Re: [Fis] Physics of Computing
Hi FISers Can anyone show me a calculus for Information relating to biological systems? And if so show me the relationship with conceptual mathematics? Regards Gavin Dear FISers: Pedro and Plamen raise good and welcomed points regarding the nature of physics, information, and biology. Although I believe in a strong relationship between information and physics in biology, there are striking examples where direct correspondences between information, physics, and biology seem to depart. Scientists are only beginning to tease out these discrepancies which will undoubtedly give us a better understand of information. For example, in the study of cognition by A. Khrennikov and colleagues and J. Busemyer and colleagues, decisional processes may conform to quantum statistics and computation without necessarily being mediated by quantum mechanical phenomena at a biological level of description. I found this to be true in ciliates as well, where social strategy search speeds and decision rates may produce quantum computational phases that obey quantum statistics. In such cases, a changing classical diffusion term of response regulator reaction-diffusion parsimoniously accounts for the transition from classical to quantum information processing. Thus, there is no direct correspondence between quantum physicochemistry and quantum computation. Because the particular reaction-diffusion biochemistry is not unique to ciliates (i.e., the same phenomena is observed in plants, animals, and possibly bacteria), this incongruity may be widespread across life. Best regards, Kevin Clark ___ 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] Meaning Information Theory ---From Gavin
Hi there Christophe Thank you for your papers I have had a look through them to identify the propositions and arguments. And I guess this is what my contention is none of this is based on any evidence, tests, corroboration and corresponding logic and mathematics. It does not look like we are any further down the road that Ogden Richards (the Meaning of Meaning-1923) or Plotkin (Darwin Machines 1993) 70 years later. I have delved into many of the original papers around information and cannot find any corroborative evidence or propositions with logical arguments that can highlight the concept of information per se as presented by the meaning informationists (those that are not proposing Shannon's theory). If we are going into the concept of meaning that would include, human knowledge, learning and creativity (is learning a creative act?) etc. Your final conclusions are that you need some notion of constraint, possibly the co-limit, subobject classifier, object-arrow, associativity, and identity of Mathematical Category Theory. Afterthought, the concept of meaning information also includes this concept of memes presented by Dawkins in Chapter 11 in the Selfish Gene, there is not on scrap of evidence or tests, or any factual data to conclude that the concept of memes are anything but a conjecture. Dear Gavin, As you find some interest for a Theory of Meaningful Information, it may be pertinent to recall a systemic approach to meaning generation: When a system submitted to a constraint (stay alive, avoid obstacle, ...) receives from its environment an information that has a connection with the constraint , it generates a meaning (a meaningful information) that willl be used to implement an action aimed at satisfying the constraint. It's this I don't understand, where is the evidence and the tests to prove this proposition. How do we know that this is what a biological system does? Where is the evidence? I have searched to find evidence for this statement receives information from its environment. It just cannot be proved, plainly there's something wrong here. Regards Gavin The approach makes available a simple Meaning Generator System applicable to all cases where you can define the system and the constraint. Is not Shannon information theory. It links with Dretske and philosophy of mind. It has been used in several evolutionary approaches. 2003 Entropy paper on subject: http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e5020193.pdf 2010 short paper: http://crmenant.free.fr/ResUK/MGS.pdf Part of IACAP 2011 presentation: http://cogprints.org/7584/ Best Christophe _ Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 18:22:08 +0200 From: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: FW: Meaning Information Theory] ---From Gavin Message from Gavin Ritz On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Gavin Ritz garr...@xtra.co.nz wrote: Stan, John list members I have had a number of off list email dialogue with list members, from this list and others. There seems to be a group of listers that have a Theory of Meaningful Information (It's not Shannon's mathematical Information theory), it's all about meaning and electrical communication (I guess in this case neurological). The common links seem to be Dawkins, Dennett, Searle and a few others. Does anyone have any clear propositions, with their logical arguments, evidence. tests, corroboration, modeling, conceptual mathematics, proofs, for this Meaning Theory of Information. It also seems to include memes. I am unable to find any clear propositions with their proofs, it all seems like smoke and mirrors too me. At one point it becomes sort of Shannon's mathematical theory then it spoofs into something like Philosophy meaning arguments (Like Ogden Richards), then it spoofs into living matter and DNA, then reappears as cultural units, then energy/matter representations. Is The Meaning Information Theory a shape shifter. Is it the one size fits all, theory. What exactly is this Theory, where did it come from, what is it, what is its proposition, and if there is one how can it be tested, corroborated, where and how can we gather the evidence. Regards Gavin -- ___ 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] Category Theory and Information. Back to Basics
Hi Joseph Dear Gavin, Loet and Colleagues, Gavin raises a fair question as to the reasons for my objection to the use of category theory with respect to information. My answer is that it suffers from the same limitations as standard truth-functional logic, set theory and mereology: Logic: absolute separation of premisses and conclusion Set Theory: absolute separation of set and elements of the set Mereology: absolute separation of part and whole Category Theory: exhaustivity and absolute separation of elements of different categories. (The logics of topoi are Boolean logics). From my limited working with Category Theory, it covers all the aspects you mention above, the logic by the subobject classifier, sets as objects, plus the arrows as functions. Associativity and identity as parts and wholes, plus the axioms of a Topos, which is part (is the part of the whole) of an object etc. (quantity, quality, variety, truth testing, unbounded-ness) The whole point of category theory is to be able to map dynamical systems. For complex process phenomena such as information, I don't understand what's the complex part of information. involving complementarity, overlap or physical interactions between elements, these doctrines fail. The mathematical conceptualization they provide does not capture the non-Markovian aspects of the processes involved for which no algorithm can be written. If any algebra is possible, it must be a non-Boolean one, something like that used in quantum mechanics extended to the macroscopic level. Is this not the whole point of Category theory. Regards Gavin I have proposed a new categorial ontology in which the key categorial feature is NON-separability. This concept would seem to apply to some of the approaches to information which have been proposed recently, e.g. those of Deacon and Ulanowicz. I would greatly welcome the opportunity to see if my approach and its logic stand up to further scrutiny. As Loet suggests, we must avoid confounding such a (more qualitative) discourse with the standard one and translate meaningfully between them. However this means, as a minimum, accepting the existence and validity of both, as well as the possibility in principle of some areas of overlap, without conflation. Best, Joseph - Original Message - From: Gavin Ritz To: 'Joseph Brenner' Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:45 AM Subject: RE: [Fis] Chemo-informatics as the source of morphogenesis - bothpractical and logical. Hi there Joseph This takes us back to the question of the primacy of quantitative over qualitative properties, or, better, over qualitative + quantitative properties. Is this not a good reason to use category theory and a Topos (part of an object), does not the axiom of limits and the axiom of exponentiation- map objects deal philosophically with quantity and limit and quality and variety concepts respectively. Is this not the goal of category theory to explain the concepts in a conceptual mathematical way. Regards Gavin This for me is the real area for discussion, and points to the need for both lines being pursued, without excluding either. - Original Message - From: Gavin Ritz mailto:garr...@xtra.co.nz To: 'Joseph mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch Brenner' Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 10:45 AM Subject: RE: [Fis] Chemo-informatics as the source of morphogenesis - bothpractical and logical. Hi there Joseph This takes us back to the question of the primacy of quantitative over qualitative properties, or, better, over qualitative + quantitative properties. Is this not a good reason to use category theory and a Topos (part of an object), does not the axiom of limits and the axiom of exponentiation- map objects deal philosophically with quantity and limit and quality and variety concepts respectively. Is this not the goal of category theory to explain the concepts in a conceptual mathematical way. Regards Gavin This for me is the real area for discussion, and points to the need for both lines being pursued, without excluding either. ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Information as form conveyed by data
