Dear FIS,
coming back to the subject of *Mendel and garden peas*, let me present to
you some results of my research into basic rules – that appear to govern
Nature – that can be observed on experiments with abstract objects (as
pointed out in my last post, in our scientific progress we do not need
actual garden peas, but can have abstract things, called “objects”, which
are database entries to conduct experiments on).
As the quest in this pleasing society is about information, specifically
genetic information, and as we know that *genetic information is contained
in a sequence*, which is named DNA, we discuss the sequence of garden peas.
The task before me now is not easy, as tradition holds that the sequence of
logical objects is of no importance (the commutativity rule is equivalent
to saying that it is of no relevance, which garden pea is closer to the
window and which is farther away in the shade.)
*Example:*
Let us take 5 garden peas and order them according to any of their main
properties:
Case Nr. 1:
Garden pea nr.
First name
Second name
Place
Main subject
1
Arturo
Tozzi
Italy
Physics
2
Joe
Brenner
Zurich
Logic
3
Karl
Javorszky
Vienna
Numbers
4
Krassimir
Markow
Sofia
Networks
5
Pedro
Marijuan
Zaragoza
Physiology
Here, we have ordered the garden peas on their property called “First name”
Case Nr. 2:
Garden pea nr.
First name
Second name
Place
Main subject
1
Joe
Brenner
Zurich
Logic
2
Karl
Javorszky
Vienna
Numbers
3
Pedro
Marijuan
Zaragoza
Physiology
4
Krassimir
Markow
Sofia
Networks
5
Arturo
Tozzi
Italy
Physics
Here, we have ordered the garden peas on their property called “Second name”
Case Nr. 3:
Garden pea nr.
First name
Second name
Place
Main subject
1
Arturo
Tozzi
Italy
Physics
2
Krassimir
Markow
Sofia
Networks
3
Karl
Javorszky
Vienna
Numbers
4
Pedro
Marijuan
Zaragoza
Physiology
5
Joe
Brenner
Zurich
Logic
Here, we have ordered the garden peas on their property called “Place”
Case Nr. 4:
Garden pea nr.
First name
Second name
Place
Main subject
1
Joe
Brenner
Zurich
Logic
2
Krassimir
Markow
Sofia
Networks
3
Karl
Javorszky
Vienna
Numbers
4
Arturo
Tozzi
Italy
Physics
5
Pedro
Marijuan
Zaragoza
Physiology
Here, we have ordered the garden peas on their property called “Main
subject”
I hope that you can see that these properties of our garden peas are
comparable to properties like “color”, “height”, “stem thickness”, “number
of leaves”.
We now discuss the questions:
*Which of the properties is the most important? Which property will be
decisive for a prominent place in the sun? Which place is the correct place
for any individual garden pea? *
The Shannon answer to these questions is:
1) *Because it makes too much trouble, we do not look into the position
of an element in a sequence* and assume that each element is in the average
middle place (commutativity rule);
2) In Case 1: “First name” is valued “1”, the others are valued “0”; In
Case 2: “Second name” is valued “1”, the others are valued “0”; In Case 3:
“Place” is valued “1”, the others are valued “0”; In Case 4: “Main subject”
is valued “1”, the others are valued “0”; *and with properties valued “0”
we have nothing to do, as these properties do not exist.*
The novelty approach comes from conducting many experiments with garden
peas and observing their positions:
1) By using computers, the burden of having to consider very many
variations can be overcome, and *general rules can be established*
regarding the positions of garden peas;
2) Those properties which are valued “0” are the *background to the
property valued “1”*; these properties *can be assigned numeric values* for
the extent in which they differ from “1” (are not the case);
3) It is generally a good idea to assume that *logical compromises*
take place in the background; the place to be assumed for an element to be
in is not the average middle place but a *series of temporal-spatial steps
between the correct places; *(this is called “cyclic permutations”);
4) There appears a *web of possible places* for each element in each
moment; this web is in fact a *unified field theory*; the agglomerations
that come about naturally, as consequences of natural numbers being such as
they are, within this web, come in *distinct types*; these types are
called *logical
archetypes* and represent the *chemical elements*; how they link to each
other can explain quite many of the observations of Chemistry;
5) The *position of specific elements in a linear sequence* can – in
ideal circumstances – be logically equivalent to properties of specific
multi-dimensional agglomerations in specific places; this *logical
tautology* has the formal properties of coming in *triplets of logical
tokens that are 1-of-4.*
One hopes that experimenting with garden peas and observing the rules of
how their properties interact with each other can have some eye-opening
consequences in educated circles of scientists.
