RE: [FIS] General remark
And to reiterate again. We are talking about information as a concept, or as a variable? If we talk variable, we should be aware of the above listed limitations. If we talk concept, than Shannon-Boltzmann is a misunderstanding, in the same way, as the object as a whole and the mass of an object (in kilograms) are not the same. We can consider a concept as a variable which is measured at the nominal level, that is, in terms of descriptors. The advantage of Shannon's (not Boltzmann's) definition seems to me that it formalizes information as a variable. It can be provided with meaning, namely: uncertainty. However, this meaning is not yet substantive like the information impact of a meaningful information on the stock exchange. Meaning can only be provided to the Shannon-type information by a system. With best wishes, Loet Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX AmsterdamTel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society; The Challenge of Scientometrics ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] Reply to Igor Rojdestvenski: Information Coordinate System
Dear Igor, I practically agree with you, especially that matter (biological, non- biological, whatever) is a derivative concept, for we can speculate about it only indirectly through information we possess. As I pointed a few times, the objective reality for me is not reality of material objects (I have even a book about this). This is reality of information. There are information laws. Special forms of such laws are physical and biological laws. Yes, I agree that Shannon information given through entropy and hence through probability is not information, but we can say information coordinate. In your terminology the problem that I would like to emphasize is that we need more coordinates. I do not know such an advanced information coordinate system. QI differs from classical by using not a fixed Kolmogorov probability space, but multi-probabilistic system. So QI provides a better coordinate system, but I do not think that this was the end of information coordinate story. With Best Regards, Andrei Khrennikov Director of International Center for Mathematical Modeling in Physics, Engineering, Economy and Cognitive Sc., University of Vaxjo, Sweden ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
[FIS] General remark
Colleagues, Again a few sporadic remarks. We are always, as it seems to me, entangled in the matter-information frame of thinking. Why do not we simply take that matter as such presents itself to us only as information and through information (please give counterexamples if you want). Hence, matter (biological, non-biological, whatever) is a derivative concept, for we can speculate about it only indirectly through information we possess. A good "falsifying" example is given by the General Theory of Relativity, which explicitly prohibits distinguishing cases of accelerated movement and movement in the gravity field. Hence, much of what we used to call "matter" is, in fact, enveloped in the concept of information, as well as much more. As to the Shannon and/or Boltsmann probabilistic information, this is not information as such but a certain variable, used to measure information. It is the same as for measurements of matter we use such variables as weight, volume, density and so on. We should more clearly separate what is the subject proper, and what are our speculations about it, our models of it and our suggestions on how to weigh it. Otherwise we are little better than the student, which once gave me the following definition: "The Energy Concervation Law EQUALS a sum of kinetic and potential energy". Now about measures of information. When we talk physical, Shannon-Boltzmann definition kind of works -- again not as definition but as the way to measure, evaluate, estimate. A little deviation, for example the information contained in a certain text, and we are at a loss. Why? Because we can measure a) The "bit" information content (Shannon) b) A multitude of information contents based on different dictionaries. c) Object-specific impact of information. A very short phrase, containing a few bits of information, may throw up or down the whole stock market (then this information impact is measured in billions of dollars) or get a nation into war (then the impact is measured in damage and loss of lives). A very long citation from "Catch-22" will certainly not have the same impact. And to reiterate again. We are talking about information as a concept, or as a variable? If we talk variable, we should be aware of the above listed limitations. If we talk concept, than Shannon-Boltzmann is a misunderstanding, in the same way, as the object as a whole and the mass of an object (in kilograms) are not the same. Yours, Igor Rojdestvenski ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] posting in the list
Hi, these days some of you are having difficulties to post in the list. Please, be patient. We are receiving in this server lots and lots of spam (in my own account around 200 each day) and I can do nothing with the computing management about lowering the filters. Well, if your message is repeatedly rejected, what you can do is ask anyone else to introduce it, or send it to me (and I will automatically re-enter it). It is understandable the sense of urgency, but we try Fis to be a quiet, reflective list, where messages can be posted today, or tomorrow... yours, Pedro PS. By the way, Joseph Tainter (author of "The collapse of complex societies") has agreed to chair a fis session on "Social Complexity" around beginnings of December. Thanks are due to Igor Matutinovic for his kind help in the preparation of this session. ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Fw: [FIS] Comment to Karl's reply to Andrei