This (b) model can be used to describe a range of activity from Shannon type communication to biological (DNA) activity, DNA and information have nothing to do with each other. but I am not sure it can be applied to chemical activity. That's what DNA is a molecule. To my un-informed way of thinking chemical interaction is more like (a) - a passive response - rather than a selective active response as in (b). Dick Stoute On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Gyorgy Darvas darv...@iif.hu wrote: The question can be put even so: Is there information only when the recipient is (or it is perceived) by a conscious human being? (in a weaker form: by a sensitive, brain-equipped animal?) or Neither there is no such thing as information use by biological organisms. It's a daft idea. Replying to the following two questions may help: (1) Is there information in the situation there is no data ? (2) If yes, an example would be great; If no, is there information if no data is conveyed ? Best, Michel. 2011/10/4 Dick Stoute dick.sto...@gmail.com: This is my first post to this list - so my apologies if I get it wrong. I am looking for arguments for/against the concept of information as form conveyed by data. Any references/ideas would be appreciated. Dick ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis Recent publications online: - Mathematical description of a so far undisclosed symmetry of nature: http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.3189v1 - Physical consequences of a new gauge-symmetry and the concluded conservation law: http://www.springer.com/home?SGWID=0-0-1003-0-0 http://www.springer.com/alert/urltracking.do?id=L1cdef9M852da2Saaa5614 aqId=1788954download=1checkval=489b8c72cdf8948cf719b8838b49e656 - Spontaneous symmetry breaking in non-Euclidean systems: http://www.springerlink.com/content/k272555u06q2074w/?p=14dd4c9c5b5e4c1396b3 e4855a87e9e2 http://www.springerlink.com/content/k272555u06q2074w/?p=14dd4c9c5b5e4c1396b 3e4855a87e9e2pi=1 pi=1 Symmetry Festival 2009 http://videotorium.hu/hu/events/details/87,The_Symmetry_Festival_2009 , Keynote and Plenary lectures __ Gyorgy Darvas http://members.iif.hu/darvasg/ E-mail / Skype mailto:%20darv...@iif.hu ; S Y M M E T R I O N http://symmetry.hu/ Address: c/o MTA KSZI; 18 Nador St., Budapest, H-1051 Hungary Fax: 36 (1) tel:36%20%281%29%20331-3161 331-3161;Phone: 36 (1) 312-3022; 36 (1) tel:36%20%281%29%20331-3975 331-3975 Monograph: Symmetry http://books.google.hu/books?id=UYdsSrZF0mgCdq=darvas+symmetryprintsec=fr ontcoversource=bnhl=huei=UKx7TP3XEpDIswaMmOSxDQsa=Xoi=book_resultct=re sultresnum=5ved=0CDEQ6AEwBA#v=onepageqf=false ; Course of http://hps.elte.hu/courses/darvas.htm#English lectures ___ ___ 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] Fw: The General Information Theory of Sunik
I agree with you both. The declarative statements (4 statements in 2.4.1 Digital Computer versus Brain: Are Neurons and bits really that different?) that are the proof of the entire premise are unable to be proved, have no tests or evidence and are taken as self evident. This path is a dead end. Regards Gavin The document seems extremely confused to me. This is not least because the author does not appear to present a clear definition of the terms in the title or the expression of subject in the work. In particular, I can find no definition of meaning other than the one presented in a quote from Shannon and the subsequent use of the term is confused to say the least. Similarly, the term semantic is not clearly defined and abused. The same goes for other terms such as knowledge. So I take an even harsher view than Joseph since it is not even a good representative of the view that computer algorithms can provide all you know, and all you need to know. The definitive representative of that view is Stephen Wolfram's book A New Kind Of Science, and while I have my problems with the theory in the book, it is - at least - well defined. With respect, Steven On Oct 3, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote: Dear Krassimir, Thank you for bringing this document to our attention, for completeness. I would have wished, however, that you had made some comment on it, putting it into relation with your own work and, for example, that of Mark Burgin, which are dismissed out of hand. From my point of view, Sunik's work is another one of those major steps backwards to an earlier, easier time when it was claimed that computer algorithms could provide all you know, and all you need to know about information. One example of a phrase the author presents as involving meaning is Peter's shirt size. . . From a methodological standpoint, I think it underlines, /a contrario/, the danger of focus on a single approach to information. My current idea, which I propose for discussion, is that a document purporting to offer a theory of information should provide a reasoned, comparative discussion of 4 to 5 theories. This number is large enough for judgments to be possible on a preferred approach and small enough for the average reader, like myself, to keep the similarities and differences in mind. Thank you and best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From: Krassimir Markov mar...@foibg.com To: FIS fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 12:00 PM Subject: [Fis] Fw: General Information Theory -Original Message- From: boris.sunik Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 11:10 AM To: ithea-...@ithea.org Subject: General Information Theory Dear Colleague, For your information: http://www.GeneralInformationTheory.com Regards, Boris Sunik ___ 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 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] Chemical Information---Anthony Reading
There is also an aspect of chemical information that is relevant to biologists more than chemists. As I proposed in my book on Meaningful Information (Springer 2011), this can be defined as detected patterns of matter or energy that have an effect on the detecting entity (i.e. cause a change in either its structure, functioning or behavior). This makes no sense to me at all. A change in shape or structure is not information it's more like energy. Since when has this become information? There is not one scrap of evidence for biological information, not one. I also can't see how matter or energy is detected (becomes) information. If so where is the math for this, where is the test, where is the evidence. Chemical information in this scheme of things consists of the spatial patterns of certain molecules (ligands) that enable them to fit into the3-dimensional structure of particular proteins, thereby causing the latter to change their shape in a way that triggers a response in the involved cell. This also makes no sense to me. Where is the evidence for this or even a test to show that this information exists in chemical structures? Chemistry is about the reaction of structures and the transformations so how does this now become information. The mechanism is highly selective, in that each protein tends to bond only with a specific ligand and this alters its shape in a way that activates a particular cellular response. Protein molecules represent the main information detectors in biology, since they are responsible for the way cells and organisms regulate their internal environments and adapt to their external ones. The way these large molecules are able to detect and respond to chemical informational patterns is also the basis for the senses of taste and smell, as well as the effects of hormones, pheromones, and neurotransmitters. This is all well covered by chemistry I just don't get the sudden addition of this thing called information. Where is the evidence for it? Where is the test for it? This all seems like conjectures, assumptions and propositions with no proof at all. Sorry just don't get this information part. Please show me one experiment for the existence of information in chemistry or biochemistry. Or even some conceptual mathematical concept that shows there is information in biological entities. To me this entire concept of information just seems like a mirage with no sound theoretical basis or even some form of conceptual mathematics. How is it that so many smart people are fooled by this concept? Regards Gavin ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Chemical information: a field of fuzzy contours ?