Let me mention that the algorithms that try to assign {the, the best, one
of the best, a usual, any} place to garden peas have very many practical
applications and that those scientists who wish to earn serious money can
do so in a wide variety of fields by using some corollaries of these
advances in number theory and applied logic.
Karl
2017-09-29 14:01 GMT+02:00 <tozziart...@libero.it>:
> Dear FISers,
> Hi!
> ...a very hot discussion...
> I think that it is not useful to talk about Aristotle, Plato and Ortega y
> Gasset, it the modern context of information... their phylosophical, not
> scientific approach, although marvelous, does not provide insights in a
> purely scientific issue such the information we are talking about...
>
> Once and forever, it must be clear that information is a physical
> quantity.
> Please read (it is not a paper of mine!):
> Street S. 2016. Neurobiology as information physics. Frontiers in
> Systems neuroscience.
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5108784/
>
> In short, Street shows how information can be clearly defined in terms of
> Bekenstein entropy!
>
> Sorry,
> and BW...
>
> Arturo Tozzi
>
> AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
>
> Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
>
> Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
>
> http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
>
> --
> Inviato da Libero Mail per Android
> venerdì, 29 settembre 2017, 01:31PM +02:00 da Rafael Capurro
> raf...@capurro.de:
>
>
> Dear Pedro,
>
> thanks for food for thought. When talking about communication we should
> not forget that Wiener defines cybernetics as "the theory of messages"
> (not: as the theory of information) (Human use of human beings, London
> 1989, p. 15, p. 77 "cybernetics, or the theory of messages" et passim) Even
> for Shannon uses the (undefined) concept of message 'as' what is
> transmitted (which is not information) is of paramount importance. And so
> also at the level of cell-cell communication.
>
> The code or the difference message/messenger is, I think, a key for
> interpreting biological processes. In this sense, message/messanger are
> 'archai' (in the Aristotelian) sense for different sciences (no
> reductionism if we want to focus on the differences between the phenomena).
> 'Archai' are NOT 'general concepts' (as you suggest) but originating forces
> that underline the phenomena in their manifestations 'as' this or that.
>
> From this perspective, information (following Luhmann) is the process of
> interpretation taking place at the receiver. When a cell, excuse me these
> thoughts from a non-biologist, receives a message transmitted by a
> messenger, then the main issue is from the perspective of the cell, to
> interpret this message (with a special address or 'form' supposed to
> 'in-form' the cell) 'as' being relevant for it. Suppose this interpretation
> is wrong in the sense that the message causes death (to the cell or the
> whole organism), then the re-cognition system (its immune system also) of
> the cell fails. Biological fake news, so to speak, with mortal consequences
> due to failures in the communication.
>
> best
>
> Rafael
>
> Dear FISers,
>
> I also agree with Ji and John Torday about the tight relationship between
> information and communication. Actually Principle 5 was stating :
> "Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles underlie
> the complexity of biological organizations at all scales." However, let me
> suggest that we do not enter immediately in the discussion of cell-cell
> communication, because it is very important and perhaps demands some more
> exchanges on the preliminary info matters.
>
> May I return to principles and Aristotle? I think that Rafael and Michel
> are talking more about principles as general concepts than about principles
> as those peculiar foundational items that allow the beginning of a new
> scientific discourse. Communication between principles of the different
> disciplines is factually impossible (or utterly irrelevant): think on the
> connection between Euclidean geometry and politics, biology, etc. I think
> Ortega makes right an interpretation about that. When Aristotle makes the
> first classification of the sciences, he is continuing with that very idea.
> Theoretical sciences, experimental or productive sciences, and applied or
> practical sciences--with an emphasis on the explanatory theoretical power
> of both physics and mathematics (ehm, Arturo will agree fully with him). I
> have revisited my old reading notes and I think that the Aristotelian
> confrontation with the Platonic approach to the unity of knowledge that
> Ortega comments is extremely interesting for our current debate on
> information principles.
>
> There is another important aspect related to the first three principles in
> my original message (see at the bottom). It would be rather strategic to
> achieve a consensus on the futility of struggling for a universal
> information definition. Then, the tautology of the first principle ("info
> is info") is a way to sidestep that definitional aspect. Nevertheless, it
> is clear that interesting notions of information may be provided relative
> to some particular domains or endeavors. For instance, "propagating
> influence" by our colleague Bob Logan, Stuart Kauffman and others, and many
> other notions or partial definitions as well--I include my own "distinction
> on the adjacent" as valuable for the informational approach in biology. Is
> this "indefinability" an undesirable aspect? To put an example from
> physics, time appears as the most undefinable of the terms, but it shows up
> in almost all equations and theories of physics... Principle three means
> that one can do a lot of things with info without the need of defining it.
