Steven, If you have seen any bio textbook where in the Shannon equation is used and information is defined, I would love to have the reference.
Also, as you know, the Shannon equation itself does not quantify "information" as widely belied but quantifies only the "variety" (also misleadingly called "entropy") of the message source in a communication system. The Shannon equation quantifies the amount of information carried by a message if and only if (i) the channel is error-free, and (ii) the number of messages chosen out of the message source is one If it is two, then the amount of information being transmitted through the channel via the message is reduced accordingly, although the variety of the message source as reflected in the Shannon equation is unchanged. All the best. Sung On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> wrote: > Yep. That is correct. There is no biophysics in telecommunications, the > qualitative aspects are ours. Expand your horizons a little, I am sure I've > seen Shannon in multiple bio texts. > > Steven > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Sungchul Ji <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Steven, John, lists, >> >> It is my understanding that the Shannon equation can only capture the >> "quantitative" aspects of "information" not its "qualitative" aspects such >> as "meaning" and "value". All these three aspects are important in >> biological information, although the latter two are of a more practical >> significance than the former, as attested by the fact that no biochemistry >> nor molecular biological textbooks that I consulted ever mentioned the >> Shannon equation (or even the definition of information), and yet they seem >> to be doing fine with their research on genetic information, signal >> transduction, etc. >> >> Sung >> >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I remain unclear on what you are referring to with respect to the >>> empirical results. I have long been involved with information theory. Where >>> is my error, exactly? How do physicists, as you appear to claim, speak >>> about information in a way that is not consistent with Shannon? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Steven >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:43 AM, John Collier <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Steven, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am not just asserting it, I am pointing to research traditions with >>>> empirical results. The researchers involved are not idealists in any sense >>>> I can see. You are stubbornly holding on to your idea of information and it >>>> is blinding you to how the idea has been used by physicists for several >>>> decades now. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I don’t expect you to follow the work, but I take exception to you >>>> dissing it when you clearly do not understand its basis, as evidenced by >>>> your attributing incorrect attributes to it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >>>> Behalf Of *Steven Ericsson-Zenith >>>> *Sent:* March 30, 2015 7:55 PM >>>> *To:* John Collier >>>> *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected] >>>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8162] Re: Article on >>>> origina of the universe >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If there is anything that I have learned at all, ever and anywhere, it >>>> is that because people think for a long time that it is so, it does not >>>> make it so. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This is why humanity invented the scientific method and it is the >>>> entire reason for Epistemology as a discipline ... to keep us honest. You >>>> may persuade yourself of anything at all in its absence. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The basis of this method is Empiricism, the actual measurement of >>>> motion. If this is what the discussion reduces to then I am happy and I do >>>> not care what you call it as long as we understand that there is a >>>> distinction, a necessary distinction, between the conception of measure, >>>> the idea, and the world. Because, for example, measure is discrete, it does >>>> not follow that the subject of the measure is, in fact, discrete. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The power of assertion must stand aside. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I understand the power of "information" as an IDEA, just as I >>>> understand the power of the notion of "communication" as an IDEA, but >>>> neither can have existential status unless you are a strict idealist and >>>> assert that ideas exist. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From my point of view, Ideas must become the subject of Empirical >>>> measure - we must, as we have done for gravitation and electromagnetism, >>>> measure the motions produced by ideas. Given that ideas are necessarily >>>> measurable in this way, they cannot be first anywhere - denying strict >>>> Idealism as the basis of the world. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Asserting it is otherwise makes no sense. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steven >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:30 PM, John Collier <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> “It from bit.” Information as the ground of “stuff”. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Well I guess you have to have a modicum of understanding of the physics >>>> (my original field). To understand what is meant by the slogan it helps to >>>> study the writings on the topic of Wheeler, Gell-Mann and Seth Lloyd, and >>>> the literature on Hawking radiation helps (I’d stay away from Paul Davies’ >>>> work, which is too idealistic for my taste and probably yours). I have been >>>> thinking of information as “stuff” since I was an undergraduate, and I have >>>> also talked with a number of these people or their students, and was able >>>> to match the idea up with my understanding of physics. I suppose these >>>> interactions were important to my understanding in the way that Kuhn argues >>>> that membership in a research group is required to fully understand how a >>>> research program can be carried forward. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I’ve been asked on occasion what entropy is in job interviews and I >>>> have to say that you can’t understand it in a few words. You need to work >>>> with it, dealing with real problems. Some very smart people I know got it >>>> wrong in their undergraduate physics and physical chemistry course. It is >>>> not an easy concept. The relationship between entropy and information (as >>>> stuff) is at least as difficult, but opens the door to understanding >>>> information as stuff. BY the way, one of my students, Scott Muller, took my >>>> ideas of intrinsic information and origin of information through symmetry >>>> breaking much further than I did in his PhD thesis, published as Asymmetry: >>>> The Foundation of Information >>>> https://books.google.com.br/books?id=oMFsko4E9FQC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=asymmetry+principle+of+information+muller&source=bl&ots=lO024N84sa&sig=1LDiHZu1Jyet8ABBpTPZ3NJ-UUc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9LsZVdn8C8P3yQS-4YDQAQ&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=asymmetry%20principle%20of%20information%20muller&f=false >>>> >>>> Scott uses group theory to show that information content is not a >>>> relative quantity, as Jaynes thought, but is specific to the asymmetries in >>>> a structure. He gives a number of simple examples, but the argument is >>>> fairly abstract. But as I was suggesting above, the meat is really in the >>>> applications to real cases and the capacity to extend them to other cases. >>>> Scott’s background is in physical chemistry (PhD), philosophy (PhD) and >>>> programming (his occupation). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That said, so far the article I initiated this discussion with is a >>>> step too far for me. But it does illustrate, right or wrong, that time >>>> needn’t exist prior to the universe, and that there is another, logical, >>>> sense of priority. If we accept Rosen’s idea of logic mirroring causal >>>> connection, then this latter is a form of causal priority. The problem I >>>> see is not the use of the information concept, but the basis of the >>>> distinction space and what determines it. The paper gives nothing but >>>> existence and non-existence, which is pretty spare. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >>>> Behalf Of *Steven Ericsson-Zenith >>>> *Sent:* March 30, 2015 5:50 PM >>>> *To:* John Collier >>>> *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected] >>>> *Subject:* [biosemiotics:8162] Re: Article on origina of the universe >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Here's my problem with this. Simply stating that information is "stuff" >>>> is insufficient. "It from Bit" is a cute slogan but nowhere (and I mean >>>> NOWHERE) near good enough. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steven >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:20 PM, John Collier <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Yeh, the sort of information talked about in the article is “stuff”. It >>>> from bit. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> *Sent:* March 30, 2015 5:18 PM >>>> *To:* Biosemiotics; [email protected] >>>> *Subject:* [biosemiotics:8156] Re: Article on origina of the universe >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steven - I'd agree that information is, as it exists, an action. In my >>>> view, matter only exists as 'organized' and thus is in a differentiated >>>> form, which is to say, it is 'in-formation'. BUT this organization operates >>>> within networked interactions; in other words - there is no such thing as, >>>> for example, an isolate 'bit' of matter unconnected to other matter. >>>> Everything is interactive, is networked, is in that sense, 'in action' and >>>> in interaction. So, I would say that this is an 'active description of >>>> information'. Not a passive definition. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> i don't think that energy or matter exist per se. They exist only as >>>> in-formed, as organized into a particular differentiated unit - i.e, as >>>> information. As we know, energy exists in our universe only as matter >>>> (Einstein)...and I'm agreeing that this matter isn't unorganized but is >>>> organized into a differentiation from other matter. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> However, you and I disagree on the meaning of information. You seem to >>>> say that it is 'ideas'; while I am defining information as organized >>>> matter. The analytic outline of this organized matter, the conscious sign >>>> of this organized matter - is an 'idea'. But that is secondary to the basic >>>> ontological reality that is information..i.e., that organized unit of >>>> matter. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm not saying that ideas have a physical basis - for they may not. eg, >>>> a unicorn has no physical basis. I'm not talking about ideas at all. >>>> Information is not the same as an idea, in my view. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Edwina >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> >>>> *From:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> *To:* Biosemiotics <[email protected]> ; Peirce Discussion >>>> Forum ([email protected]) <[email protected])> >>>> >>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 4:05 PM >>>> >>>> *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8151] Re: Article on origina >>>> of the universe >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I think this brief discussion is most instructive and it may highlight >>>> the source of much discontent over the years in the community discussing >>>> the Perigean works. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Pierce put ideas first. So if we take this position then I begin to >>>> understand Edwina's position as Ideal. And in this sense she may be correct >>>> - all though I have some dispute with her passive definition of >>>> information. In Shannon's terms, information is an act. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> However, as I pointed out in the recent discussion on Peirce's >>>> definition of evolution, no Peirce family member ever dismissed the >>>> ontological world, and their long term goal was to build the bridge between >>>> pure mathematics, rigorous and impartial ideas, and the physical sciences, >>>> the world in which these ideas exist. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As Einstein points out, there is no difference between energy and >>>> matter - but again, I am puzzled by Edwina's description. However, the >>>> hierarchy she describes does make some sense. Energy exists as matter >>>> (Einstein) and matter "exists" (and can be spoken of) as information. So >>>> energy appears fundamental in her model. I would not disagree with that had >>>> it not been for ... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ... her confusing assertion that "not energy, nor matter." By asserting >>>> that neither matter nor energy exist, the measurable subjects of our >>>> experience, and that only ideas (information) exists, the world is vacuous. >>>> There is not basis but ideas. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ideas manifestly have a physical basis and to state otherwise, in my >>>> mind, is denial. It the inverse argument of those that argue that our >>>> feeling of ideas (often called "consciousness") is an illusion. Also, >>>> nonsense. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Edwina may be happy with such assertions, but it does not satisfy me. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steven >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Stan- no, matter does not exist before/prior to information. >>>> Matter=information. Since, to be existent as matter, it must be organized. >>>> This means, that it is information. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Information is fundamental. Not matter or energy - for they do not >>>> exist 'per se'. Energy exists as matter and matter exists as information. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Edwina >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> >>>> *From:* Stanley N Salthe <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>> >>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 2:59 PM >>>> >>>> *Subject:* [biosemiotics:8150] Re: Article on origina of the universe >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Edwina -- Your >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> information is 'matter-that-is-organized' >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> suggests that matter exists before, or is prior to, information. Is >>>> that right? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> STAN >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Ah, so, to you, 'information is a way of speaking about something'. To >>>> me, information is 'matter-that-is-organized' such that it is >>>> differentiated from other matter. This matter exists because it is >>>> in-form-ed, i.e., organized within a particular form. Therefore, I agree >>>> with the outline provided by John Collier. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To me, information has nothing to do with the secondary level of >>>> speaking about something. And of course, no requirement therefore for >>>> 'adding to knowledge' and 'identifying cause'. Those are secondary levels. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Edwina >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> >>>> *From:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> *Cc:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> ; Biosemiotics >>>> <[email protected]> ; Peirce Discussion Forum >>>> ([email protected]) <[email protected])> >>>> >>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 1:35 PM >>>> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8138] Article on origina >>>> of the universe relevant to some recent discussions on these lists >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Information is a way of speaking about that which adds to knowledge and >>>> identifies cause. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Where I use the term "knowledge" in the general Liberal Physicalist >>>> sense to refer to that which determines subsequent action. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steven >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Steven - are you saying that information 'is nothing'? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Edwina >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> >>>> *From:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> *To:* Biosemiotics <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> *Cc:* Peirce Discussion Forum ([email protected]) >>>> <[email protected])> >>>> >>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 1:22 PM >>>> >>>> *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8138] Article on origina of >>>> the universe relevant to some recent discussions on these lists >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Stunningly comical. Energy from information ... an unplausible >>>> mathematical description of something from nothing. It goes to show what >>>> you get from an ungrounded purely mathematical education. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Steven >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 9:47 AM, John Collier <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear lists, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The following article is relevant to issues of “What came before the >>>> Big Bang?”, the evolution of laws in the universe and some others. It >>>> cites, among others, David Layzer and myself, and generally follows the >>>> approaches that we have argued for. It also brings together other related >>>> material from other sources related to symmetry breaking (information >>>> formation, and, if on a cosmic scale, law formation). In particular it >>>> invokes the “no boundary conditions” requirement for a satisfactory >>>> cosmological theory (favoured by Hawking, Smolin, Layzer and many other >>>> cosmologists). The authors give this condition as that the universe >>>> originated in a singularity that is not knowable, since it contains no >>>> information. Information, here, is of course the physicists’ notion of “it >>>> from bit”, used in cosmology, the study of black holes and in some branches >>>> of Quantum Theory (quantum computation and quantum field theory in >>>> particular), according to which energy and matter are incidental, and >>>> information (distinctness) is fundamental. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The paper is Spontaneous Creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo >>>> >>>> Maya Lincoln >>>> >>>> Electronic Address: [email protected] >>>> >>>> Affiliation: University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel >>>> >>>> Avi Wasser >>>> >>>> Electronic Address: [email protected] >>>> >>>> Affiliation: University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It can be found online with a good search engine. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The paper is a sketch of the theory rather than a theory (as they say >>>> “a first step”). I don’t think it differs all that much from David Layzer’s >>>> views, judging by my discussions with him about twenty years ago. But >>>> perhaps it is more boldly stated. I am not satisfied that it really >>>> resolves the issue of why there is something rather than nothing, but if it >>>> does, it makes the existence of the Universe necessary rather than >>>> contingent. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> John Collier, Philosophy, UKZN, Durban 4041 >>>> >>>> http://web.ncf.ca/collier >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >>>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >>>> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to >>>> PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe >>>> PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at >>>> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >>>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >>>> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to >>>> PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe >>>> PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at >>>> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >>>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >>>> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to >>>> PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe >>>> PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at >>>> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >>>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >>>> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to >>>> PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe >>>> PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at >>>> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. >> >> Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology >> Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology >> Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy >> Rutgers University >> Piscataway, N.J. 08855 >> 732-445-4701 >> >> www.conformon.net >> > > -- Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
