Paul Davies believes in something like that. The other “it from bit”ers, no. So 
I don’t know why you say that, Krassimir. I took the structure below directly 
from uses that appear in scientific sources, not from some a priori 
consideration. Each nesting generates hypotheses that can be tested (and has). 
I find the unification, which involves similar methods at each nesting, 
attractive methodologically. Not everyone does. But I don’t think it is more 
than the sort of usual abductive inference that is common in science. The 
proof, of course, is in the productivity in producing testable and eventually 
tested hypotheses, not in any a priori belief.


From: Krassimir Markov []
Sent: June 12, 2015 11:19 PM
To: John Collier; Stanley N Salthe; fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

Dear John and Stan,
Your both hierarchies are good only if you believe in God.
But this is believe, not science.
Sorry, nothing personal!
Friendly regards

From: John Collier<>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 5:02 PM
To: Stanley N Salthe<> ; 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

Not quite the same hierarchy, but similar:


It from bit is just information, which is fundamental, on Seth Lloyd’s 
computational view of nature. Paul Davies and some other physicists agree with 
Chemical information is negentropic, and hierarchical in most physiological 


From: Fis [] On Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 3:40 PM
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

Pedro -- Your list:

physical, biological, social, and Informational

is implicitly a hierarchy -- in fact, a subsumptive hierarchy, with the 
physical subsuming the biological and the biological subsuming the social.  But 
where should information appear?  Following Wheeler, we should have:

{informational {physicochemical {biological {social}}}}


On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan 
<<>> wrote:
Thanks, Ken. I think your previous message and this one are drawing sort of the 
border-lines of the discussion. Achieving a comprehensive view on the 
interrelationship between computation and information is an essential matter. 
In my opinion, and following the Vienna discussions, whenever life cycles are 
involved and meaningfully "touched", there is info; while the mere info 
circulation according to fixed rules and not impinging on any life-cycle 
relevant aspect, may be taken as computation. The distinction between both may 
help to consider more clearly the relationship between the four great domains 
of sceince: physical, biological, social, and Informational. If we adopt a 
pan-computationalist stance, the information turn of societies, of 
bioinformation, neuroinformation, etc. merely reduces to applying computer 
technologies. I think this would be a painful error, repeating the big mistake 
of 60s-70s, when people band-wagon to developed the sciences of the artificial 
and reduced the nascent info science to library science. People like Alex 
Pentland (his "social physics" 2014) are again taking the wrong way... Anyhow, 
it was nicer talking face to face as we did in the past conference!

best ---Pedro

Ken Herold wrote:

Sorry to have been too disruptive in my restarting discussion post--I did not 
intend to substitute for the Information Science thread an alternative way of 
philosophy or computing.  The references I listed are indicative of some bad 
thinking as well as good ideas to reflect upon.  Our focus is information and I 
would like to hear how you might believe the formal relational scheme of 
Rosenbloom could be helpful?


Ken Herold
Director, Library Information Systems
Hamilton College
198 College Hill Road
Clinton, NY 13323

Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526<tel:%2B34%20976%2071%203526> (& 6818)<>

Fis mailing list<>

Fis mailing list<>
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to