>> > information is not "internal representations of "external patterns" ". >>> > It is result from resolving the subjective information expectation >>> > which is process of comparing of internal and external patterns. I >>> > know, this will cause new questions >>> > >>> > Pridi: In this framework then, it seems that "information" cannot >>> be >>> > conceptualized without reference to the both "something out there" and >>> > the "internal structures" of the receptor/cognitive system. >>> > Kr.: Yes. >>> > >>> > Pridi: How can we really quantify meaningful (semantic) information >>> > ... ? >>> > Kr.: By distance between "external patterns" and "information >>> > expectation" (sorry to be not clear but it is long text for further >>> > letters). >>> > >>> > Pridi: All "objective" measures (entropy, negentropy,...) are >>> actually >>> > totally dependant of I1 and I2 and can never be considered as >>> > "absolute". >>> > Kr.: Yes, but the world humanity is an Infos and its information >>> > expectations we assume as "absolute". >>> > >>> > Pridi: ... some researchers that posit that "information" may be >>> more >>> > fundamental than the fundamental physical (mass, time, space, amps). >>> > Kr.: Yes, there are other paradigms which are useful in some cases, >>> > but in our paradigm "information" is not fundamental but "reflection" >>> > is the fundamental. >>> > >>> > Pridi: ... no "absolute truth" (whatever this means) is really >>> gained. >>> > "Only" a richer more complete (subjective but coherent) world-view . >>> > Kr.: Yes. >>> > >>> > Jerry: ... assertion of a quadruple of symbols is rather close to >>> the >>> > philosophy of C S Peirce (hereafter "CSP") >>> > Kr.: Our paradigm is nor opposite to what science has explored till >>> > now. All already investigated information theories (Shannon,Peirce, >>> > etc) have to be a part or intersection of a new GIT. >>> > >>> > Jerry: ... moves these 'definitions' of individual symbols into the >>> > subjective realm. (CSP's notion of "interpretation?) >>> > Different researchers have the freedom to interpret the evidence as >>> > they choose, including the relationships to engineering terms such as >>> > "bandwidth". >>> > Kr.: Yes. But not only researches, everybody has such freedom. >>> Because >>> > of this there exist advertising processes ... but for this we have to >>> > talk in further letters. >>> > >>> > Jerry: Pridi's post appropriately recognizes the tension between >>> > objective scientific theories and subjective judgments about evidence >>> > by different individuals with different professional backgrounds and >>> > different symbolic processing powers. >>> > Kr.: Yes, there will be tension if we assume world as plane >>> structure. >>> > But it is hierarchical one and what is assumed as "subjective" at one >>> > level is assumed as "objective" for the low levels. >>> > >>> > Jerry: ... to show that these definitions of symbols motivate a >>> > coherent symbol system that can be used to transfer information >>> > contained in the signal from symbolic representations of entities. It >>> > may work for engineering purposes, but is it extendable to life? >>> > Kr.: The goal of work on GIT is to create a coherent symbol system >>> > which is equal valid for life creatures and artificial agents. >>> > >>> > Jerry: ... this requires the use of multiple symbol systems and >>> > multiple forms of logic in order to gain the functionality of transfer >>> > of "in-form" between individuals or machines. >>> > Kr.: Yes, at least on three levels - Information, Infos, >>> Inforaction >>> > (Information interaction) >>> > >>> > Jerry: Anybody have any suggestions on how this quadruple of >>> symbols >>> > can be formalized into a quantitative coherent form of communication? >>> > Kr.: A step toward this I give above in the beginning of this >>> letter >>> > but it is very long journey ... >>> > >>> > Thank you for creative discussion! >>> > Friendly regards >>> > Krassimir >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: Jerry LR Chandler >>> > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:57 PM >>> > To: FIS >>> > Cc: Krassimir Markov ; Pridi Siregar >>> > Subject: Re: [Fis] Re to Pridi: infinite bandwith and finite >>> > informationcontent CS Peirce and Chemical Nomenclature >>> > >>> > Pridi, Krassimir, List: >>> > >>> > (In order to place this comment in context, and for reference, I >>> have >>> > copied Krassimir's "definition" of information below. My comments >>> > follow the excellent post of Pridi.) >>> > >>> > > In physical world there exist only reflections but not >>> information. >>> > > >>> > > Information " i " is the quadruple: >>> > > i = (s, r, e, I) >>> > > where >>> > > s is a source entity, which is reflected in r >>> > > r is the entity in which reflection of s exists >>> > > e is an evidence for the subject I which proofs for him and only >>> for >>> > him that the reflection in r reflects just s , i.e. the evidence >>> > proofs for the subject what the reflection reflects . >>> > > I is information subject who has possibility to make decisions in >>> > accordance with some goals - human, animal, bacteria, artificial >>> > intelligent system, etc. >>> > > >>> > > In other words, information is a reflection, but not every >>> > reflection is information - only reflections for which the quadruple >>> > above exist are assumed as information by the corresponded subjects. >>> > > >>> > > For different I , information may be different because of >>> subjects' >>> > finite memory and reflection possibilities. >>> > > Because of this, a physical event with an infinite bandwidth may >>> > have finite information content (for concrete information subject) . >>> > On Jul 23, 2014, at 6:45 AM, Pridi Siregar wrote: >>> > >>> > > Dear Krassimir, >>> > > >>> > > Thank you for your explanation. It does give me a better >>> > understanding of how information (beyond Shannon) can be formalized! >>> > However, a closer look at the formalism and its semantic does raise >>> > new questions: >>> > > >>> > > From the definition you have given, it appears that information >>> > cannot be viewed in any absolute sense but as internal >>> > representations of "external patterns" whose meaning depends on the >>> > subject capturing/interpreting/storing the said patterns. In this >>> > framework then, it seems that "information" cannot be conceptualized >>> > without reference to the both "something out there" and the >>> > "internal structures" of the receptor/cognitive system. >>> > > >>> > > In other words the concept of "information" lies