Deacon addressed this all very clearly in his January paper. I'm guessing for most FIS members his argument changed little or nothing.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Stanley N Salthe <[email protected]> wrote: > Loet -- Well, so you favor the definition of information as an invention > of Western technology related to communication. Others prefer to define > information in such a way that it emerges into the world with biology -- in > the genetic system. Still others define information in such a way that it > can be viewed as a physical quantity, perhaps a measure of the importance > of context in any physical interaction. As a generalizer, I prefer the > latter, giving us the subsumptive hierarchy: > > Information ~ {context {material code {uncertainty}}} > > STAN > > On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Loet Leydesdorff <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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) >> >> [email protected] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ >> Honorary Professor, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of >> Sussex; >> >> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, >> Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, >> <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing; >> >> Visiting Professor, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of >> London; >> >> 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 <[email protected]> >> >> *Sent:* Saturday, June 13, 2015 3:30 PM >> >> *To:* Krassimir Markov <[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 <[email protected]> >> >> *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2015 5:02 PM >> >> *To:* Stanley N Salthe <[email protected]> ; fis >> <[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 (& 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list [email protected] http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
