Dear all, May be some addition to my previous post: information physics and in particular recent information approach to QM are based on the interpretation of information as primary physical entity, similar to energy. Quantum systems carry information and can exchange it, experimenters can guess about information exchange between quantum systems and the measurement devices. Roughly speaking, this is the beginning and the end of the information story: one does not need further theorizing about the "meaning" of information. yours, andrei
Andrei Khrennikov, Professor of Applied Mathematics, International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics, Engineering, Economics, and Cognitive Science Linnaeus University, Växjö-Kalmar, Sweden ________________________________________ From: Fis [[email protected]] on behalf of Terrence W. DEACON [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 10:48 PM To: Joseph Brenner Cc: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM On Bateson's "difference that makes a difference." We should not expect such a quip to be a sufficient explanation of information in all its complexity. It is merely a useful mnemonic (coined also by MacKay as a "distinction that makes a difference") that captures both Shannon's logic and Bateson's cybernetic implications. But this is not all. If one wants to try to force this phrase to carry more of the weight of completely characterizing information it should be further interpreted. Notice that it is also an appropriate quip to describe the concept of physical work— a gradient (or difference of potential) that is reduced in a constrained way so that it generates an increase in a gradient or difference in potntial or pushes a system further from equilibrium. This double applicability is not merely a terminological coincidence, though I don't think that Gregory realized this, since he used this quip to argue for an energy/information dichotomy. I have instead argued (most recently in my January FIS essay) that both the referential and normative properties of information are intimately entangled with the concept of physical work. Also, in English parlance the phrase to "make a difference" is an idiom that means "to matter" or to be significant or of value. I believe that this double entendre was intended in order to implicate the normative and goal directed aspects of information. Explicating either the aboutness or the normative consequence in terms of "bits" therefore inevitably results in reductionistic oversimplication. Bits are a relevant measure of intrinsic logical properties of the communication medium, but of minimal value in assessing the extrinsic relational properties that are implicated in the larger concept of information. I think that measuring work (though in ways that are more complex than mere physical work) can lead to a more useful incorporation of the referential and normative properties that are implied by "information." Another problem is introduced by the use of the concept of "meaning" in these discussions. The term ambiguously connotes both reference and significance, and while it is applicable to symbolic and linguistic information, it only metaphorically applies to iconic and indexical forms of communication. Thus we discern that a sneeze indicates (provides potential information about) an allergic response, but doesn't "mean" allergy or nasal irritation. Seeing the imprint of a person's face on a coin doesn't "mean" that person. I would not want to exclude these semiotic forms of conveying information from our consideration of the concept. Clearly, we need to carefully distinguish the intrinsic logical properties of a signal medium (Shannon's usage) from information "about" something not intrinsic to that medium, from the "informative value" or normative / significant / useful consequence that is the point of interpreting something to be about something else. To fail to make these distinctions and instead flatten our discussions to the Shannonian usage is to loose track of the challenge. Let me conclude by noting that this troublesome flattening of the meaning of "information" was recognized by Shannon and many others, in the formative years of the field. In the words of a major figure in the field: “I didn’t like the term Information Theory. Claude didn’t like it either. You see, the term ‘information theory’ suggests that it is a theory about information – but it’s not. It’s the transmission of information, not information. Lots of people just didn’t understand this... I coined the term ‘mutual information’ to avoid such nonsense: making the point that information is always about something. It is information provided by something, about something.” [Interview with R. Fano, 2001] ... and I would add "for something." — Terry On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 1:48 AM, Joseph Brenner <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear Terry, I agree with the distinction you make between the two types of properties indicated, but I wish you had stated your point positively. I hope we are all not so lazy as not to be able to use modifers such as 'meaningful' with information,as Loet suggests. If one does not, does that mean that one will be in a position to establish a single monolithic interpretation for information? In the exchange below, there is thus a faint perfume of reductionism that floats around the focus on properties of informational entities without reference to the necessary energetic processes of their production, transmission and reception. But your post was less than four full lines . . . Best, Joseph ----- Original Message ----- From: Terrence W. DEACON<mailto:[email protected]> To: Marcus Abundis<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: fis<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 9:17 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM Dear Marcus, Thank you for this simple and absolutely essential intervention. Allowing ourselves the freedom to use the same term—'information' which is the defining term for this entire enterprise—for such different relationships as intrinsic signal properties and extrinsic referential and normative properties is a recipe for irrelevance. — Terry On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Loet Leydesdorff <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear Marcus and colleagues, Katherine Hayles (1990, pp. 59f.) compared this discussion about the definition of “information” with asking whether a glass is half empty or half full. Shannon-type information is a measure of the variation or uncertainty, whereas Bateson’s “difference which makes a difference” presumes a system of reference for which the information can make a difference and thus be meaningful. In my opinion, the advantage of measuring uncertainty in bits cannot be underestimated, since the operationalization and the measurement provide avenues to hypothesis testing and thus control of speculation (Theil, 1972). However, the semantic confusion can also be solved by using the words “uncertainty” or “probabilistic entropy” when Shannon-type information is meant. I note that “a difference which makes a difference” cannot so easily be measured. ☺ I agree that it is more precise to speak of “meaningful information” in that case. The meaning has to be specified in the system of reference (e.g., physics and/or biology). Best, Loet References: Hayles, N. K. (1990). Chaos Bound; Orderly Disorder in Contemporary Literature and Science Ithaca, etc.: Cornell University. Theil, H. (1972). Statistical Decomposition Analysis. Amsterdam/ London: North-Holland. ________________________________ Loet Leydesdorff Emeritus University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) [email protected] <mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Marcus Abundis Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 7:02 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM Dear Andrei, I would ask for clarification on whether you speak of "information" in your examples as something that has innate "meaning" or something that is innately "meaningless" . . . which has been a core issue in earlier exchanges. If this issue of "meaning" versus "meaningless" in the use of the term "information" is not resolved (for the group?) it seems hard (to me) to have truly meaningful exchanges . . . without having to put a "meaningful" or "meaningless" qualifier in front of "information" every time it is use. Thanks. Marcus Abundis about.me/marcus.abundis<http://about.me/marcus.abundis> _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list [email protected] http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
