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:
CAN THE CAN DRINK BEER ?
CAN THE CAN EXCHANGE BEER WITH THE GLASS ?
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.
Further:
CAN THE ARTIFICIAL LEG WALK ?
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:
IS THE “PHYSICAL INFORMATION” INFORMATION ?
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 ...
Finally:
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
Krassimir
*From:* Karl Javorszky <mailto:karl.javors...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Friday, March 24, 2017 8:24 PM
*To:* Alex Hankey <mailto:alexhan...@gmail.com>
*Cc:* Krassimir Markov <mailto:mar...@foibg.com> ; Arturo Tozzi
<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it> ; FIS Webinar
<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>
*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":
8.3.3.3 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.)
Karl
2017-03-24 18:51 GMT+01:00 Alex Hankey <alexhan...@gmail.com
<mailto:alexhan...@gmail.com>>:
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
literature.
Best wishes,
Alex Hankey
On 24 March 2017 at 15:25, Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com
<mailto:mar...@foibg.com>> 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
Krassimir
*From:* tozziart...@libero.it <mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>
*Sent:* Friday, March 24, 2017 4:52 PM
*To:* fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>
*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
http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
----Messaggio originale----
Da: "Lars-Göran Johansson"
<lars-goran.johans...@filosofi.uu.se
<mailto:lars-goran.johans...@filosofi.uu.se>>
Data: 24/03/2017 14.50
A: "tozziart...@libero.it
<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>"<tozziart...@libero.it
<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>>
Ogg: Re: [Fis] Is information truly important?
24 mars 2017 kl. 13:15 skrev tozziart...@libero.it
<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>:
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
equations.
Therefore, he detects more information from the black
hole than an observer at rest, who sees a smaller
horizon…
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
http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
<http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
Lars-Göran Johansson
lars-goran.johans...@filosofi.uu.se
<mailto:lars-goran.johans...@filosofi.uu.se>
0701-679178
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
<http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
<http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis>
--
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
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3>
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
<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