within some >>> > "subjective" (albeit rational) realm. I'm sure that I'm stating the >>> > obvious for most of FIS members but a question arised upon reading >>> > your formalism: How can we really quantify meaningful (semantic) >>> > information beyond Shannon (that disregards semantics) and his >>> > purely statistical framework? Or beyond Boltzmann's >>> > entropy/Information based on micro-macro states ratios? >>> > > >>> > > When we formalize i = (s, r, e, I) there is a "meta-level" >>> > formalisation that is only apparent since even (s,r) reflect our own >>> > (human) subjective world-view. We could actually write (I1(s), >>> > I1(r), e, I2) where I1 and I2 are two distinct cognitive systems and >>> > both of which lie at the OBJECT level of the formalizing agent which >>> > is NEITHER I1 or I2. All "objective" measures (entropy, >>> > negentropy,...) are actually totally dependant of I1 and I2 and can >>> > never be considered as "absolute". >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > This leads me to a second question (sorry for the lengthy >>> message): >>> > there are some researchers that posit that "information" may be more >>> > fundamental than the fundamental physical (mass, time, space, amps). >>> > This appears (and perhaps only appears) to be at the opposite end of >>> > the above-mentioned view. Indeed, in this framework some kind of >>> > "universal" or "absolute" notions must be accepted as true. >>> > > >>> > > One apparent way out would be to demonstrate that information >>> > somehow logically entails the fundemantal physical entities while >>> > accepting that we are still within a human-centered world view. And >>> > thus no "absolute truth" (whatever this means) is really gained. >>> > "Only" a richer more complete (subjective but coherent) world-view . >>> > > >>> > > Am I making anys sense? Any thoughts? >>> > > >>> > > Best >>> > > >>> > > Pridi >>> > > >>> > >>> > Pridi's comment concur with many of my views wrt the concept of >>> > information. >>> > >>> > Krassimir's assertion of a quadruple of symbols is rather close to >>> the >>> > philosophy of C S Peirce (hereafter "CSP") in one context. >>> > >>> > S as symbol represents an external source of signal, that which is >>> > independent of the individual mind and being. This is analogous to >>> > CSP's term "sinsign". >>> > >>> > R is a thing itself. That is, R generates S. >>> > >>> > E as evidence is a vague term which infers an observer (2nd Order >>> > Cybernetics?) that both receives and evaluates the signal (S) from the >>> > thing (R). CSP categorizes evidence as icon, index or symbol with >>> > respect to the entity of observation. >>> > >>> > I as Krassimirian information is a personal judgment about the >>> > evidence. (Correspondence with CSP's notion of "argument" is >>> > conceivable.) >>> > >>> > Krassimir's assertion that: >>> > > For different I , information may be different because of >>> subjects' >>> > finite memory and reflection possibilities. >>> > > Because of this, a physical event with an infinite bandwidth may >>> > have finite information content (for concrete information subject) . >>> > >>> > >>> > moves these 'definitions' of individual symbols into the subjective >>> > realm. (CSP's notion of "interpretation?) >>> > Different researchers have the freedom to interpret the evidence as >>> > they choose, including the relationships to engineering terms such as >>> > "bandwidth". >>> > >>> > >>> > Pridi's post appropriately recognizes the tension between objective >>> > scientific theories and subjective judgments about evidence by >>> > different individuals with different professional backgrounds and >>> > different symbolic processing powers. >>> > >>> > The challenge for Krassimirian information, it appears to me, is to >>> > show that these definitions of symbols motivate a coherent symbol >>> > system that can be used to transfer information contained in the >>> > signal from symbolic representations of entities. It may work for >>> > engineering purposes, but is it extendable to life? >>> > >>> > (For me, of course, this requires the use of multiple symbol >>> systems >>> > and multiple forms of logic in order to gain the functionality of >>> > transfer of "in-form" between individuals or machines.) >>> > >>> > Pridi writes: >>> > > How can we really quantify meaningful (semantic) information >>> beyond >>> > Shannon (that disregards semantics) and his purely statistical >>> > framework? >>> > >>> > One aspect of this conundrum was solved by chemists over the past >>> to >>> > two centuries by developing a unique symbol system that is restricted >>> > by physical constraints, yet functions as an exact mode of >>> > communication. >>> > >>> > Chemical notation, as symbol system, along with mathematics and >>> data, >>> > achieves this end purpose (entelechy) of communication, for some >>> > entities, such as the meaning of an "atomic number" as a relational >>> > term and hence the meaning of a particular integer as both quantity >>> > and quality. >>> > >>> > This requires a dyadic mathematics and synductive logic for >>> > sublations. >>> > >>> > >>> > Pridi writes: >>> > >>> > > It does give me a better understanding of how information (beyond >>> > Shannon) can be formalized! >>> > >>> > Can you communicate how this "better understanding... ... >>> > foramlized" works? >>> > >>> > It is not readily apparent to me how Krassimirian information can >>> be >>> > formalized. >>> > >>> > Anybody have any suggestions on how this quadruple of symbols can >>> be >>> > formalized into a quantitative coherent form of communication? >>> > >>> > Cheers >>> > >>> > Jerry >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> ---------------- >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Fis mailing list >>> > [email protected] >>> > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Fis mailing list >>> > [email protected] >>> > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Fis mailing list >>> > [email protected] >>> > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >>> > >>> >> >> >> ---------- >> Professor John Collier >> [email protected] >> Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South >> Africa >> T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 >> Http://web.ncf.ca/collier >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fis mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > [email protected] > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list [email protected] http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