Hi there Joseph Can you show me where information is in chemistry? What part of chemistry is chemical information? Im less concerned about a unifying definition of information but rather I would like to see some evidence and experiments for biological information. So far I havent seen one piece of evidence to suggest that information exits at all. I see a lot of conjecture, assumptions, propositions but not a whole lot of actual evidence and actual tests. Kind regards Gavin -Original Message- From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of joe.bren...@bluewin.ch Sent: Sunday, 18 September 2011 2:50 a.m. To: petitjean.chi...@gmail.com; fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Chemical information: a field of fuzzy contours ? Dear Michel and FIS Colleagues, This will be an interesting discussion, since the core nature and role of information will be involved. Here is just one first point: to me, as a chemist, chemical information is only secondarily an object capable of being formalized, archived, etc. A formula has meaning for me in terms of the potential reactions the molecule to which it refers can undergo, what it looked like when crystallized for the first time and so on. Cheminformatics seems not to deal with such aspects of chemical information as part of a process of doing chemistry. Can this be captured by another system? Best wishes, Joseph Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: petitjean.chi...@gmail.com Datum: 16.09.2011 09:44 An: fis@listas.unizar.es Betreff: [Fis] Chemical information: a field of fuzzy contours ? Chemical information: a field of fuzzy contours ? - Before turning to chemistry, I would recall some facts that I noticed on the FIS forum: although many people consider that a unifying definition of information science is possible (to be constructed), a number of other people consider that there are many concepts of information which are not necessarily the facets of an unique concept, so that it could be better to speak about information scienceS, and not about information science. I can read on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_science Information science is an interdisciplinary science primarily concerned with the analysis, collection, classification, manipulation, storage, retrieval and dissemination of information. and some fewer lines above: Information Science consists of having the knowledge and understanding on how to collect, classify, manipulate, store, retrieve and disseminate any type of information. Clearly, collecting, storing, and retrieving information let us think that we must deal with databases. The question where is information is neglected, although answering it is enlighting: no doubt that much information is stored in data banks. There are strong connections of Information Science(s) with Data Mining (DM) and Knowledge Discovery in Databases (KDD). Is the situation clearer in chemistry ? Undoubtly there is a field of chemical information. The ACS (American Chemical Society) has a Division of Chemical Information (CINF), named as such in 1975, but which in fact goes back to 1943 (http://www.acscinf.org/). CINF is active and organizes various meetings which can be retrieved on the web. Visit also http://www.libsci.sc.edu/bob/chemnet/chchron.htm, an informative website. The ACS publishes the Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling renamed so in 2005 after having been named Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences from 1975 to 2004, itself being the continuation of the Journal of Chemical Documentation from 1961 to 1974. In fact, it is the same journal (one volume per year), which turned to chemical information the same year that CINF received his actual name. Interestingly, still in 1975, the main cheminformatics lab in France (in fact the only one in France at this time) was renamed. The old name was LCOP (Laboratoire de Chimie Organique Physique), and the new name was ITODYS, still in vigor, meaning until 2001: Institut de TOpologie et de DYnamique des Systemes. This name, which can be understood in English due to the close similarity between the French and the English words, was partly due to the existence of a distance in the molecular graphs (this distance is the smaller number of chemical bonds separating two atoms), and as known, a distance induces a topology: it clearly acknowledged the cheminformatics aspects of the research performed in the lab. Chemical Information Science, which is sometimes named Chemical Informatics (http://www.indiana.edu/~cheminfo/acs800/soced_wash.html) can be reasonably considered to be a part of the Cheminformatics field. This latter is defined on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheminformatics): Chemoinformatics is the mixing of those information resources to transform data into information and information into knowledge for the intended
Re: [Fis] meaningful inforamtion
Information on its own discreet zeros and one's also don't have any meaning other that the ones we attached to it. A one in our counting system really is a mental creation only. ''One'' finger has more meaning, ''one'' finger in mum's pie has another and 'one'' finger in mums pie and then in one's mouth another. So a ''one'' without identity and associations is pretty meaningless. (see mathematical category theory) So in my opinion information is like maths it is mental creation, albeit quite a clever when we make computing machines. Quite useless when coming to biological organisms. Chaitin's book Meta math really puts this concept in a nice nutshell, nice but not very helpful when what we are trying to understand is really the creation, creativity, creativeness, the laws of creation. In fact there may only be meaning and nothing else. regards Gavin Re: [Fis] meaningful inforamtion Hi Pedro and Anthony, Valentino Braitenberg has a book out this year in German: Information - der Geist in der Natur My knowledge of German is dismal, but it seems to be about information as the spirit or mind of nature. This would be consistent with a quotation of his from Luciano Floridi, editor, Philosophy of Computing and Information: Five Questions, 2008, p16: The concept of information, properly understood, is fully sufficient to do away with popular dualistic schemes invoking spiritual substances distinct from anything in physics. This is Aristotle redivivus, the concept of matter and form united in every object of this world, body and soul, where the latter is nothing but the formal aspect of the former. The very term “information” clearly demonstrates its Aristotelian origin in its linguistic root. Anthony talks about form too, of course, but I'm afraid I find his concept of meaningful information to be somewhat dualistic -- but maybe I just haven't understood his view of the relationship between meaningful information and material form. Robin Wednesday, July 20, 2011, 12:38:03 PM, Pedro wrote: Thanks, Anthony, for the info on your book. As you will see during future discussion sessions (currently we are in the vacation pause) some parties in this list maintain positions not far away from your own views. In our archive you can check accumulated mails about the matter you propose --e.g. discussions during the last spring. But I think you are right that the whole biological scope of information has been rarely discussed. best wishes ---Pedro FIS website and discussions archives: see http://infoscience-fis.unizar.es/ aread...@verizon.net escribió: I emailed an earlier version of the following contribution to the listserve a few days ago and am interested in finding out if it is suitable for dissemination and, if os, when it might be included. My main interest is in promoting discussion about the approach it takes to dealing with the observer-dependent aspects of information. My book Meaningful Information: The BridgeBetween Biology, Brain and Behavior' has just been published by Springer. Itintroduces a radically new way of thinking about information and the importantrole it plays in living systems. Thiså opens up new avenues for exploring howcells and organisms change and adapt, since the ability to detect and respondto meaningful information is the key that enables them to receive their geneticheritage, regulate their internal milieu, and respond to changes in their environment.The types of meaningful information that different species and different celltypes are able to detect are finely matched to the ecosystems in which theylive, for natural selection has shaped what they need to know to functioneffectively within them. Biological detection and response systems range fromthe chemical configurations that govern genes and cell life to the relativelysimple tropisms that guide single-cell organisms, the rudimentary nervoussystems of invertebrates, and the complex neuronal structures of mammals andprimates. The scope of meaningful information that can be detected andresponded to reaches its peak in our own species, as exemplified by our specialabilities in language, cognition, emotion, and consciousness, all of which areexplored within this new framework. The book's home page can be found at: http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/evolutionary+%26+developmental+biology/book/978-1-4614-0157-5 I am eager tofind out what members think about it. Anthony Reading ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis -- - Pedro C. Marijuán Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª 50009 Zaragoza, Spain Telf: 34 976 71 3526 ( 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
