Loet, I think that is consistent with what I said. Different ways of measuring and perspectives. I prefer to see the unity that comes out of the dimensional analysis approach, but I was always taught that if you wanted to really understand something, absorb that first. But my background is in applied physics. Research, but on applied issues in business and government. The advantage is that you see through the basic physical values (or parameters in general), and then you can apply it to the results of measurements. Always worked for me. One tricky problem I solved was a model for how the values I was getting were possible. Turned out that not enough dimensions were being taken into consideration in the text book solutions. So relevant information was being ignored. It might seem that dimensionality is given for physics, but not when you use generalized coordinate systems. The Boltzmann equation doesn't hold very well in some cases like that - he explicitly assumes a 6N dimensional system in his derivations. Not always true.
I will shut up now. These are the first posts I have had in weeks. John From: l...@leydesdorff.net [mailto:leydesdo...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: July 27, 2015 7:10 PM To: John Collier; 'Joseph Brenner'; 'Fernando Flores'; email@example.com Subject: RE: [Fis] Answer to the comments made by Joseph Dear John and colleagues, So fundamentally we are talking about the same basic thing with information and entropy. The problem is "fundamentally": the two are the same except for a constant. Most authors attribute the dimensionality to this constant (kB). >From the perspective of probability calculus, they are the same. Best, Loet
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis