Re: [Fis] [Fwd: physics and information]-From Jacob Lee

[Stanley N Salthe]

Replying to Guy --


You are right.  My favorite examples of signals moving across scales
(e.g.,direct interactions) are (a) lightning, where a signal from the planet
scale system directly contacts an organism at a lower scale, and (b) cancer,
where a single cell can destroy a multicellular organism at a higher scale.
 But it can't do this without first growing a population, increasing its
scale.  So, such instances of cross scale signal transitions tend to be
disruptive.  As Simon proposed, the stability of the world depends to some
extent on its being layered into different-scale domains.


Replying to Pedro --


What you are asking for -- a "physics-neutral" theory of information is, I
think not possible in our culture.  Science is our dominant conceptual
institution, and physics is its basis (with logic as ITS foundation).  The
sciences can be displayed thus, in a subsumptive hierarchy: {logic {physics
{chemistry {biology {psychology {sociology}}, with the last two possibly
reversed.  There can be no statement in any science that would be
incompatible with physics.  Having said that, we can see that physics has
been trying to broaden itself via quantum mechanics.  But note the tern
'mechanics' here.  Our culture is predisposed to mechanistic models.  But
every day we experience 'qualia', and these do not seem to be involved with
anything in that hierarchy. Hence we have radical dualisms -- the epistemic
cut, mind / matter, map / territory, OR, internalism / externalism.


STAN

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:18 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan  wrote:

>
>
>  Mensaje original   Asunto: physics and information  Fecha:
> Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:23:34 -0700 (PDT)  De: Jacob I Lee
>Para: Pedro C. Marijuan
>CC:
> fis@listas.unizar.es
>
>
> Hello,
>
> The recent discussion of the fluctuon model has made me curious about how
> closely a theory of information must be wedded to physics. I want to think
> of a theory of information that is independent of any particular model of
> physics, but this seems perilous when, for example, such things as the
> simultaneity of events across frames of reference may have at one time been
> taken as axiomatic. At some level of abstraction is there a
> physics-neutral theory of information universally applicable to any possible
> physics?
>
> My questions are assuredly naive, but naivety is the source of all
> questions.
>
> Best,
>
> Jacob
> www.jacoblee.net
>
>
>
>  --
>
>
>
> ___
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Modeling the concept of information

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Question:
how closely a theory of information must be wedded to physics. 

Answer:
[.]

So, to conclude the answer to yout question, yes indeed there exists a model
that shows a comprehensive picture of Physics in its totality.

Karl

In my opinion, this does not answer the question. 

Shannon's H is defined mathematically and yet content-free. It can be wedded
to physics because S = k(B) H. S is thermodynamic entropy; k(B) the
Boltzmann constant which also provides the dimensionality (Joule/Kelvin).
Shannon entropy can be expresses, for example, in bits and this measure is
dimensionless.

This relates to the other discussion about the passing of information among
levels. The information obtains meaning by specifying the system(s) of
reference. These latter are different when one passes among levels and thus
the dimensionality of the measure can also be expected to change. Within
this framework, physics is the special case when entropy can be measured in
Joule/Kelvin. Probabilistic entropy can be measured in any system of
reference because the notion is mathematical and content-free. 

Best wishes,

Loet

  _  

Loet Leydesdorff 
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), 
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. 
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
  l...@leydesdorff.net ;
 http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 

 

 

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] Modeling the concept of information

[karl javorszky]

Question:
how closely a theory of information must be wedded to physics.

Answer:
Physics is a comprehensive model of Nature. If Nature obeys 1 (one)
comprehensive set of interrelated logical facts, then physics' partial
results (like optics, thermodynamics, electricity, solid state mechanics,
etc.) are deeply interrelated. The differing aspects of Physics are then
only shadows thrown in differing directions, because our viewpoints are
different and the underlying interrelations are of a high complexity.

Insofar Physics is a rational science, its statements are logical sentences.
Therefore they can be represented in a strict logical notation. Results of
physical experiments are then predictable by mathematical models.

A comprehensive logical model is then equivalent with an explanation of
Physics' interrelations.

Such a comprehensive logical model has been presented in the Beijing
conference's papers and in my last contribution some two weeks ago. It deals
with new ways of reading that same old logical axiom: a+b=c.

