Stan,
I agree. Variety is an intrinsic aspect of information, both biotic and
abiotic. But I am afraid "information" is a more complex concept than can
be defined by one word. While jogging along a lake early this morning, a
thought occurred to me that "information" may be an "irreducible triad of
variety, message, and function", which (as you mighty have guessed) I am
tempted to represent diagrammatically thus:
f g
VARIETY ------------> MESSAGE -------------> FUNCTION
| ^
| |
|______________________________________|
h
f = selection
g = action
h = information flow
Figure 1. An "irreducibly triadic definition of information", an instance
of the irreducibly triadic semiosis and the sign.
One advantage of using a diagram such as this to define a concept, X, such
as information is that we can say "X is ____, _____, _____, _____, _____,
and _____." rather than "X is ____". In other words, the triadic diagram
in Figure 1 can carry more information about X than a simple sentence can.
If you know of any basic aspect of information that is missed by the above
diagram, please let me know.
All the best.
Sung
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Stanley N Salthe <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Bob, others --
>
> If we generalize enough, we can bring entropy and information carrying
> capacity together under one label -- variety
>
> In physics this is the variety of locales accessible to particles driven
> by heat energy; in info theory it is variety of accessible possibilities to
> choose from.
>
> That's it!
>
> STAN
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Bob Logan <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi John - thanks for your comment - I take your point and it only
>> reinforces what I was trying to point out. In order to have a conversation
>> within the confines of science terms should have a unique meaning. When we
>> speak of energy in physics it has only one meaning - there is only one way
>> to use the word. Outside of science one can use the word energy
>> metaphorically as in the expression "that person has a lot of energy". In
>> my book What is Information, which I shamelessly promoted I point out that
>> the concept of information is relativistic. " what we consider to be
>> information depends on the context of where and how it is being generated
>> and used" In a paper (Propagating Organization: An Enquiry) I
>> co-authored with Stu Kauffman and other we pointed out that Shannon
>> information regards a set of random numbers to have more information that
>> the set of even numbers. Shannon info is about reducing uncertainty. But
>> for a biology a living organsim that propagates its organization has more
>> information thata random soup of the same molecules making up that
>> organism. Our use of the term information is ambiguous. The same applies to
>> the term entropy as used by Shannon. As the story goes as told in my book:
>> "Shannon did not know what to call his measure and von Neumann advised
>> him to call it entropy because nobody knows what it means and that it would
>> therefore give Shannon an advantage in any debate (Campbell 1982, p. 32).
>> This choice was criticized by Wicken (1987, p. 183) who argued that in
>> science a term should have only one meaning. Schneider and Sagan (2005)
>> referring to the use of the term entropy in both thermodynamics and
>> information theory also suggests Shannon’s use of the term is confusing
>> when they wrote: “There is no simple correspondence between the two
>> theories.”
>>
>> So yes you were write John when you wrote:"that is not how the author of
>> the article or the authors they cite use the word" and that is precisely
>> the problem their sloppy use of the word "information".
>> Metaphor is fine for poetry but it does not work for science.
>>
>> respectfully submitted - Bob Logan
>>
>> PS - anyone interested in reading Propagating Organization: An Inquiry by
>> Kauffman et al. shoot me an email off line and I will send it to you. My
>> offer for the same arrangement with the e-book version of my book What is
>> Information still holds.
>> ______________________
>>
>> Robert K. Logan
>> Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto
>> Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD
>> http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan
>> www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan
>> www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2015-04-01, at 7:13 AM, John Collier wrote:
>>
>> Bob, Lists,
>>
>> That is one use of the word 'information.', but that is not how the
>> author of the article or the authors they cite use the word. As my Tai Chi
>> master used to say, "words are birds". It's the ideas that matter.
>>
>> There are connections between the uses, but the usage in the article is
>> a more general one, with Bob's usage a special case.
>> John
>>
>>
>> Sent from Samsung Mobile
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Bob Logan
>> Date:31/03/2015 09:52 (GMT-03:00)
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: [biosemiotics:8170] Re: Article on origina of the universe
>>
>> Dear Friends - sorry to intrude in this conversation but allow me an
>> observation - it seems to me that what is the matter (pun intended and only
>> joking) with this discussion of matter and information is that information
>> is a process not a thing and it pertains to the informing of minds.
>> Unfortunately information is a noun and it leads to the reification of the
>> process of informing which is better described by the verb to inform than
>> the noun information. Of course by tying the idea of informing and
>> information to the notion of a mind I introduce another level of complexity
>> but for me information that informs must be interpreted and only a mind can
>> interpret. The relationship between information and mind adds another level
>> of complexity but who said information could be explained simply. As
>> Einstein once said a scientific explanation should be as simple as possible
>> but not too simple. I hope my observation is not too simple but that it
>> informs.
>>
>> This post I am sending you is basically information that is mediated by
>> the matter that is the medium by which I have conveyed this information to
>> you - the medium is not the information - only the message is the
>> information, McLuhan's 'the medium is the message' not withstanding. The
>> medium has its effects independent of its content which is what McLuhan
>> meant by the medium is the message. Therefore I conclude that matter plays
>> a part in the process of informing but it is only the medium and the
>> information is the content of that medium.
>> with warm regards to all and thanks for the opportunity to reflect some
>> more on the nature of information - Bob
>>
>> PS - I develop this idea of information as a process in my book What is
>> Information? - Propagating Organization in the Biosphere, the
>> Symbolosphere, the Technosphere and the Econosphere, the e-version of which
>> also contains a foreword by Terry Deacon. I am happy to share the e-book
>> with any one on the list - just drop me an email off line and I will email
>> you the manuscript.
>>
>> ______________________
>>
>> Robert K. Logan
>> Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto
>> Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD
>> http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan
>> www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan
>> www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications
>>
>> On 2015-03-30, at 4:38 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>>
>> Stan, calm down. I don't write that 'matter is matter that is
>> organized'. I write that 'information is matter that is organized'. I'd
>> like to just use the term 'information' and have people understand that as
>> meaning 'matter'. And have them understand 'matter' as meaning that it must
>> be organized in order to exist'. And understand that matter=energy (at
>> above the speed of light).
>>
>> But people use these terms differently. Most people use the term
>> 'information' to mean 'consciously analyzed and described
>> things'...whereas I don't mean that. Most people don't view matter as
>> *necessarily* organized.
>>
>> So- that's why I use these terms in that way.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Stanley N Salthe <[email protected]>
>> *To:* [email protected]
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 4:25 PM
>> *Subject:* [biosemiotics:8160] Re: Article on origina of the universe
>>
>> Edwina -- If there is no matter that is not organized, then why do you
>> write matter is "matter that is organized"?
>>
>> STAN
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Stan - no, in my view, there is no such thing as 'matter that is not
>>> organized'.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Stanley N Salthe <[email protected]>
>>> *To:* [email protected]
>>> *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 4:14 PM
>>> *Subject:* [biosemiotics:8155] Re: Article on origina of the universe
>>>
>>> Edwina -- Replying to
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Then, is there matter that is not organized? If not, why do we need
>>> the extra verbiage?
>>>
>>> I can see that, e.g., H and O, when combined, make H2O, and that that
>>> might be said to be organized by chemical affinities, while H and O
>>> themselves are organized at a different level by quantum activities. In
>>> this sense all matter is organized by some actions. What do we gain by
>>> assembling many different activities under the label 'information'? This
>>> word 'information' has many prior meanings. I agree that the basic sense
>>> of 'information' is organization, and other senses (like ways of speaking)
>>> can be assimilated to that.
>>>
>>> STAN
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Stanley N Salthe <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>
--
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 .
