Caro Francesco,
Ho letto la tua lettera con grande attenzione e comprensione. Io accettare
completamente la sorveglianza, che l'informazione è diversa in sistemi diversi.
Questo è esattamente l'essenza della teoria di riflessione, che descrive i
molti livelli di riflessione - fisici, chimici, meccanici, biologici,
psicologici, sociali ...
Quindi a volte c'è fraintendimento del concetto di "riflessione".
Tutto apposto. Pensiamo allo stesso modo.
Distinti saluti
Krassimir
Dear Francesco,
I read your letter with great care and understanding. I accept fully the
surveillance, that the information is different in different systems.
This is exactly the essence of the theory of reflection, which describes many
levels of reflection - physical, chemical, mechanical, biological,
psychological, social ...
So, sometimes there is misunderstanding of the concept of "reflection".
Alright. We think the same way!
With best regards
Krassimir
Dear Bob,
Thank you for your remark and especially – for the book!
It is very interesting.
The answer of you remark is just in my answer to Francesco – in reality there
are many different kinds of reflection.
Because of this we have many different kinds (types) of information.
But the common is that the reflection became information only in the
consciousness of recipient and only in the context which is already stored in
his/her memory.
In other words, the Information is a reflection for which the recipient can
recognize what the reflection reflects.
Kind regards
Крассимир
From: Francesco Rizzo
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 5:20 PM
To: Krassimir Markov
Subject: Re: [Fis] _ Re: _ Closing lecture
Caro Krassimir,
come ho scritto altre volte l'informazione ha un solo contenuto-dare o prendere
forma- che può essere oggetto di definizioni diverse:
- in termodinamica questa forma consiste del gradiente termico o differenza tra
molecole calde e veloci da un lato e fredde e lente dall'altro lato;
- in matematica o cibernetica corrisponde al numero delle alternative
possibili, misurabili in bit di entropia: quello che in termodinamica è
dis-informazione (entropia), in matematica è informazione;
- nella teoria della comunicazione è improbabilità o incertezza: la ricchezza
dell'informazione matematica si riduce quando si sovrappone su di essa un
s-codice per avere una significato semantico;
- in biologia è la sequela DNA-RNA-proteine che consente la comunicazione
dell'informazione genetica;
-in economia il contenuto-informazione conferisce il valore ai beni o servizi:
da qui la forma del valore o il valore della forma; etc.
Il discorso potrebbe continuare chiamando in causa la logica "fuzzy", ma non
credo che sia il caso.
Una cosa è certa: l'informazione, comunque definita, è preceduta dalla
significazione e seguita dalla comunicazione. La comunicazione, non è una
trasmissione di segnali, ma un dialogo di segni che implica il codice di chi
trasmette e il codice di chi riceve.
Sempre, con molta umiltà, un abbraccio.
Francesco.
2016-02-02 12:44 GMT+01:00 Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com>:
Dear Howard,
Thank you very much for your great effort and nice explanation!
I like it!
Only what I needed to see is a concrete answer to the question “what it the
Information?”
You absolutely clearly described it and I totally agree with your
considerations.
Only what is needed is to conclude with a short definition.
I think it may be the next:
The Information is a reflection which may be interpreted by its receiver in
the context the receiver has in his/her memory.
From this definition many consequences follow. In future we may discuss them.
Friendly regards
Krassimir
PS:
Dear FIS Colleagues,
1. At the ITHEA web side, the conferences for year 2016 have been announced.
One of them is the XIV-th International Conference on “General Information
Theory”.
Please visit link:
http://www.ithea.org/conferences/conferences.html
Welcome in Varna, Bulgaria !
2. May be it will be interesting to read the paper, published in our
International Journal “Information Theories and Applications” (
http://www.foibg.com/ijita/ ) :
Formal Theory of Semantic and Pragmatic Information - a Technocratic Approach
by Venco Bojilov
http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol22/ijita22-04-p05.pdf
Please send your remarks to the author to e-mail: off...@ithea.org
Krassimir
From: howlbl...@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 8:46 AM
To: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] _ Closing lecture
First, a few responses. I agree with Hans von Baeyer. Pedro’s kindness is
magic.
I agree with Gyorgy Darvas that quarks communicate.
I also agree with Jerry Chandler. Brute force is not the major mover of
history. Values and virtues count. A lot. In fact, a culture organizes
itself by calling one way of doing things evil—brute force—and another way of
doing things a value and a virtue. Our way is the value and the virtue. The
ways of others are brute force and evil. We see cooperation and warmth among
us. But only enmity and destruction among them.
The brute force is not within groups, where values, virtues, and compassion
prevail. It’s between groups. It’s in the pecking order battles between
groups.
Which means, in answer to Marcus Abundis, yes, groups struggle for position
in inter-group hierarchies like chickens in a barnyard. For example, America
and China are vying right now for top position in the barnyard of nations.
Russia’s in that battle, too. On a lower level, so are Saudi Arabia and Iran,
whose proxy war in Syria for pecking order dominance has cost a quarter of a
million lives. That’s brute force. Between groups whose citizens are often
lovely and loving to each other. Whose citizens are proud of their values and
virtues.
Now for a final statement.
Information exists in a context. That’s not at all surprising. Information
is all about context. As the writings of Guenther Witzany hint. And as Ludwig
Wittgenstein also suggested. Information is relational. Information does not
exist in a vacuum. It connects participants. And it makes things happen.
