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 <ssal...@binghamton.edu>
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 <l...@leydesdorff.net>
> 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)
>>
>> l...@leydesdorff.net ; 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:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *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 <mar...@foibg.com>
>> 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 <ssal...@binghamton.edu>
>>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, June 13, 2015 3:30 PM
>>
>> *To:* Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com>
>>
>> *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 <mar...@foibg.com>
>> 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 <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] *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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to