I would add another possibility -- information does not appear in the universe
until it is manipulated by modern human society as a commodity.
Yes, Stan, this makes sense to me: information (in bits) can be considered as a
measurement of the expected uncertainty. It is yet meaning-free, but it can be
provided with meaning in a system of reference – such as a discourse.
For example, {50%,50%} contains 1 bit of information. Thus, if we mix 50 euro
coins with 50 coins of a dollar or we group 50 black cats with 50 white ones,
the uncertainty is one bit of information. This does not tell us anything about
the cats themselves as in a biology.
During the recent conference in Vienna, I was amazed how many of our colleagues
wish to ground information in physics. However, the information-theoretical
evaluation seems mathematical to me. The mathematical notion of entropy is
different from the physical one. The physical one is only valid for the
physico-chemical system of momenta and energy.
When I exchange the 50 dollars into 50 euros, the expected information content
of the distribution of coins goes from one to zero bits, but this is not
thermodynamic entropy. The physics of the exchange process are external to the
informational-theoretical evaluation.
I know that you wish to express this with hierarchies. Information can be
measured at each level or as mutual information between them. But what the
information means, depends on the specific systems of reference.
Best,
Loet
_____
Loet Leydesdorff
Emeritus University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Honorary Professor, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of
Sussex;
Guest Professor <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou;
Visiting Professor, <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing;
Visiting Professor, <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London;
<http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en>
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en
From: Fis [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2015 3:14 PM
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!
Krassimir -- Thanks. Now I see what your objection is. You do not agree with
the Wheeler concept that information was he basis upon which everything else
was founded. Rather, you see it as appearing along with matter. Or you might
consider that it appeared 'along with form', in which case information doesn't
appear in the universe until life makes it appearance. I would add another
possibility -- information does not appear in the universe until it is
manipulated by modern human society as a commodity.
STAN
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Krassimir Markov <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear John and Stan,
What is cause, and what is result? This is the question.
If we not assume information and informational processes as secondary effect
from activity of living mater, it is not possible to proof anything and we
have to believe that proposed models maybe are truth. We have to trust to
Author but not to experiments.
Information has to be included not in the beginning of the hierarchy – at least
in the middle where living mater appear.
Sorry that my post was apprehended as careless!
Friendly regards
Krassimir
From: Stanley N Salthe <mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 3:30 PM
To: Krassimir Markov <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!
Krassimir -- ??? I fail to understand your assertion. This (and any
hierarchy) is a logical formulation, allowing us to allocate influences from
various aspects of nature in an orderly manner.
So, please explain further your careless assertion!
STAN
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Krassimir Markov <[email protected]> wrote:
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
Krassimir
From: John Collier <mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 5:02 PM
To: Stanley N Salthe <mailto:[email protected]> ; fis
<mailto:[email protected]>
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:[email protected]] 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 <[email protected]>
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
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
--
-------------------------------------------------
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)
[email protected]
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