When it’s not connecting participants, it’s not information
FIS gets fired up to a high energy level when discussing the definition of
information and its relationship to Shannon’s entropic information equation.
Alas, these discussions tend to remove the context. And context is what gives
information its indispensable ingredient, meaning.
There are two basic approaches in science:
· the abstract mathematical;
· and the observational empirical.
Mathematical abstractionists dwell on definitions and equations. Empirical
observers gather facts. Darwin was an observational empiricist. I’d like to
see more of Darwin’s kind of science in the world of information theory.
One of Darwin’s most important contributions was not the concept of natural
selection. It was an approach that Darwin got from Kant and from his
grandfather Erasmus. That approach? Lay out the history of the cosmos on a
timeline and piece together its story. In chronological order. Piece together
the saga of how this cosmos has created itself. Including the self-motivated,
self-creation of life.
Communication plays a vital role in this story. It appears in the first
10(-32) of a second of the cosmos’ existence, when quarks communicated using
attraction and repulsion cues. OK, it’s not quite right to call the cues
attraction and repulsion cues. When two quarks sized each other up, they
interpreted the signals of the strong force differently. If you were a quark,
another quark might size you up and promptly speed away. But a quark of a
different variety might detect the same signals, find them wildly attractive,
and speed in your direction. One quark’s meat was another’s poison, even in
that first form of communication in the cosmos.
Information is not a stand-alone. Again, it’s contextual. It’s ruled by
what Guenther Witzany calls syntax, semantics, and, most important of all,
pragmatics. Its meaning comes from where it fits in a bigger picture.
Were the signals quarks exchanged information? Not according to many of the
definitions in FIS. Some of those definitions say that to be regarded as
information, a sender must deliberately signify something symbolically. She
must, for example, want to warn you about a poisoned apple. She must put that
message in symbols, like the words “poisoned apple,” then convey that signal to
a receiver. If she doesn’t want to see you poisoned, she might text you,
“watch out for poisoned apples.” I’m not sure whether the definitions extant
in FIS demand that you look at her text or not. Much less whether you act on
it.
In my latest book, The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates, I propose a
different definition of information. Information is anything a receiver can
decode, anything he can decipher. How do you know a receiver has decoded a
message? Through the decoder’s actions. If you are a quark and you detect my
strong force, you either scoot away or you rush over and join me. You act. If
you are a neurosurgeon looking at an mri, you make internal decisions, mental
decisions. You don’t move physically. Not at first. But you move mentally.
You imagine your scalpel poised over a different spot than you might have
picked before seeing the mri.
Information is anything a receiver can decode. So starlight reaching planet
earth 4.5 billion years ago, nearly half a billion years before the appearance
of the first life, was not information. There was no one or no thing that
interpreted it, translated it, or acted on it. But starlight in the age of the
Babylonians 2,600 years ago was highly informational. Entire teams of scribes
and priests spent their lives observing it and interpreting it. Many of their
interpretations were detailed bullet points of political and personal advice to
the ruler. Was there motion in response to starlight? You bet. Starlight
literally moved the troops and policies of empires.
And today, when there are tens of thousands of professional astronomers and
millions of amateurs with telescopes, all churning out data and emails to each
other, the amount of information in starlight has skyrocketed. But, in fact,
the actual starlight has not increased. Not a bit. It’s the number of
interpreters that’s shot up. And with the interpreters, something else has
mushroomed: the information, the interpretation, and the theories along with
their supporting or opposing “facts.”
The timeline of communication from quarks to empires is crucial. It’s the
natural history we need to see the evolution of information. No matter what we
define information to be. The timeline of the cosmos is context on the biggest
scale. It can make new meaning of facts we scarcely see. It can make more
phenomena we experience every day but do not see into, guess what? Information.
That’s a timeline I’m working on.
Thanks for having me in your group. And thanks for giving me a chance to
share thoughts with you.
howard
____________
Howard Bloom
Author of: The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of
History ("mesmerizing"-The Washington Post),
Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st
Century ("reassuring and sobering"-The New Yorker),
The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism ("A tremendously
enjoyable book." James Fallows, National Correspondent, The Atlantic),
The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates ("Bloom's argument will rock
your world." Barbara Ehrenreich),
How I Accidentally Started the Sixties ("Wow! Whew! Wild!
Wonderful!" Timothy Leary), and
The Mohammed Code ("A terrifying book…the best book I've read on Islam."
David Swindle, PJ Media).
www.howardbloom.net
Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting
Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University.
Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; Founder, Space Development
Steering Committee; Founder: The Group Selection Squad; Founding Board Member:
Epic of Evolution Society; Founding Board Member, The Darwin Project; Founder:
The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American
Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society,
Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society,
International Society for Human Ethology, Scientific Advisory Board Member,
Lifeboat Foundation; Editorial Board Member, Journal of Space Philosophy; Board
member and member of Board of Governors, National Space Society.
In a message dated 2/1/2016 8:46:55 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es writes:
Thanks Howard. Please, at your convenience send the concluding comments to
the fis list.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
This email has been protected by YAC (Yet Another Cleaner)
www.yac.mx
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
This email has been protected by YAC (Yet Another Cleaner) http://www.yac.mx_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
