On 30 Jun 2015, at 05:36, Andrei Khrennikov wrote:
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.
Hi Andrei,
Are you sure that: not needing to theorize on information and its
meaning, is not a defect of that approach?
Anyway, I can explain in all details why IF the brain is Turing
Emulable, THEN it is the physical which emerges from the meaning of
the information, where the meaning is defined basically by what
universal numbers makes with information (notably "dreaming").
In fact, if we take seriously the idea that biology does not exploit
non Turing emulable processes, the mind-body problem is reducible to
the derivation of physics from machine or number's dream coherence
conditions.
There are two advantages:
- 1)The "theory of everything" becomes very simple, elementary
arithmetic is enough, or just the equation Kxy = x, and Sxyz = xz(yz)
on the combinators.
- 2) Incompleteness provides the tools to distinguish proof, truth,
knowledge, beliefs, sensations, and notably the difference and
relations between qualia and quanta. In fact, we get the
quantization(s) explaining why the "reality" looks quantum.
The key notion is the first person indeterminacy. That is the rather
simple (but apparently not for everyone) idea that IF "our bodies are
machines", then it is duplicable, and we have no algorithm to predict
the particular subjective experience when we accept such personal
duplication. Physics can then be recovered by the global FPI on the
computable number relations.
Best regards to all,
Bruno Marchal
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
<image001.jpg>_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
[email protected]
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
[email protected]
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