Re: [Fis] ON INFORMATION THEORY--Mark Burgin
Ted Thank you Mark. This promises to be interesting. My view may best be introduced by stating that I believe we are in the business of creating a new science that will depend on new abstractions. These abstractions will extend from the notion of information as a first class citizen, as opposed to our default, the particle. The latter has qualities that can be measured and in fact the very idea of metrics is bound to this notion of thingness. GR: I just can't see the evidence that information has anything to do with living organisms. Much of the dialog here works with the problem of naming what that it is. GR: They look more like logical operators, such as Imperative logic, declarative logic and interrogative logic. Having said that... 1.Is it necessary/useful/reasonable to make a strict distinction between information as a phenomenon and information measures as quantitative or qualitative characteristics of information? I am rather certain that there is a very real distinction, because of how we define the problem. After all, we are not asking how do information and information metrics fit within the confines of rather limited abstractions. At least I am not. But the distinction does not allow for full orthogonality from set theory (the formalism of things), because we want to be able to model and engineer observable phenomenon in a cleaner way. This should be the test of any serious proposal, in my view. This requirement is why discussion on these matters often moves into category theory, GR: It moves into Category theory and Topos my guess is because it's the very basic framework of logic. 2.Are there types or kinds of information that are not encompassed by the general theory of information (GTI)? GR: for one no living organism uses Information theory constructs to communicate with each other. ie direct languaging. GR: Information theory is a construct used by our society to control machines. 3.Is it necessary/useful/reasonable to make a distinction between information and an information carrier? GR: Only if we can find direct scientific evidence that organisms use information theory constructs to communicate directly. So far none has been found. Clearly there is a system-level conveyance of information GR: It's not so clear. If I can be pointed to one experiment that proves there is such a thing as information theory constructs within living organism I will be very excited. that carries an organizational imperative. GR: More like DNA is an Imperative logical operator. I am intrigued by the notion introduced here recently that suggests intelligence as inhabiting this new, non-parametrizable space. GR: oops. Regards Gavin ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] BBC Doco; Cell
Well then we totally agree on that. The second part of your response then, if some energy transduction has the properties of information flow where is it (what are these properties) and if it's there how do we measure it either qualitatively or qualitatively. Because it looks like to me, any exchange language or otherwise is really only energy transduction albeit a mix of sight and sound (and the other senses) which is really shape and hues (both nouns) of different energy patterns. Which is really just the basis of scientific thought, made of patterns of energy. Spectrums, chromatography, etc No information here. Just energy patterns. Gavin Gavin, Everything is energy transduction, even your thinking. Some energy transduction has the properties of information flow, sensu Barwsie and Seligman, Information Flow: the Logic of Distributed Systems (Cambridge UP, 1997 or so). John At 01:05 AM 2011/03/28, Gavin Ritz wrote: I watched a BBC documentary on the weekend with a friend who recommended it. It was a really interesting and well presented programme. Some very far out stuff about the creation of life. However what I observed again (now more than ever before) that the DNA molecule is an information carrying molecule. Simple, all we have to do is decipher this information. Richard Dawkins also says this in a number of his publications. living matter is just matter plus information I'm no biologist or biochemist (I'm an engineer). There's something wrong here. Even at the most basic level of an organism's communication with its environment. There is no discernable information exchange. Every single one of our senses is an energy transduction structure-processing unit. All we do is transduce say light and sound energy to electrical energy. This much is pretty well established. Unless information is just a colloquial way of saying energy transduction (or conversion). I doubt this though; information seems to be containing much more than just this. It's almost as if commentators are saying behind all this energy (and conversions, and work) lies a new and more powerful notion. All of chemistry is the reaction of structures with other structures, there are no informational exchanges. If there are informational exchanges where is the science? I'm not talking about computing machines or old fashioned telephony (of-course we have created information here). These informational exchanges about organisms seemed to have crept into our thinking around the 1950's circa cybernetics. Prior to this very little on living organism and information exchange. Regards Gavin ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis Professor John Collier, Acting HoS and Acting Deputy HoS colli...@ukzn.ac.za Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 http://collier.ukzn.ac.za/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] BBC Doco; Cell
I watched a BBC documentary on the weekend with a friend who recommended it. It was a really interesting and well presented programme. Some very far out stuff about the creation of life. However what I observed again (now more than ever before) that the DNA molecule is an information carrying molecule. Simple, all we have to do is decipher this information. Richard Dawkins also says this in a number of his publications. living matter is just matter plus information I'm no biologist or biochemist (I'm an engineer). There's something wrong here. Even at the most basic level of an organism's communication with its environment. There is no discernable information exchange. Every single one of our senses is an energy transduction structure-processing unit. All we do is transduce say light and sound energy to electrical energy. This much is pretty well established. Unless information is just a colloquial way of saying energy transduction (or conversion). I doubt this though; information seems to be containing much more than just this. It's almost as if commentators are saying behind all this energy (and conversions, and work) lies a new and more powerful notion. All of chemistry is the reaction of structures with other structures, there are no informational exchanges. If there are informational exchanges where is the science? I'm not talking about computing machines or old fashioned telephony (of-course we have created information here). These informational exchanges about organisms seemed to have crept into our thinking around the 1950's circa cybernetics. Prior to this very little on living organism and information exchange. Regards Gavin ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate. The Peircean Mirror
