Caro John e cari Tutti, a conforto dell'e-mail inviata questa mattina, ricordo che all'INTERNO dei buchi neri si avrebbe una minore entropia (o una maggiore neg-entropia) rispetto alla maggiore entropia (o una maggiore neg-entropia) ESTERNA. Tutto ciò deve essere bilanciato da una maggiore INFORMAZIONE interna. Quindi i buchi neri "evaporano" INFORMAZIONE. L'asimmetria tra entropia ESTERNA e INTERNA è proprio la causa di questa produzione di INFORMAZIONE. Non ho parlato di "orizzonte degli eventi" per essere (più) schematico e semplice. Scusate. Francesco.
2015-06-13 12:45 GMT+02:00 John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za>: > Dear Joseph, List, > > > > I am running past my allotment, so I will shut up after this for a while. > (I have to go to California for a workshop in any case, and won’t have much > internet access for the two days I am traveling.) > > > > The “it from bit” view was developed (after its origins for other reasons > I will come to) partly to pose questions about black holes that cannot be > posed in terms of energy. It also applies to any horizon, including event > and particle horizons. Whatever the answer, it permits well-posed questions > that have not been able to be posed in other terms, at least so far. > > > > The “it from bit” view is independent of, but strongly recommends a > computational view. I have argued for a transfer of information view of > causation on independent philosophical grounds as a development of > Russell’s at-at view of causation. The two approaches converge nicely. > > > > My understanding of the “it from bit” view does not require a binary logic > of causation, but emergence of information comes from bifurcations (Layzer, > Frautschi, Collier, among others). So that is another happy convergence of > two approaches. I see no reason why trifurcations and other higher order > splits might not be possible, if unlikely. This is an empirical question, > but makes no difference to the underlying mathematics, which takes base 2 > logarithms by convention, for convenience. I don’t see this issue as > empirical in itself, but the convenience has some empirical force. > > > > The stronger “it from bit” view that applies to everything was due > originally to Wheeler, not any of the physicists mentioned so far, and > supported by Gell-Mann. Their reason is that empirical values in quantum > mechanics often have been shown to arise from asymmetries, and they assume > this will continue (proton spin is one notable current problem, but the > problem is being pursued by this method, to the best of my understanding). > My former student Scott Muller was able to show that asymmetries in a > system assign a unique information content in the it from bit sense. In any > case, the view has an empirical motivation, and has produced empirically > satisfying results, if not universally so far. > > > > With all due respect, Joseph, the scientists I have mentioned have been > motivated by empirical issues (problems), not dogma, but you are not > working on empirical problems. I have argued that the approach is motivated > primarily by empirical issues, and it is simply wrong to attribute it to > “authority”, since anyone in principle has access to the empirical issues > and can make their own proposals. I have not seen these forthcoming for the > issues involved. > > > > I will shut up now. > > > > Regards, > > John > > > > *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Joseph > Brenner > *Sent:* June 13, 2015 10:16 AM > *To:* fis > *Subject:* [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies! > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch> > > *To:* fis <fis@listas.unizar.es> > > *Sent:* Saturday, June 13, 2015 10:13 AM > > *Subject:* Fw: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies! > > > > Dear Colleagues, > > > > I completely agree with Krassimir's position and on the importance of the > issue on which it taken. Neither he nor I wish to say that there cannot be > models and insights for science in religious beliefs, such as the Kabbala, > but then John's diagram would be more appropriate if it had *En Sof* at > the center rather than It-from-Bit. > > > > The statement "It-from-Bit is just information", further, > requires analysis: do we 1) accept this as dogma, including the implied > limitation of information to separable binary entities? or 2) assume that > the universe is constituted by complex informational processes, in which > the term 'It-from-Bit' is misleading at best, and should be avoided? > > > > I feel particularly uncomfortable when dogmatic computational views such > as those of Lloyd and Davies are presented as authoritative without > comment, except by appeal to the authority of 'some physicists'. Those > FISers who would like to see a reasonably considered rebuttal might look at > my article in *Information*: "The Logic of the Physics of Information". > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Joseph > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com> > > *To:* John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> ; Stanley N Salthe > <ssal...@binghamton.edu> ; fis <fis@listas.unizar.es> > > *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2015 11:18 PM > > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies! > > > > Dear John and Stan, > > Your two hierarchies are good only if you believe in God. > > But this is belief, not science. > > Sorry, nothing personal! > > Friendly regards > > Krassimir > > > > > > > > > > *From:* John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> > > *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2015 5:02 PM > > *To:* Stanley N Salthe <ssal...@binghamton.edu> ; fis > <fis@listas.unizar.es> > > *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 this. > > Chemical information is negentropic, and hierarchical in most > physiological systems. > > > > John > > > > *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es > <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>] *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}}}} > > > > STAN > > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan < > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> 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: > > FIS: > > 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 > > -- > Ken Herold > Director, Library Information Systems > Hamilton College > 198 College Hill Road > Clinton, NY 13323 > 315-859-4487 > kher...@hamilton.edu <mailto:kher...@hamilton.edu> > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------- > 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 (& 6818) > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es > http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ > ------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
