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.


From: l...@leydesdorff.net [mailto:leydesdo...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Loet 
Sent: July 27, 2015 7:10 PM
To: John Collier; 'Joseph Brenner'; 'Fernando Flores'; fis@listas.unizar.es
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 

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.


Fis mailing list

Reply via email to