Can you specify exactly what this Logic in Reality is? Its framework? Its connectives? Its categorical-identity? Reagrds Gavin -Original Message- From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic Sent: Wednesday, 23 March 2011 10:09 a.m. To: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch; Loet Leydesdorff; fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate. The Peircean Mirror Dear Joseph, Thank you for this precise clarification. I agree completely and I also follow tensions and changes in our discussions in the list. Especially interesting to me is how theories or frameworks communicate, use each other and internalize each other. (I believe that is essentially the same process as the one you mention for the change of Logic in Reality itself). Currently there are ongoing paradigm shifts in computing, logic, biology, cognitive science, information science and several others. Not all research fields get “updated” instantly, it takes time. Interdisciplinary discussions sometimes contain criticisms built on presupposition about other research fields as they looked like some time before. (I meet often the idea that computing is the same as the Turing Machine model. But there is strong development of new computational paradigms and even if they are not completely established, they already exist in some fragmentary form.) “But I would rather risk such reproaches than accept the present situation, in which philosophers argue only with dead biologists and biologists only with dead philosophers… “ Michael Morange, Life Explained So I think this list is a good example of living philosophers talking with living biologists and other living FISers which makes it much more exciting and difficult. Best regards, Gordana From: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch [mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch] Sent: den 22 mars 2011 21:08 To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic; Loet Leydesdorff; fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: AW: RE: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate. The Peircean Mirror Dear Gordana, Thank you for your very pertinent illustration of what Logic in Reality is. There are (at least) two dynamics possible, 1) the tension between two existing frameworks, from which a new one (jump) may emerge and 2) that between an existing framework, for example Logic in Reality itself and what it could potentially become. I would just emend your phrase the the world is more than a theory we have at hand to more than we have at hand in actual form to make clearer that what is potential is also at hand. That these tensions are real is illustrated almost every day in these discussions . . . Best regards, Joseph Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se Datum: 21.03.2011 08:40 An: Loet Leydesdorffl...@leydesdorff.net, joe.bren...@bluewin.chjoe.bren...@bluewin.ch, fis@listas.unizar.esfis@listas.unizar.es Betreff: RE: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate. The Peircean Mirror Dear Loet, Joe, Fis colleagues Nowadays, the possibility of theory-free observations – e.g., Carnap – is much more doubtful. Most of us will have given up on this “realistic” position. This is a very interesting issue. It seems to me very reasonable to claim that for any observation one has at least a rudimentary “theory” – as this process goes in a loop. Observation is done in time and during observation we act, which demands at least basic theoretical understanding. Of course sophisticated observations like those made in CERN are loaded with tons of theory. But there is a difference between acting within some system, or acting on a premise that what is studied maybe goes outside that systems box. One example is generalization of physics from Aristotelian to Newtonian. Within a system, one introduces more and more complicated assumptions in order to accommodate for observations, but at some point framework must change. There are jumps to more generalized frameworks in this process of learning. I see Joe’s logic in reality even here – a tension between an existing framework (which a is not enough) and the potential new one capable of accommodating for new knowledge. So realism would consist in not denying that the world is more than a theory we have at hands. One would also wonder whether animals without language, would have the possibility to compose and perform music (without human orchestration). Some birds are singing and birdsong sounds like music. Much of modern music is produced almost like a birdsong in a sense that it is not following any rules of composition, sometimes it is simply a collection of sounds found in nature. ☺ Best, Gordana http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/ From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff Sent: den 21 mars 2011 08:04 To: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch; fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Hannam's Contentious Postulate. The Peircean Mirror To
Re: [Fis] Social Validation of Knowledge
Hi Pedro I'm unable to send this list any email. Regards Gavin -Original Message- From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Pedro C. Marijuan Sent: Friday, 11 March 2011 10:47 p.m. To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] Social Validation of Knowledge Dear FISers, I was intrigued with the recent exchange between James, Jerry and others. Taking the central topic --limitations of ancient science, particularly Aristotelian one, to develop into modern science-- from another angle, my contention is that the main transformations from Ancient to Modern science did not concern the core contents (e.g., logics, mathematics) but the social procedures of knowledge validation. Tribunals and witnesses judging experimental facts together with an invisible college of learned societies and learned journals. Those new social procedures arouse and were made possible by a new informational vehicle to disseminate knowledge in a new, far more efficient way: the printed book. At the stake are the limitations of the cognizing individual: the auxiliary memories that have been central along the knowledge accumulation enterprise: numbers, writing, tablets papyri, codices, printed books, computers... without them, no knowledge accumulation possibilities. The printing press (the Gutenberg Galaxy, McLuhan dixit) so revolutionized the knowledge world that in the first century of its existence there were more printed books circulating that handwritten ones in the accumulated history of mankind. This phenomenon was behind the scientific revolution, and the new social procedure of knowledge validation: by verificatio experimentalis (with oral disputatio persisting, but now in the background). In our times, we are living another period of intense transformations, and new social procedures that have been instantiated around knowledge validation, e.g.: simulatio computationalis, the computer as a cognizing instrument itself. The data deluge, with another words. These are too rough comments, obviously, and I have cavalierly jumped upon the other and more genuine scientific revolution in the 19th Century --machine driven. Given that science is finally a modality of social accumulation (creation, elaboration, validation) of knowledge, with very peculiar and stringent standards (so its transformative power and prestige), my contention is that some of its main transformations along history have had external social causes, very humble ones quite often (see for instance the history of the 0 figure). best wishes --Pedro PS. Thanks again to Zhao for his elegant text; I wonder whether we could organize a future discussion session focused in the humanistic-scientific fusion around the informational streak. Let us invite Main, Mihir, and also co-ordinate with other artists already in fis list --Jim Cogswell, Luis Rico... -- - Pedro C. Marijuán Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª 50009 Zaragoza, Spain Telf: 34 976 71 3526 ( 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554 pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ - ___ 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] [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Info Theory]--From John Collier
