I'll have to weigh in with Stan on this one. Stan earlier had defined information more generally as "constraint". It is convenient to employ the IT calculus to separate constraint from indeterminacy. This is possible in complete abstraction from anything to do with communication.
The ability to make this separation has wide-ranging consequences. For example, it provides a pathway by which process philosophy can be brought to bear on quantitative physical systems! It is no longer necessary to rely solely on positivist "objects moving according to law". That's no small advance! <https://www.ctr4process.org/whitehead2015/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/PhilPrax.pdf> The best, Bob > Pedro wrote" > >>Most attempts to enlarge informational thought and to extend it to life, > economies, societies, etc. continue to be but a reformulation of the > former > ideas with little added value. > > S: Well, I have generalized the Shannon concept of information carrying > capacity under 'variety'... {variety {information carrying capacity}}. > This allows the concept to operate quite generally in evolutionary and > ecological discourses. Information, then, if you like, is what is left > after a reduction in variety, or after some system choice. Consider > dance: > we have all the possible conformations of the human body, out of which a > few are selected to provide information about the meaning of a dance. > > STAN > > STAN > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:22 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan < > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote: > >> Dear Steven and FIS colleagues, >> >> Many thanks for this opening text. What you are proposing about a pretty >> structured discussion looks a good idea, although it will have to >> confront the usually anarchic discussion style of FIS list! Two aspects >> of your initial text have caught my attention (apart from those videos >> you recommend that I will watch along the weekend). >> >> First about the concerns of a generation earlier (Shannon, Turing...) >> situating information in the intersection between physical science and >> engineering. The towering influence of this line of thought, both with >> positive and negative overtones, cannot be overestimated. Most attempts >> to enlarge informational thought and to extend it to life, economies, >> societies, etc. continue to be but a reformulation of the former ideas >> with little added value. See one of the last creatures: "Why Information >> Grows: The Evolution of Order, from Atoms to Economies" (2015), by Cesar >> Hidalgo (prof. at MIT). >> >> In my opinion, the extension of those classic ideas to life are very >> fertile from the technological point of view, from the "theory of >> molecular machines" for DNA-RNA-protein matching to genomic-proteomic >> and other omics' "big data". But all that technobrilliance does not >> open per se new avenues in order to produce innovative thought about the >> information stuff of human societies. Alternatively we may think that >> the accelerated digitalization of our world and the cyborg-symbiosis of >> human information and computer information do not demand much brain >> teasing, as it is a matter that social evolution is superseding by >> itself. >> >> The point I have ocasionally raised in this list is whether all the new >> molecular knowledge about life might teach us about a fundamental >> difference in the "way of being in the world" between life and inert >> matter (& mechanism & computation)---or not. In the recent compilation >> by Plamen and colleagues from the former INBIOSA initiative, I have >> argued about that fundamental difference in the intertwining of >> communication/self-production, how signaling is strictly caught in the >> advancement of a life cycle (see paper "How the living is in the >> world"). Life is based on an inusitate informational formula unknown in >> inert matter. And the very organization of life provides an original >> starting point to think anew about information --of course, not the only >> one. >> >> So, to conclude this "tangent", I find quite exciting the discussion we >> are starting now, say from the classical info positions onwards, in >> particularly to be compared in some future with another session (in >> preparation) with similar ambition but starting from say the >> phenomenology of the living. Struggling for a >> convergence/complementarity of outcomes would be a cavalier effort. >> >> All the best--Pedro >> >> >> >> Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote: >> >>> ...The subject is one that has concerned me ever since I completed my >>> PhD >>> in 1992. I came away from defending my thesis, essentially on large >>> scale >>> parallel computation, with the strong intuition that I had disclosed >>> much >>> more concerning the little that we know, than I had offered either a >>> theoretical or engineering solution. >>> For the curious, a digital copy of this thesis can be found among the >>> reports of CRI, MINES ParisTech, formerly ENSMP, >>> http://www.cri.ensmp.fr/classement/doc/A-232.pdf, it is also available >>> as a paper copy on Amazon. >>> >>> Like many that have been involved in microprocessor and instruction >>> set/language design, using mathematical methods, we share the physical >>> concerns of a generation earlier, people like John Von Neumann, Alan >>> Turing, and Claude Shannon. In other words, a close intersection >>> between >>> physical science and machine engineering. >>> >>> ...I will then discuss some historical issues in particular referencing >>> Benjamin Peirce, Albert Einstein and Alan Turing. And finally discuss >>> the >>> contemporary issues, as I see them, in biophysics, biology, and >>> associated >>> disciplines, reaching into human and other social constructions, >>> perhaps >>> touching on cosmology and the extended role of information theory in >>> mathematical physics... >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Fis mailing list >>> Fis@listas.unizar.es >>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------- >> 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