- Original Message - From: Arne Kjellman To: Karl Javorszky ; fis Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 10:52 AM Subject: [FIS] Comment to Karl's reply to Andrei Comment on Karls reply to Andrei: please allow me to ask you not to include this person in your statement " we do not have at the moment the real understanding of information. It is always reduced to the definition of probability, through entropy. " I publicly state - and probably this is the best podium to state this - that I do have at the moment the real understanding of information. : I guess you here claim you are a realist that has a real (true?) understanding of information. A bold claim for being a realist to my mind! You make a logical error by stating that the idea of information is always reduced to the definition of probability, through entropy. Let us separate the idea of information from its appearances (like the idea of fire to one burning fire). : Well here you make a dualistic statement and immediately accepts the realist model of speaking and thus assumes the validity of realism which is an illegal position attempting to criticize monism or even science. The idea of information is that - due to a small inexactitude in the folding of one- into moredimansional metrics - there is a basic flaw in our counting system, if we try to use it to understand outside reality (which you have wisely assumed to exist). : If you try to defend realism this is a wise and probably necessary assumption however if you try to advance science beyond it state of present paradoxes this is a devastating assumption. As long as we regard our rational system of counting in itself, like a measurement instrument on the shelf of the laboratory, it is error-free, tautologic and exact. As soon as we try to use it to count and measure the outside, we run into difficulties. Dealing with these difficulties, one can have following startegies: * assuming that the outside does not exist at all: Arne's position, rejected; A: This is why you cannot understand my position: I have never claimed that the outside never exists my claim it is illegal to speak about it simply because we cannot feature it in words. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent ::Wittgenstein. * saying that we do not understand it: your position, rejected; * checking the measurement instruments: my position, useful. Our measurement instruments count solely and only on units that are similar to each other. A: Agree! We disregard the logical diversity of the impressions we process. By Darwin's laws, (: here you are a realist again!) we are rewarded (by increased chances of reproduction) if we recognise the similar in a multitude which has properties of similarity and dissimilarity. We perceive the similar before a background of dissimilarity. : Agree! That our nervous system is built like this should not discourage us from investigating the properties of the background, too. We are like moths being attracted to the light (of similarity) and I am a moth which says: dark can have differing degrees. Wont we count the degrees of dark? The answer, usually, is: what, dark! Dont you feel the truth? It is light that attracts us! : Its a choice simply we can analyse the background as well I agree! So, the dialogue does get a bit tedious. Unfortunately, diversity is NOT exactly the opposite of similarity. One can count in units of diversity. One can build a counting system based on units of diversity. This D-based counting system neatly interacts with the traditional, similarity-based counting system, generating lots of what people call "natural constants" along the way. A: I do not know about the D-based counting system (reference?) but I follow your thoughts. Apart from the divergence mentioned below I think SOA could benefit from using such a system of quantification. So, the idea of information is deeply understood to mean the average difference (torsion, slack) between counting systems, where one counting system is based on axiomatis similarity of units, and the other is based on axiomatic dissimilarity of units. (This is like saying that the basis of our spatial seeing is the distance between our eyes and that we have two eyes.) The realisation of information is best observed by assuming probabilistic models of distribution of this bias. A: And here you slips not in interpreting the D-based counting system but in its application. You here fail to take the step necessary that overthrows the realists belief system :: The fire you talking about and the domain which you apply your counting system is your personal EXPERIENCE not some imaginative reality. This is the only valid use we can make of an IS-operator (Is-predicate). So, please exclude me from your sweeping statement "we don't understand what information is", and thank you for the opportunity to add to your statement "we assume it to be a concep
[Fis] Laws of physics do NOT apply in biology
Hi Guy A Hoelzer, the laws of Newton do not apply in biology. Or, have you ever seen a biologic body that remains in an idle state or keeps its linear movement forward? Karl ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