Hi there Guy I'm at a loss still about information you mention below. If one talks about waves, light, sound these are all energy (frequency) concepts. Chemistry and physics are really only about energy, entropy and transduction's and conversions of energy in one form or the other of matter. Any flows of available energy are more than likely entropy production or free energy. (Gibbs type free energy) The only codes, and notations are the ones we give it, it is of our own making, if information does have an existence then its more than likely related to non baryonic matter. After all we are making assumptions about a universe with only a less than 4% understanding of its contents. Regards Gavin Greetings All, I want to second Joseph’s claim that something may be transferred as information, even if Stan’s “stuff” itself is not transferred. Waves, for example, can often pass from one medium into another without a concomitant transfer of stuff, and the form of the wave may be changed when it enters the new medium. The energy of the wave, which can generally be measured by its physical manifestations (e.g., particle densities, free energy concentrations, local gradients and potentials...) may be sustained in a temporally and spatially coherent way as it flows. I personally like to think about information as contrast, such as with local gradients, and in this sense we might say that it it the information itself that flows into a recipient. Interpretation, then, involves the change in form that can occur in the new medium. Of course, information, like waves, are not always able to penetrate any new medium or system. It can be damped out in some transitions, and amplified through resonance in others. I think this perspective bridges some of the seemingly disparate views that have been voiced over the last week. Regards, Guy On 1/31/11 9:29 AM, joe.bren...@bluewin.ch joe.bren...@bluewin.ch wrote: Dear All, In coming to Krassimir'sdefense, I do not wish to abrogate the science of the last 100-150 years, but to suggest only that the appeal to authority, here as elsewhere, should not block criticism. The standard meaning of information is also restricted in some senses. The dimension that Krassimir and his source are pointing to is not just poetic, but describes real interactions between sender and receiver.. However, I would criticize absolute statements such as nothing is transferred. In my approach to logic (which I hope John includes in his various logics), it is not necessary to make an absolute distinction between the concept of information and its causal and material properties. They are dialectically linked. On the other hand, I think it is important to emphasize, as Krassimir does, that there are properties of information that cannot be measured. This point, and the others above, will not constitute an entire, monolithic Information Theory, nor its entire essence. But they should be taken into account as part of the common meanings of various theories which I, /pace/ John :-) find most interesting.. Best, Joseph UrsprünglicheNachricht Von: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es Datum: 31.01.2011 17:35 An: fis@listas.unizar.es Betreff: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Info Theory]--From John Collier (Msg. from John Collier) Unfortunately for your position, Krassimir, there is a well established usage of information in physics going back to Szillard's discussion of Maxwell's Demon in 1929, well before the dawn of communication theory. This usage is firmly entrenched in physics, used by such notables as Gell Mann, Wheeler and Hawking. So as far as usage of the word information is concerned, you were trumped long ago. I suggest that you, when using the word information make clear that you are using a specific restricted meaning rather than the general term. In fact I think that everyone on the list should practice similar hygiene. The word information has a range of meanings that are related much like Wittgenstein's family resemblances. It is perhaps a paradigmatic case of this. Anything in common is pretty basic, and not very interesting, to my mind, but worth working out in any case. There are connections of information theory to various logics, including the logic of distinctions and its extensionally equivalent propositional logic, predicate logic, and various other logics of a more restricted realm. These are all worth working out. However I think it is pointless, or nearly so, to try to find the one true meaning of 'information' (I use the philosopher's convention for single and double quotes in this post). I wish people would just let it go, and learn to be more flexible and open to different approaches that they don't find intuitively or experientially appealing. John At 01:22 PM 1/31/2011, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote: From: Krassimir Markov mailto:mar...@foibg.com Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 2:13 AM
Re: [Fis] Info Theory
Hi there Stan SS: Info theory presumably applies to everything and anything. GR: It was never intended to apply to anything but communication instruments. That is sending English language down a pipe. GR: In my opinion it still only does, I cant get my head around how say information theory actually applies to direct human communication or organic sensing systems. All our sensing systems are energy transduction systems, once inside the individual it 's moved via Na/K pumps aided by ADP to ATP conversions to the brain all electrical, chemical energy. So in the environment it's just a sound (phonon) or light (photon) or chemical or heat energy where are the bits (information theory part) or markers. They are just not there. Unless this information is what underlies energy and is what makes up the rest of the universe including dark matter and dark energy. And is also what underlies the theory of Geometricdynamics.(Relativity theory).?? How so I would not know. Gavin On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Gavin Ritz garr...@xtra.co.nz wrote: Are you saying Karl that Information theory is the glue that binds energy and entropy production? or the the fabric behind these two concept? If so what is the bridging qualitative and quantitative propositions and formulae for this binding? It's quite something to say this, because one of the qualitative foundations of information theory is word frequency of English from Zipfs law. John Pierce (Information Theory) Regards Gavin From: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch joe.bren...@bluewin.ch To: karl.javors...@gmail.com; Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es; fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Sat, 22 January, 2011 7:32:24 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] Info Theory Dear Karl, The assumption I would like to check that we share is that existence and energy are primitive and numbers something derived. When one moves from the quantum vacuum or singularity into the thermodynamic world, as soon as change occurs, something is no longer totally itself; there is something new along side of it in 4D space-time. The number of entities has increased, and this is the situation is the reality of which addition is the model. Iteration, which also occurs in reality, does the rest. If I understand you correctly, you feel that numbers, once available and manipulated in more complex ways, can model many other things, especially, of course, aspects of information. If a numerical perspective is convenient and even necessary for an understanding of nature, I would still like to know if it is sufficient. Are you able to capture, in your information theory, for example, the informational processes involved in: · emotions · creativity · anti-social behavior (rational and irrational) · complex political processes · your own theory? I think it would make for a more interesting and productive discussion if you were to tell us where your theory does NOT apply, rather than let us raise naïve objections to which you already have clear answers. I would like to know, for example, which of several possible approaches to the definition of a logical object are involved; at what point the limitations of machines become determining; and under what conditions one should seek to maximize (because valuable) heterogeneity as opposed to homogeneity. Very interesting discussions can then be envisaged at the “boundaries” between different approaches. Thank you and best wishes, Joseph Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: karl.javors...