We use the following novelties:
* use all values for a and b in the range of 2*i**2 for i=1 to i=4, that is
1<=a,b<=16
* focus on the difference between a and b, that is b-a and a-b
* set this in relation to a and b, creating b-2a and a-2b as measures
* create 3 shadows of a+b=c, namely b-2a+b-a=2b-3a; a-2b+a-b=2a-3b and
a+b+2b-3a=3b-2a
* then we have 4 fundamental additions that have differing spatial
consequences, representing the 4 fundamental forces at work in Physics
* create a spatial web of the consequences of the 4 additions by ordering
the collection of additions
* assume a continuous logical discussion about which of the 4 fundamental
additions is more relevant than the others
* as a consequence of the continual rivalry among the 4 fundamental forces,
see movements of logical statements in a spatial system of coordinates
* find two logically equivalent spaces arising from the 4 fundamental forces
being concurrently at work
* find a common Euclid space into which the two logically equivalent spaces
can - under some circumstances - merge
* find that the natural unit of consolidation between the two logical spaces
is a triplet of logical statements relating to the spatial coordinates of
fragmentational states.

This model pictures the hypothesis that Physics is one and indivisible and
is explicable by logical means.

The model further offers inroads into understanding the role of a triplet,
which is a logical statement about a fragmentational state, both in genetics
and in logic.

So, to conclude the answer to yout question, yes indeed there exists a model
that shows a comprehensive picture of Physics in its totality.

Karl

2010/10/6 Pedro C. Marijuan 

>
>
>  Mensaje original   Asunto: physics and information  Fecha:
> Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:23:34 -0700 (PDT)  De: Jacob I Lee
>Para: Pedro C. Marijuan
>CC:
> fis@listas.unizar.es
>
>
> Hello,
>
> The recent discussion of the fluctuon model has made me curious about I
> want to think of a theory of information that is independent of any
> particular model of physics, but this seems perilous when, for example, such
> things as the simultaneity of events across frames of reference may have at
> one time been taken as axiomatic. At some level of abstraction is there a
> physics-neutral theory of information universally applicable to any possible
> physics?
>
> My questions are assuredly naive, but naivety is the source of all
> questions.
>
> Best,
>
> Jacob
> www.jacoblee.net
>
>
>
>  --
>
>
>
> ___
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] [Fwd: replying to...]-From Guy Hoelzer

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

 Mensaje original 
Asunto: [Fis] replying to Kevin and to Joseph
Fecha:  Mon, 04 Oct 2010 10:14:50 -0700
De: Guy A Hoelzer 
Para:   Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez 
CC: Stanley N. Salthe 


Stan et al.,

I certainly understand that the meaning of a bit of information would 
typically change as it percolates across levels of organization. Higher 
level entities are, indeed, different entities from their lower level 
components; hence, they were have independent perceptions. I also 
understand how information can be transformed as it passes between 
levels. Your example is a good one. However, I do not see why 
information must universally be transformed when it crosses levels of 
organization. Why couldn’t there be instances where information is 
passed between levels without ‘mediation’?


Cheers,

Guy

--
Dr. Guy A. Hoelzer, Chair Phone: 775-784-4860
Department of Biology, MS 314 Fax: 775-784-1302
University of Nevada Reno,
Reno, NV 89557
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] [Fwd: replying to...]-From Guy Hoelzer

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

 Mensaje original 
Asunto: [Fis] replying to Kevin and to Joseph
Fecha:  Mon, 04 Oct 2010 10:14:50 -0700
De: Guy A Hoelzer 
Para:   Pedro Clemente Marijuan Fernandez 
CC: Stanley N. Salthe 


Stan et al.,

I certainly understand that the meaning of a bit of information would typically 
change as it percolates across levels of organization.  Higher level entities 
are, indeed, different entities from their lower level components; hence, they 
were have independent perceptions.   I also understand how information can be 
transformed as it passes between levels.  Your example is a good one.  However, 
I do not see why information must universally be transformed when it crosses 
levels of organization.  Why couldn’t there be instances where information is 
passed between levels without ‘mediation’?

Cheers,

Guy

--
Dr. Guy A. Hoelzer, Chair   Phone:  775-784-4860
Department of Biology, MS 314   Fax:  775-784-1302
University of Nevada Reno, 
Reno, NV  89557


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] [Fwd: physics and information]-From Jacob Lee

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

 Mensaje original 
Asunto: physics and information
Fecha:  Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
De: Jacob I Lee 
Para:   Pedro C. Marijuan 
CC: fis@listas.unizar.es




Hello,

The recent discussion of the fluctuon model has made me curious about 
how closely a theory of information must be wedded to physics. I want to 
think of a theory of information that is independent of any particular 
model of physics, but this seems perilous when, for example, such things 
as the simultaneity of events across frames of reference may have at one 
time been taken as axiomatic. At some level of abstraction is there a 
physics-neutral theory of information universally applicable to any 
possible physics?


My questions are assuredly naive, but naivety is the source of all 
questions.


Best,

Jacob
www.jacoblee.net



--


___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis