Re: [Fis] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples?
Nice post, Bob. I agree pretty much. Brooks and Wiley got slammed by Morowitz for using the *Real* energy in their book, which being about biology is the only sensible notion of energy. There is still a need for a clear dimensional analysis of the relation(s) between information and energy. I work on that periodically, but only minimal progress so far. Perhaps I can focus on it better now that I am retired. John At 02:11 AM 2014-08-22, Robert E. Ulanowicz wrote: Dear Joseph, Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like Helmholz Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the exergy becomes RT times the mutual information among the molecules. I happen to be a radical who feels that the term energy is a construct with little ontological depth. It is a bookkeeping device (a nice one, of course, but bookkeeping nonetheless). It was devised to maintain the Platonic worldview. Messrs. Meyer Joule simply gave us the conversion factors to make it look like energy is constant. *Real* energy is always in decline -- witness what happens to the work functions I just mentioned. Well, enough heresy for one night! Cheers, Bob U. Dear Mark and All, I return belatedly to this short but key note of Mark's in which he repeats his view, with which I agree, that Energy is a kind of information and information is a kind of energy. My suggestion is that it may be useful to expand this statement by looking at both Information and Energy (mass-energy) as emergent properties of the universe. Since we agree they are not identical, we may then look at how the properties differ. Perhaps we can say that Energy is an extensive property, measured primarily by quantity, and Information is an intensive property. The difficulty is that both Energy and Information themselves appear to have both intensive and extensive properties, measured by vector and scalar quantities respectively. I am encouraged to say that this approach might yield results that are compatible with advanced theories based on the sophisticated mathematics to which Mark refers. I would say then that in our world it is not the question of which is more fundamental that is essential, but that Energy and Information share properties which are linked dynamically. In this dialectical interpretation, the need for a 'demon' that accomplishes some function, as in the paper referred to in John's note, is a formal exercise. Thank you and best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From: Burgin, Mark To: Joseph Brenner Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples? Dear Joseph and Colleagues, An answer to the perhaps badly posed question of whether information or energy is more fundamental is given in the book M.Burgin, Theory of information. The answer is a little bit unexpected: Energy is a kind of information and information is a kind of energy. It's a pity that very few researchers read books with advanced theories based on sophisticated mathematics. Sincerely, Mark Burgin On 7/31/2014 2:40 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote: Dear Krassimir and Colleagues, I have followed this discussion with interest but not total agreement. As I have commented to Krassimir previously, I feel that his system, based on symbols as outlined in his paper, is too static to capture the dynamics of complex information processes and their value (valence). It suffers from the same problems as that of Peirce and of set-theoretic approaches, namely, a certain arbitrariness in the selection and number of independent elements and their grounding in nature (or rather absence of grounding). If you will permit a naïve but well-intentioned question, why not have a theory whose elements are quintuples? Would this not be a 'better', more complete theory? This opens the possibility of an infinite regress, but that is the point I am trying to make: the form of the theory is, to a certain extent, defining its content. The /development/ of any GIT should, from the beginning I think, recognize the existence in real time, so to speak, of any new suggestions in the context of other recent contributions of a different form, such as those of Luhn, Hofkirchner, Marijuan, Deacon, Dodig-Crnkovic, Wu and so on. Several of these already permit a more directed discussion of the perhaps badly posed question of whether information or energy is more fundamental. Otherwise, all that work will need to be done at the end. In any case, the GIT itself, to the extent that it could be desirable and useful, would also have to have some dynamics capable of accepting theories of different forms. 20th Century physics sought only identities throughout nature and the balance is now being somewhat restored. I think keeping the diversity of theories of information in
Re: [Fis] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples?