@gmail.com Datum: 20.01.2011 21:03 An: Jerry Chandlerjerry_lr_chand...@mac.com, Joseph Brennerjoe.bren...@bluewin.ch, Pedro C. Marijuanpcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es Betreff: Info Theory Hope that the FIS server will eventuially accept this, too.. For you, individually: Information Theory: Let me answer the points raised so far: Joe Brenner: My hope is that this discussion will have a good deal to do with qualitative as well as quantitative aspects of information. Perhaps people should state clearly what the primary interests and objectives are of their remarks. Jerry Chandler: The unspoken premise of many discussants appears to me to be a view of information theory as a universal glue, a universal predicate, a universal code. The assertion is outspoken, explicit and apodictically declaratory: information theory IS a universal glue, a universal predicate, a universal code Yet, any effort to use quantum logic to describe inheritance requires the construction of semantic bridges between messages before the encoding occurs. The existence of such semantic links or connections is intrinsic to the logical premise or assertion lies in the encoding process, not the experimental science that generates the information. The concepts and procedures underlying quantum logic and inheritance root BOTH in a common concept of rationality
Re: [Fis] Info Theory
Karl I cant fault your thinking, ( with some very important things you mention) but your comment about Shannon's view doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, fire- or not fire is just one logical connective form. Just One aspect of proposition logic connective. Imperative Logic which is actually more pervasive in organic systems is still unaccounted by your comments below. In fact Imperative Logic (fire neuron now) is how organic systems communicate with itself and others. And totally unaccounted for in most models. Shannon's communication theory is about getting data down a pipe and reading it at the other end. Not really intended to be anything else. If you say Limits of Glue then Information Theory does not underlie entropy production (or energy) or the Non-equilibrium free energy (combination of the two), and in fact may only be one qualitative aspect of entropy production. Then cannot be used to explain the Reality of Nature. Regards Gavin From: karljavorszky karl.javors...@gmail.com To: Gavin Ritz garr...@xtra.co.nz Cc: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch; fis@listas.unizar.es; pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es Sent: Mon, 24 January, 2011 1:58:28 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] Info Theory Limits of Glue Joe:...that existence and energy are primitive and numbers something derived. Yes of course. We know that Nature exists and has manifold properties. (Thomas Aquinas). We speak about our experiences with Nature. To make certain that we understand each other clearly, we use words with progressive degrees of formal meaning. The extreme of this is that we use the public language, i.e. numbers, - where no person has (should have) subjective connotations, and the denotations of the words are clear. The imagery built up by this method has the shortcomings that it is a very abstract, detached, idealised way of speaking about Nature. It has the advantages that we each know that we mean the same as we say in this model Nature is in a constant change as we refer to the fact that the Euclid spaces which give mass a localisation are derived from the concept that a reordering always takes place, no side of a logical argument having any innate, intrinsic claim of being more true than other aspects. It is a continuous reordering which brings forth the convoys of objects moving together (“strings”) and one of the readings yields coordinates in two perfectly rectangular spaces. So the basic principle is that it moves, as Heraclit said it should. What I say in normal, subjectively colored language is that space is actually two spaces which are merged into each other. The fabric of space is made up of the undecided logical (sub-)questions of the relevance of aspects. If it is more descriptive of a+b=c that 2a-3b is in such and such way more related to b-2a than to 2b-3a (just to mention an example), then space either constricts or expands or the strings going thru the truth points of this debate have to carry more fillings or less. The stuff must be somewhere. The 4D space you ask about is perfectly there, with strings attached, twice. Yes, physiology is a science of accounting and maintaining very strict limits. This is even more true of neurology. That we humans have funny ideas is built into the mechanism and can be seen e.g. on wolves, bears, apes as they play and chase imaginary prey (which is strictly speaking a hallucination). The translation sequenced-commutative is what we see in the DNA and in the functions of the brain. The electrical discharges which we call thoughts are sequenced and come from specific places, but are otherwise uniform. The cells fire or fire not. They have two logical states. This is the Shannon way of doing things. Then, interdependent with this, we have multiform material which is displaced. The fluids are only generally somewhere in the region, they can lose their place, and quite importantly they are of several varieties. The anti-Shannon idea is that there are more forms in Nature (which we can speak about in a formalized fashion) than this one and not this one. The model presented is not an explanation for everything and all. It is a tool to play with. We have 16 kinds of building blocks in two sets, black and white. We pair the blocks and order them. Then we reorder them again. We then discuss which pair goes with which other pairs together in a convoy. This appears at first sight very complicated but is extremely logical. The glue in question connecting and partly fusing concepts in our brain and between sciences and societies and among particles and galaxies is well pictured in the formal language by the strings that show the (possibly irrelevant) spatial coordinates of the convoys. It is not the accountant’s job to give names to amounts systematically under way and partly misplaced. It is the scientists’ prerogative to decide what they call a string, a field, a force, a molecule. Accounting processes connect points in Euclid spaces with extents. We
Re: [Fis] Info Theory
Hi there Loet If the information exchange is provided with meaning, then this is probably just a qualitative aspect of entropy production. However this is not Information Theory. The Relation between energy and information theory is 0.693kT (k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the temp in kelvin) Joules/bit this however is for a machine not a living organism. Knowledge transfer systems are Imperative Logic Systems hereto totally uncounted for. Regards Gavin Dear colleagues, It seems to me that the relation between information and energy provides the special case that the entropy is thermodynamic entropy. The relation is S = k(B) H. H is dimensionless, but S is not because k(B) adds the dimensionality of Joule/Kelvin. H can also be considered as probabilistic entropy. S is relevant in the case that the system of reference is the chemico-physical one based on collisions among particles. This level – the exchange of momenta and energy – is always involved in higher-order exchange processes, but the next-order ones emerge on top of the lower-order ones. For example, when specifically molecules are exchanged, life can emerge (Maturana). The self-organization may also reduce the uncertainty locally (“negentropy”). The system of reference, however, then is different from the chemico-physical one. The information exchange is provided with meaning. Things change dramatically when meaning can again be communicated because then models can be entertained at a more rapid