>
> As for the subject that is usually coupled to the info term, as our
> discussion advances further, entering the "information flows" will tend to
> clarify things. The open-ended relationship with the environment that the
> "informational entities" maintain via the channeling of those info
> flows--it is a very special coupling indeed--allows these entities the
> further channeling of the "energy flows" for self-maintenance. Think on the
> living cells and their signaling systems, or think on our "info" societies.
> Harold Morowitz's "energy flow in biology" has not been paralleled yet by a
> similar "information flow in biology". One is optimistic that the recent
> incorporation of John Torday, plus Shungchul Ji and others, may lead to a
> thought-collective capable of illuminating the panorama of biological
> information.
>
> (shouldn't we make an effort to incorporate other relevant parties, also
> interested in biological information, to this discussion?)
>
> Best wishes--Pedro
>
> El 23/09/2017 a las 21:27, Sungchul Ji escribió:
>
> Hi Fisers,
>
>
> I agree.
>
> Communication may be the key concept in developing a theory of informaton.
>
>
> Just as it is impossible to define what energy is without defining the
> thermodynamic system under consideration (e.g., energy is conserved only in
> an isolated system and not in closed or open systems; the Gibbs free energy
> content decreases only when a spontaneous process occurs in non-isolsted
> systems with a constant temperature and pressure, etc), so it may be that
> 'information' cannot be defined rigorously without first defining the
> "communication system" under consideration. If this analogy is true, we
> can anticipate that, just as there are many different kinds of energies
> depending on the characteristics of the thermodynamic systems involved, so
> there may be many different kinds of 'informations' depending on the nature
> of the communication systems under consideration.
>
>
> The properties or behaviors of all thermodynamic systems depend on their
> environment, and there are three system-environment relations -- (i)
> isolated (e.g., the Universe, or the thermos bottle), (ii) closed (e.g.,
> refriegerator), and (iii) open (e.g., the biosphere, living cells).
>
>
> It is interesting to note that, all communication systems (e.g., cell,
> organs, animals, humans) may embody ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation)
> which I found it convenient to represent diagramamatically using a 3-node
> network arrows as shown below:
>
>
> * f g*
>
> *A* ----------> *B *---------> *C*
> |
> ^
> |
> |
> |__________________|
> *h*
>
>
> Figure 1. The Irreducible Triadic Relation (*ITR*) of C. S. Peirce
> (1839-21914) represented as a 3-node, closed and directed network. The
> arrows form the *commutative triangle *of category theory, i.e.,
> operations *f* followed by *g* leads to the same result as operation *h*,
> here denoted as *fxg = h.*
>
> *f* = information production; *g* = information interpretation; *h* =
> correspondence or information flow. Please note that Processes f and g
> are driven by exergonic physicochemical processes, and *h* requires
> a pre-existing code or language that acts as the rule of mapping A and C.
>
>
> Again, just as generations of thermodynamicists in the 19-20th
> centuries have defined various kinds of "energies" (enthalpy, Helmholtz
> free energy, Gibbs free energy) applicable to different kinds of
> thermodynamic systems, so 'information scientists' of the 21st century may
> have the golden opportunity to define as many kinds of 'informations' as
> needed for the different kinds of "communcation systems" of their interest,
> some examples of which being presented in Table 1.
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Table 1. A 'parametric' definition of information based on the values of
> the three nodes
> of the *ITR, *Figure 1.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> *Communication system* *A B
> C *
> (Information)
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> *Cells * DNA/RNA
> Proteins Chemcal reactions
> (Biological informations)
> or chemical waves
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> *Humans * Sender
> Message Receiver
> (Linguistic informations)
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
>
> *Signs * Object
> Representamen Interpretant
> (Semiotic informations, or
>
> 'Universal informations' (?))
> __________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> With all the best.
>
>
> Sung
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>
> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY <jtor...@ucla.edu> <jtor...@ucla.edu>
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:44:33 AM
> *To:* fis@listas.unizar.es
> *Subject:* [Fis] Principles of IS
>
> Dear Fis, I am a newcomer to this discussion, but suffice it to say that I
> have spent the last 20 years trying to understand how and why physiology
> has evolved. I stumbled upon your website because Pedro Maijuan had
> reviewed a paper of ours on 'ambiguity' that was recently published in
> Progr Biophys Mol Biol July 22, 2017 fiy.
> Cell-cell communication is the basis for molecular
> embryology/morphogenesis. This may seem tangential at best to your
> discussion of Information Science, but if you'll bear with me I will get to
> the point. In my (humble) opinion, information is the 'language' of
> evolution, but communication of information as a process is the mechanism.
> In my reduction of evolution as communication, it comes down to the
> interface between physics and biology, which was formed when the first cell
> delineated its internal environment (Claude Bernard, Walter B Cannon) from
> the outside environment. From that point on, the dialog between the
> environment and the organism has been on-going, the organism internalizing
> the external environment and compartmentalizing it to form what we
> recognize as physiology (Endosymbiosis Theory). Much of this thinking has
> come from new scientific evidence for Lamarckian epigenetic inheritance
> from my laboratory and that of many others- how the organism internalizes
> information from the environment by chemically changing the information in
> DNA in the egg and sperm, and then in the zygote and offspring, across
> generations. So here we have a fundamental reason to reconsider what
> 'information' actually means biologically. If you are interested in any of
> my publications on this subject please let me know (jtor...@ucla.edu).
> Thank you for any interest you may have in this alternative way of thinking
> about information, communication and evolution.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing
> listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>
> As promised herewith the "10 principles of information science". A couple
> of previous comments may be in order.
> First, what is in general the role of principles in science? I was
> motivated by the unfinished work of philosopher Ortega y Gasset, "The idea
> of principle in Leibniz and the evolution of deductive theory"
> (posthumously published in 1958). Our tentative information science seems
> to be very different from other sciences, rather multifarious in appearance
> and concepts, and cavalierly moving from scale to scale. What could be the
> specific role of principles herein? Rather than opening homogeneous realms
> for conceptual development, these information principles would appear as a
> sort of "portals" that connect with essential topics of other disciplines
> in the different organization layers, but at the same time they should try
> to be consistent with each other and provide a coherent vision of the
> information world.
> And second, about organizing the present discussion, I bet I was too
> optimistic with the commentators scheme. In any case, for having a first
> glance on the whole scheme, the opinions of philosophers would be very
> interesting. In order to warm up the discussion, may I ask John Collier,
> Joseph Brenner and Rafael Capurro to send some initial comments /
> criticisms? Later on, if the commentators idea flies, Koichiro Matsuno and
> Wolfgang Hofkirchner would be very valuable voices to put a perspectival
> end to this info principles discussion (both attended the Madrid bygone FIS
> 1994 conference)...
> But this is FIS list, unpredictable in between the frozen states and the
> chaotic states! So, everybody is invited to get ahead at his own, with the
> only customary limitation of two messages per week.
>
> Best wishes, have a good weekend --Pedro
>
> *10 **PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION SCIENCE*
>
> 1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy.
>
> 2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns, messages, or
> flows.
>
> 3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can be processed
> (either computationally or non-computationally).
>
> 4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's self-production
> processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying
> energy flows.
>
> 5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles underlie
> the complexity of biological organizations at all scales.
>
> 6. It is symbolic language what conveys the essential communication
> exchanges of the human species--and constitutes the core of its "social
> nature."
>
> 7. Human information may be systematically converted into efficient
> knowledge, by following the "knowledge instinct" and further up by applying
> rigorous methodologies.
>
> 8. Human cognitive limitations on knowledge accumulation are partially
> overcome via the social organization of "knowledge ecologies."
>
> 9. Knowledge circulates and recombines socially, in a continuous
> actualization that involves "creative destruction" of fields and
> disciplines: the intellectual *Ars Magna.*
>
> 10. Information science proposes a new, radical vision on the information
> and knowledge flows that support individual lives, with profound
> consequences for scientific-philosophical practice and for social
> governance.
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------
> 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 0
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 <+34%20976%2071%2035%2026> (&
> 6818)pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing
> listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://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 0
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 <+34%20976%2071%2035%2026> (&
> 6818)pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing
> listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
>
> --
> Prof.em. Dr. Rafael Capurro
> Hochschule der Medien (HdM), Stuttgart, Germany
> Capurro Fiek Foundation for Information Ethics
> (http://www.capurro-fiek-foundation.org)
> Distinguished Researcher at the African Centre of Excellence for Information
> Ethics (ACEIE), Department of Information Science, University of Pretoria,
> South Africa.
> Chair, International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE) (http://icie.zkm.de)
> Editor in Chief, International Review of Information Ethics (IRIE)
> (http://www.i-r-i-e.net)
> Postal Address: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany
> E-Mail: raf...@capurro.de
> Voice: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 - 22 (Fax: -21)
> Homepage: www.capurro.de
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