Bob wrote: Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like Helmholz Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the exergy becomes RT times the mutual information among the molecules S: So, the more organized, the more potential available energy. I happen to be a radical who feels that the term energy is a construct with little ontological depth. S: I believe it has instead ontological breadth! It is a bookkeeping device (a nice one, of course, but bookkeeping nonetheless). It was devised to maintain the Platonic worldview. Messrs. Meyer Joule simply gave us the conversion factors to make it look like energy is constant. S: It IS constant in the adiabatic boxes used to measure it. *Real* energy is always in decline -- witness what happens to the work functions I just mentioned. S: In decline in the actual material world that we inhabit. That is, the local world -- the world of input and dissipation. I think the information problem may be advanced if we try to explain why the energy efficiency of any work is so poor, and gets worse the harder we work. This is the key local phenomenon that needs to be understood. STAN On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:40 AM, John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za wrote: Nice post, Bob. I agree pretty much. Brooks and Wiley got slammed by Morowitz for using the *Real* energy in their book, which being about biology is the only sensible notion of energy. There is still a need for a clear dimensional analysis of the relation(s) between information and energy. I work on that periodically, but only minimal progress so far. Perhaps I can focus on it better now that I am retired. John At 02:11 AM 2014-08-22, Robert E. Ulanowicz wrote: Dear Joseph, Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like Helmholz Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the exergy becomes RT times the mutual information among the molecules. I happen to be a radical who feels that the term energy is a construct with little ontological depth. It is a bookkeeping device (a nice one, of course, but bookkeeping nonetheless). It was devised to maintain the Platonic worldview. Messrs. Meyer Joule simply gave us the conversion factors to make it look like energy is constant. *Real* energy is always in decline -- witness what happens to the work functions I just mentioned. Well, enough heresy for one night! Cheers, Bob U. Dear Mark and All, I return belatedly to this short but key note of Mark's in which he repeats his view, with which I agree, that Energy is a kind of information and information is a kind of energy. My suggestion is that it may be useful to expand this statement by looking at both Information and Energy (mass-energy) as emergent properties of the universe. Since we agree they are not identical, we may then look at how the properties differ. Perhaps we can say that Energy is an extensive property, measured primarily by quantity, and Information is an intensive property. The difficulty is that both Energy and Information themselves appear to have both intensive and extensive properties, measured by vector and scalar quantities respectively. I am encouraged to say that this approach might yield results that are compatible with advanced theories based on the sophisticated mathematics to which Mark refers. I would say then that in our world it is not the question of which is more fundamental that is essential, but that Energy and Information share properties which are linked dynamically. In this dialectical interpretation, the need for a 'demon' that accomplishes some function, as in the paper referred to in John's note, is a formal exercise. Thank you and best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From: Burgin, Mark To: Joseph Brenner Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples? Dear Joseph and Colleagues, An answer to the perhaps badly posed question of whether information or energy is more fundamental is given in the book M.Burgin, Theory of information. The answer is a little bit unexpected: Energy is a kind of information and information is a kind of energy. It's a pity that very few researchers read books with advanced theories based on sophisticated mathematics. Sincerely, Mark Burgin On 7/31/2014 2:40 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote: Dear Krassimir and Colleagues, I have followed this discussion with interest but not total agreement. As I have commented to Krassimir previously, I feel that his system, based on symbols as outlined in his paper, is too static to capture the dynamics of complex information processes and their value (valence). It suffers
Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT.
Dear Colleagues, Thank you for comments and remarks. Many thanks to Mark for his interesting post. Really, the correspondence between energy and information is fundamental and needs to be clearly explained. I want to present my point of view because it is different from other ones. It is clear, the energy is needed to create a reflection. Without energy no internal changes (reflections) in the entities may be realized. This means that energy is needed to realize reflection which may become information for given subject. Without energy information is impossible. But the opposite correspondence does not exist. Energy does not depend on information. It exists in reality without subjects’ “decisions”. Energy is objective phenomenon , Information is subjective phenomenon. Let see a simple example. Let we have two equal pieces of paper. They contain some energy, let assume that its quantities are equal in both pieces. In other words, for instance, if we burn these pieces they will release practically the same quantities of energy. If I have such piece of paper and you have another such one, we may exchange them as equivalent without any additional conditions. Let now the pieces of paper are painted with some colors. The paint will add some additional energy to pieces. Let assume that again it is in equal quantities in both pieces. Again, we may exchange pieces as equivalent without any additional conditions. At the end, let pieces of paper are painted as follow: - the first piece is painted as USD 100 (one hundred dollars) - the second one is pained as RUB 100 (one hundred rubles) i.e. let have two real banknotes. Now, we will not agree to exchange these pieces of paper without additional conditions. As it is shown by Bloomberg, on 08/25/2014, 12.59:59, (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USDRUB:CUR) US DOLLAR-RUSSIAN RUBLE Exchange Rate is: Price of 1 USD in RUB is 36.1646, i.e now the first piece of paper is equivalent to more than 36 pieces of second one. Because of information for the subjects, the pieces became different notwithstanding that the energy quantities are equal in both pieces. The subjective decisions have important role in this case. In conclusion, the energy and information are different phenomena – objective and subjective, respectively. Energy may be explained by triple (see Mark’s nice explanations about triples!) : (source, recipient, transition) = (x, y, f) = y=f(x) . Information has to be explained by quadruple (source, recipient, evidence, subject). Here, it is important to remember Mark’s “Infological System” as Subject. The triples are object of study by Mathematics, quadruples – by Informatics. Friendly regards Krassimir From: Stanley N Salthe Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 4:51 PM To: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples? Bob wrote: Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like Helmholz Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the exergy becomes RT times the mutual information among the molecules S: So, the more organized, the more potential available energy. I happen to be a radical who feels that the term energy is a construct with little ontological depth. S: I believe it has instead ontological breadth! It is a bookkeeping device (a nice one, of course, but bookkeeping nonetheless). It was devised to maintain the Platonic worldview. Messrs. Meyer Joule simply gave us the conversion factors to make it look like energy is constant. S: It IS constant in the adiabatic boxes used to measure it. *Real* energy is always in decline -- witness what happens to the work functions I just mentioned. S: In decline in the actual material world that we inhabit. That is, the local world -- the world of input and dissipation. I think the information problem may be advanced if we try to explain why the energy efficiency of any work is so poor, and gets worse the harder we work. This is the key local phenomenon that needs to be understood. STAN On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:40 AM, John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za wrote: Nice post, Bob. I agree pretty much. Brooks and Wiley got slammed by Morowitz for using the *Real* energy in their book, which being about biology is the only sensible notion of energy. There is still a need for a clear dimensional analysis of the relation(s) between information and energy. I work on that periodically, but only minimal progress so far. Perhaps I can focus on it better now that I am retired. John At 02:11 AM 2014-08-22, Robert E. Ulanowicz wrote: Dear Joseph, Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like Helmholz Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the exergy becomes RT times the mutual
Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT.
Dear Krassimir et al., I like your view very much with one exception. I think it confounds information with meaning, which I think can lead to problems. For example, I could give two people the same message written on your identical pieces of paper. It is written in English, but only one of the readers understands English. My message might be meaningful to one reader, but it cannot be meaningful to the other. I would argue that both pieces of paper contain the same information. In other words, for me it is important to recognize information as existing in the absence of its appreciation or interpretation. Perception and interpretation are generated by an agent, so they are not direct representations of the information and (perhaps universally?) add some error or distortion in the process. I would suggest a revision to what you wrote as follows: Energy AND INFORMATION are objective phenomena. PERCEPTION AND MEANING are subjective phenomena. Can anybody see a problem with this form of the statement? Regards, Guy Hoelzer On Aug 25, 2014, at 11:51 AM, Krassimir Markov mar...@foibg.commailto:mar...@foibg.com wrote: Dear Colleagues, Thank you for comments and remarks. Many thanks to Mark for his interesting post. Really, the correspondence between energy and information is fundamental and needs to be clearly explained. I want to present my point of view because it is different from other ones. It is clear, the energy is needed to create a reflection. Without energy no internal changes (reflections) in the entities may be realized. This means that energy is needed to realize reflection which may become information for given subject. Without energy information is impossible. But the opposite correspondence does not exist. Energy does not depend on information. It exists in reality without subjects’ “decisions”. Energy is objective phenomenon , Information is subjective phenomenon. Let see a simple example. Let we have two equal pieces of paper. They contain some energy, let assume that its quantities are equal in both pieces. In other words, for instance, if we burn these pieces they will release practically the same quantities of energy. If I have such piece of paper and you have another such one, we may exchange them as equivalent without any additional conditions. Let now the pieces of paper are painted with some colors. The paint will add some additional energy to pieces. Let assume that again it is in equal quantities in both pieces. Again, we may exchange pieces as equivalent without any additional conditions. At the end, let pieces of paper are painted as follow: - the first piece is painted as USD 100 (one hundred dollars) - the second one is pained as RUB 100 (one hundred rubles) i.e. let have two real banknotes. Now, we will not agree to exchange these pieces of paper without additional conditions. As it is shown by Bloomberg, on 08/25/2014, 12.59:59, (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USDRUB:CUR) US DOLLAR-RUSSIAN RUBLE Exchange Rate is: Price of 1 USD in RUB is 36.1646, i.e now the first piece of paper is equivalent to more than 36 pieces of second one. Because of information for the subjects, the pieces became different notwithstanding that the energy quantities are equal in both pieces. The subjective decisions have important role in this case. In conclusion, the energy and information are different phenomena – objective and subjective, respectively. Energy may be explained by triple (see Mark’s nice explanations about triples!) : (source, recipient, transition) = (x, y, f) = y=f(x) . Information has to be explained by quadruple (source, recipient, evidence, subject). Here, it is important to remember Mark’s “Infological System” as Subject. The triples are object of study by Mathematics, quadruples – by Informatics. Friendly regards Krassimir From: Stanley N Salthemailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 4:51 PM To: fismailto:fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples? Bob wrote: Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like Helmholz Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the exergy becomes RT times the mutual information among the molecules S: So, the more organized, the more potential available energy. I happen to be a radical who feels that the term energy is a construct with little ontological depth. S: I believe it has instead ontological breadth! It is a bookkeeping device (a nice one, of course, but bookkeeping nonetheless). It was devised to maintain the Platonic worldview. Messrs. Meyer Joule simply gave us the conversion factors to make it look like energy is constant. S: It IS constant in the adiabatic boxes used to measure it. *Real* energy is always in decline -- witness what happens to the work functions I just mentioned. S: In