speed than the underlying (that is, modeled) systems. The redundancy generation can then prevail over the entropy generation and a knowledge-based economy, for example, maintained. The discursive models proliferate options other than the ones which occurred historically. This cultural system incurs on the historical manifestations and thus counteracts upon their following of the entropy law. The social system, for example, can be based on other premises than the lower-order ones. For example, the “survival of the fittest” can be replaced by universal human rights. In other words: the specification of the system of reference provides the information exchanges with meaning. This meaning can again be communicated reflexively in the respective disciplines. The systems can be expected to gain in their capacity to process complexity insofar as these different layers become more nearly decomposable. This expansion spans the different dimensionalities and thus can be expected to enlarge the space for knowledge-based interventions. Best wishes, Loet LoetLeydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam AmsterdamSchoolof Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CXAmsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ From:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Gavin Ritz Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:42 PM To: Stanley N Salthe Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Info Theory Hi there Stan SS: Info theory presumably applies to everything and anything. GR: It was never intended to apply to anything but communication instruments. That is sending English language down a pipe. GR: In my opinion it still only does, I cant get my head around how say information theory actually applies to direct human communication or organic sensing systems. All our sensing systems are energy transduction systems, once inside the individual it 's moved via Na/K pumps aided by ADP to ATP conversions to the brain all electrical, chemical energy. So in the environment it's just a sound (phonon) or light (photon) or chemical or heat energy where are the bits (information theory part) or markers. They are just not there. Unless this information is what underlies energy and is what makes up the rest of the universe including dark matter and dark energy. And is also what underlies the theory of Geometricdynamics.(Relativity theory)..?? How so I would not know. Gavin On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Gavin Ritz garr...@xtra.co.nz wrote: Are you saying Karl that Information theory is the glue that binds energy and entropy production? or the the fabric behind these two concept? If so what is the bridging qualitative and quantitative propositions and formulae for this binding? It's quite something to say this, because one of the qualitative foundations of information theory is word frequency of English from Zipfs law. John Pierce (Information Theory) Regards Gavin From:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch joe.bren...@bluewin.ch To: karl.javors...@gmail.com; Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es; fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Sat, 22 January, 2011 7:32:24 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] Info Theory Dear Karl, The assumption I would like to check that we share is that existence and energy are primitive
Re: [Fis] Info Theory
Are you saying Karl that Information theory is the glue that binds energy and entropy production? or the the fabric behind these two concept? If so what is the bridging qualitative and quantitative propositions and formulae for this binding? It's quite something to say this, because one of the qualitative foundations of information theory is word frequency of English from Zipfs law. John Pierce (Information Theory) Regards Gavin From: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch joe.bren...@bluewin.ch To: karl.javors...@gmail.com; Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es; fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Sat, 22 January, 2011 7:32:24 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] Info Theory Dear Karl, The assumption I would like to check that we share is that existence and energy are primitive and numbers something derived. When one moves from the quantum vacuum or singularity into the thermodynamic world, as soon as change occurs, something is no longer totally itself; there is something new along side of it in 4D space-time. The number of entities has increased, and this is the situation is the reality of which addition is the model. Iteration, which also occurs in reality, does the rest. If I understand you correctly, you feel that numbers, once available and manipulated in more complex ways, can model many other things, especially, of course, aspects of information. If a numerical perspective is convenient and even necessary for an understanding of nature, I would still like to know if it is sufficient. Are you able to capture, in your information theory, for example, the informational processes involved in: · emotions · creativity · anti-social behavior (rational and irrational) · complex political processes · your own theory? I think it would make for a more interesting and productive discussion if you were to tell us where your theory does NOT apply, rather than let us raise naïve objections to which you already have clear answers. I would like to know, for example, which of several possible approaches to the definition of a logical object are involved; at what point the limitations of machines become determining; and under what conditions one should seek to maximize (because valuable) heterogeneity as opposed to homogeneity. Very interesting discussions can then be envisaged at the “boundaries” between different approaches. Thank you and best wishes, Joseph Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: karl.javors...@gmail.com Datum: 20.01.2011 21:03 An: Jerry Chandlerjerry_lr_chand...@mac.com, Joseph Brennerjoe.bren...@bluewin.ch, Pedro C. Marijuanpcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es Betreff: Info Theory Hope that the FIS server will eventuially accept this, too. For you, individually: Information Theory: Let me answer the points raised so far: Joe Brenner: My hope is that this discussion will have a good deal to do with qualitative as well as quantitative aspects of information. Perhaps people should state clearly what the primary interests and objectives are of their remarks. Jerry Chandler: The unspoken premise of many discussants appears to me to be a view of information theory as a universal glue, a universal predicate, a universal code. The assertion is outspoken, explicit and apodictically declaratory: information theory IS a universal glue, a universal predicate, a universal code Yet, any effort to use quantum logic to describe inheritance requires the construction of semantic bridges between messages before the encoding occurs. The existence of such semantic links or connections is intrinsic to the logical premise or assertion lies in the encoding process, not the experimental science that generates the information. The concepts and procedures underlying quantum logic and inheritance root BOTH in a common concept of rationality. Rationality as understood and codified heretofore roots in traditional concepts of additions. Once the next techniques of addition will have been mastered, both quantum logic and inheritance will be understood to agree to the same unified underlying theory of information. Why did the sciences develop separate and distinct encoding systems for expressing the natural behaviors of nature? There is an epistemological and a neurological-traditional explanation for this phenomenon. Thinking can discover (as Thomas said ca 1260 in Summa Theologiae) that an order exists behind the orders. This is in fact so. So a discursive distinction between concepts observed as appearances of the minor orders and concepts deducted as being principles of the maior order is reasonable. The neurological-traditional teaching orients itself on requirements and limitations of the human neurology. The complexity of understanding the advanced techniques of additions places it far outside the capacity of human brains to conceive yet alone understand and utilize. The unsolved - in
