Dear Jerry,

Your “and so forth” and my “and etc.” have equal meaning, i.e. I did not omit 
anything and have pointed that there are many others. 
For the same purpose I shall use three dots: “...” below. 

Well, of course, we may build many questions using, for instance, the 
construction like given below:


{anti-, auto-,de-,dis-,down-,extra-,hyper-,il-, im-, in-, 


{physical, chemical, mechanical, biological, psychological, social, ...} ?

The answer to all these questions is “YES!”

What is important is that the information is “Real” or “Mental” depending of 
Infos and its point of view. 

It is clear, that “Mental” is a kind of “Real”.

This means that:

The Information is “Real” but it exists only in the Infos consciousness!

Only what we have to do is to say explicitly what it is. 

Unfortunately, it could not be done in the frames of specialized information 
theories such as those of Shannon, Semiotics, Linguistics, Artificial 
Intelligence, and etc.

Friendly greetings


From: Jerry LR Chandler 
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 3:21 AM
To: fis 
Cc: Krassimir Markov 
Subject: Re: [Fis] “The information is “Real” or “Mental” depending of point of 


  On Apr 28, 2018, at 6:22 AM, Krassimir Markov <> wrote:

  The question “Is information physical?” is very important as well as so 
important are the questions “Is information chemical?”, “Is information 
mechanical?”, “Is information electronic?”, and etc. .

  All questions above may be summarized to “Is information real?” and, of 
course, the question “Is information mental?” immediately rises! 

  My answer to all these question is “YES!”.

I am sort of at lost as to the meanings of these assertions. In particular, I 
note that the semiotics of various disciplines is intermingled with the several 
different scientific syntaxes,  semantics and grammars (that is of physics, 
chemistry, mechanics and electronics as well as the omission of biology.) 
One way of examining meaning of these queries is to substitute “parallel  
terms” into the antecedent logical structure and compare the consequences for 
the meaning of the questions.

Consider the following parallel questions where other “form” terms are 
substituted for the term in-form-ation :

Is re-form-ation physical?
Is de-form-ation physical?
Is con-form-ation physical?
Is trans-form-ation physical?

Is re-form-ation chemical?
Is de-form-ation chemical?
Is con-form-ation chemical?
Is trans-form-ation chemical?

And, I add the discipline of biology to the list:
Is re-form-ation biological?
Is de-form-ation biological?
Is con-form-ation biological?
Is trans-form-ation biological?

and so forth.  
Are the answers to these questions also YES? Or, are some answers NO?

Are these questions related to Tarsi’s meta-languages?  (See, Malatesta, The 
Primary Logics)
Are these questions related to Lesniewski’s part-whole logic (merology)?

My answers to these two questions is YES.

Can this these questions lead to a mentation that generates a sharper inquiry 
into the meanings of “forms”?
In particular, how does in-formation differ from other changes of form?

One potential differentiation is the nature of communication according to 
Shannon who  designed an electronic system for communication? His system of 
meaning for information necessarily requires a sender and a receiver.

In contrast to the necessary change of form required by the logic of the terms 
reformation, deformation, conformation and transformation, 
Shannon / electronic information requires that no change of form occurs during 

Indeed, a change in form in a message during transmission is called an error 
(and this difference plays a huge role in Shannon’s theory of communication.)

The open question in my mind is:
Do these questions relate human communication?
Or, are these questions artifacts of the interpretations  of mathematical 

Or viewed from a different semiotic perspective, can we have a scientific 
theory of the Foundations without incorporating the role of the encoding in 
creating the Shannon transmissible message?

How important is this question for the Foundation of Information Sciences 


Fis mailing list

Reply via email to