Dear FIS-ers,

1) A can is empty or filled. Its "emptiness" or "filledness" is an information. This is an objective property. It is independent of whether a conscious being perceives it or not. I generally argue for this non-subjectivity of information.

2) There is an information change when a filled can loses its content, independent of whether a conscious being pours the content, or that happens as a result of a damage by an earthquake.

3) Information is transmitted between two telephone exchange centers via wires (or wireless) by the way of electromagnetic impulses. Generally it is initiated by conscious human beings, and received by another (if one answers the call, or detects at her/his computer). In certain cases, the impulses can be modified by outside magnetic waves originating from the space, e.g., from the Sun. It is also a part of the transmitted information, and no "conscious information-processor" takes active part in it.

This *information*(by its nickname e-mail), transmitted to you, has been in your computer even before you read (and perceived) it.

Best, Gyuri

On 2017.03.26. 11:39, Krassimir Markov wrote:
Dear Brian, Arturo, Karl, Alex, Lars-Goran, Gyuri, and FIS colleagues,
Thank you for your remarks!
What is important is that every theory has its own understanding of the concepts it uses.
For “foreigners”, theirs meaning may be strange or unknown.
Some times, concepts of one theory contradict to corresponded concepts from other theory. For years, I have met many different definitions of concept “information” and many more kinds of its use.
From materialistic up to weird point of view...
To clear my own understanding, I shall give you a simple example:
The can is used by humans for some goals, for instance to store some beer for a given period. But the can itself “could not understand” its own functions and what the can can do with beer it contains.
All its functionality is a human’s consciousness model.
Can cannot exchange beer with the glass if there are no human activity or activity of additional devices invented by humans to support this.
You know the answer ... Human with an artificial leg can walk ...
All functionality of artificial leg is a result from human’s consciousness modeling and invention.
In addition:
If it is, the first question is how to measure the quantity and quality of such “information” and who can do this? I prefer the answer “NO” – “physical information” is a concept which means something else but not “information” as it is in my understanding. From my point of view, “physical information” is a kind of reflection (see “Theory of reflections” of T.Pavlov). Every reflection may be assumed as information iff (if and only if) there exist a subjective information expectation to be resolved by given reflection. For physical information this low is not satisfied. Because of this, I prefer to call this phenomenon simply “a reflection”.
And so on ...
Human been invented too much kinds of prostheses including ones for our intellectual functionalities, i.e. many different kinds of electronic devices which, in particular, can generate some electrical, light, etc. impulses, which we assume as “information”; usually a combination of impulses we assume as s structure to be recognized by us as “information”. A special kind of prostheses are Robots. They have some autonomous functionalities but are still very far from living consciousness. The level of complexity of robot’s consciousness is far of human’s one. Someone may say that robots understand and exchange “information”, but still they only react on incoming signals following the instructions given by humans. Theirs functioning is similar to human ones but only similar. They may recognize some structures of signals and exchange such ones with other robots or living creatures. Maybe someone wants to call this “information exchange”, but, after Shannon, I call this “sending and/or receiving signals”. And automatic reaction to signals. One may say, the Robot (Computer) memory contains information but really it does not contain anything – it has its own structure which can be changed temporally of permanently by external electrical impulses. Is the human memory the same – a structure which can be changed temporally of permanently by external or internal signals? I think – yes, It is! What is the difference? Why we may say that the living creatures process information but not living couldn’t? The answer is: because the living creatures may create and resolve the “information expectation” with very high level of complexity.
Maybe in the future robots will can do it ...
Such robot I call “INFOS”. It will be artificial living creature. Possibly with some biological elements. It will be very interesting and amazing to see how the can can drink beer :-) And very dangerous – where the beer will be kept if the can can drink it? I hope, now it is clear why I assert that (now!) non-living objects COULD NOT “exchange information”.
Friendly regards
*From:* Karl Javorszky <>
*Sent:* Friday, March 24, 2017 8:24 PM
*To:* Alex Hankey <>
*Cc:* Krassimir Markov <> ; Arturo Tozzi <> ; FIS Webinar <>
*Subject:* Re: [Fis] non-living objects COULD NOT “exchange information”
1) Let me second to the point Alex raises:
machines, computers, do exchange information. It would be against cultural conventions to say that the notification that the refrigerator sends to your phone's app "to-do-list" of the content "milk only 0.5 liter available" is not an information.

The signals my car's pressure sensor sends to my dashboard, saying "tire pressure front right wheel is critically low" is a clear case of information, whether I read it or not.

2) Let me add to the point Alex states, namely that the "form of information that I presented to FiS a year ago offers the only scientifically based,mathematical physics form of 'information' that I have personally seen in the scientific literature", (Alex, will you please restate in the present context, for the present discussion, your formulation) the following:

I have given in my work "Natural orders - de ordinibus naturalibus" (ISBN 9783990571378) the following definition of the term "information": Information is a description of what is not the case. [Let /x = a//k/. This is a statement, no information contained. Let /x = a//k/and /k //<symbol for is_included_in>{1,2,...,k,...,n}/. This statement contains the information /k //<symbol for is_not_included_in>//{1,2,...,k-1,k+1,...,n}/.] (Sorry for the included & not-included symbols not making it thru the simplified text editor in use here.)


2017-03-24 18:51 GMT+01:00 Alex Hankey < <>>:

    BUT, in common parlance, computers and mobile phones 'exchange
    information' (in the abstract, digital sense) all the time.
    Including this email.
    If you wish to cleanly restrict yourself to semantic content, the
    the form of information that I presented to FiS a year ago offers
    the only scientifically based,mathematical physics form of
    'information' that I have personally seen in the scientific
    Best wishes,
    Alex Hankey
    On 24 March 2017 at 15:25, Krassimir Markov <
    <>> wrote:

        Dear Arturo and FIS Colleagues,
        Let me remember that:
        The basic misunderstanding that non-living objects could
        “exchange information” leads to many principal theoretical as
        well as psychological faults.
        For instance, photon could exchange only energy and/or
        reflections !
        /Sorry for this n-th my remark ... /
        Friendly greetings
        *From:* <>
        *Sent:* Friday, March 24, 2017 4:52 PM
        *To:* <>
        *Subject:* [Fis] I: Re: Is information truly important?

            Dear Lars-Göran,
            I prefer to use asap my second FIS bullet, therefore it
            will be my last FIS mail for the next days.

            First of all, in special relativity, an observer is NOT by
            definition a material object that can receive and store
            incoming energy from other objects.
            In special relativity, an observer is a frame of reference
            from which a set of objects or events are being measured.
            Speaking of an observer is not specifically hypothesizing
            an individual person who is experiencing events, but
            rather it is a particular mathematical context which
            objects and events are to be evaluated from. The effects
            of special relativity occur whether or not there is a
            "material object that can recieve and store incoming
            energy from other objects" within the inertial reference
            frame to witness them.
            Furthermore, take a photon (traveling at speed light) that
            crosses a cosmic zone close to the sun.  The photon
            "detects" (and therefore can interact with) a huge sun
            surface (because of its high speed), while we humans on
            the Earth "detect" (and can interact with) a much smaller
            sun surface.
            Therefore, the photon may exchange more information with
            the sun than the humans on the Earth: both the photon and
            the humans interact with the same sun, but they "detect"
            different surfaces, and therefore they may exchange with
            the sun a different information content.
            If we also take into account that the photon detects an
            almost infinite, fixed time, this means once again that it
            can exchange much more information with the sun than we
            humans can.
            In sum, once again, information does not seem to be a
            physical quantity, rather just a very subjective measure,
            depending on the speed and of the time of the "observer".

            *Arturo Tozzi*

            AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

            Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

            Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba


                ----Messaggio originale----
                Da: "Lars-Göran Johansson"
                Data: 24/03/2017 14.50
                A: "
                Ogg: Re: [Fis] Is information truly important?

                24 mars 2017 kl. 13:15 skrev
                Dear Fisers,
                a big doubt...
                We know that the information of a 3D black hole is
                proportional to its 2D horizon, according to the
                Bekenstein-Hawking equations.
                However, an hypotetical observer traveling at light
                speed (who watches a black hole at rest) detects a
                very large black hole horizon, due to Einstein's
                Therefore, he detects more information from the black
                hole than an observer at rest, who sees a smaller
                An observer is by definition a material object that
                can recieve and store incoming energy from other
                objects. Since it requires infinite energy  to
                accelerate even a slighest object to the velocity of
                light, no observer can travel at the speed of light.
                That means that your thought experiment is based in
                inconsistent assumptions and no vaild conclusions from
                them can be drawn.
                Lars-Göran Johansson

                In sum, information does not seem to be a physical
                quantity, rather just a very subjective measure...

                *Arturo Tozzi*

                AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

                Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

                Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba


                Fis mailing list
                Lars-Göran Johansson

        Fis mailing list <>

        Fis mailing list <>

-- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD(M.I.T.)
    Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
    SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
    Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India
    Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 <tel:+44%207710%20534195>
    Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 <tel:+91%2090080%2008789>

    2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences,
    Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy

    Fis mailing list <>

Fis mailing list

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to