Re: [Fis] It from Bit redux . . .

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

Trust me. You are in good company.

Steven




> On Jun 14, 2015, at 5:22 PM, Marcus Abundis <55m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> From Loet's post:
> >During the recent conference in Vienna, I was amazed how many of our 
> >colleagues wish to ground information in physics.<
> I would say that I was disappointed . . . 
> 
> For me this exchange on It from Bit is problematic as its seems to simply 
> revisit the same problem introduced with Shannon's use of the term 
> “information“ in his Mathematical Theory of Communication – but dressed with 
> a slightly different face. I had this same problem with “lack of precise 
> thinking“ (or terminology?) in the It from Bit video from last month. This 
> endless(?) debate around an old issue of “meaningful information“ versus 
> “meaningless information“ (aka DATA awaiting MEANINGFUL interpretation) I 
> find unhelpful in addressing FOUNDATIONAL issues. If we cannot keep our terms 
> straight I am not sure how progress is made.
> 
> Yes, of course physics has a place in the conversation, but the needless 
> blurring of basic terms does not, I think, advance the project. If a basic 
> nomenclature and/or taxonomy cannot be agreed and then abided in these 
> conversations, it leaves me wondering how I might contribute. I am new to 
> this group, but this seems like it should have been dealt with from the start 
> in agreeing the FIS group goals.
>  
> 
> Marcus Abundis
> about.me/marcus.abundis
> 
>   
> 
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

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

Re: [Fis] It from Bit redux . . .

[Jeremy Sherman]

Amen.

On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Marcus Abundis <55m...@gmail.com> wrote:

> From Loet's post:
> >During the recent conference in Vienna, I was amazed how many of our
> colleagues wish to ground information in physics.<
> I would say that I was disappointed . . .
>
> For me this exchange on It from Bit is problematic as its seems to simply
> revisit the same problem introduced with Shannon's use of the term
> “information“ in his Mathematical Theory of Communication – but dressed
> with a slightly different face. I had this same problem with “lack of
> precise thinking“ (or terminology?) in the It from Bit video from last
> month. This endless(?) debate around an old issue of “meaningful
> information“ versus “meaningless information“ (aka DATA awaiting MEANINGFUL
> interpretation) I find unhelpful in addressing FOUNDATIONAL issues. If we
> cannot keep our terms straight I am not sure how progress is made.
>
> Yes, of course physics has a place in the conversation, but the needless
> blurring of basic terms does not, I think, advance the project. If a basic
> nomenclature and/or taxonomy cannot be agreed and then abided in these
> conversations, it leaves me wondering how I might contribute. I am new to
> this group, but this seems like it should have been dealt with from the
> start in agreeing the FIS group goals.
>
> [image: --]
> Marcus Abundis
> [image: http://]about.me/marcus.abundis
> 
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] It from Bit redux . . .

[Marcus Abundis]

>From Loet's post:
>During the recent conference in Vienna, I was amazed how many of our
colleagues wish to ground information in physics.<
I would say that I was disappointed . . .

For me this exchange on It from Bit is problematic as its seems to simply
revisit the same problem introduced with Shannon's use of the term
“information“ in his Mathematical Theory of Communication – but dressed
with a slightly different face. I had this same problem with “lack of
precise thinking“ (or terminology?) in the It from Bit video from last
month. This endless(?) debate around an old issue of “meaningful
information“ versus “meaningless information“ (aka DATA awaiting MEANINGFUL
interpretation) I find unhelpful in addressing FOUNDATIONAL issues. If we
cannot keep our terms straight I am not sure how progress is made.

Yes, of course physics has a place in the conversation, but the needless
blurring of basic terms does not, I think, advance the project. If a basic
nomenclature and/or taxonomy cannot be agreed and then abided in these
conversations, it leaves me wondering how I might contribute. I am new to
this group, but this seems like it should have been dealt with from the
start in agreeing the FIS group goals.

[image: --]
Marcus Abundis
[image: http://]about.me/marcus.abundis

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

Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

[Loet Leydesdorff]

I would add another possibility -- information does not appear in the universe 
until it is manipulated by modern human society as a commodity.

 

Yes, Stan, this makes sense to me: information (in bits) can be considered as a 
measurement of the expected uncertainty. It is yet meaning-free, but it can be 
provided with meaning in a system of reference – such as a discourse.

 

For example, {50%,50%} contains 1 bit of information. Thus, if we mix 50 euro 
coins with 50 coins of a dollar or we group 50 black cats with 50 white ones, 
the uncertainty is one bit of information. This does not tell us anything about 
the cats themselves as in a biology.

 

During the recent conference in Vienna, I was amazed how many of our colleagues 
wish to ground information in physics. However, the information-theoretical 
evaluation seems mathematical to me. The mathematical notion of entropy is 
different from the physical one. The physical one is only valid for the 
physico-chemical system of momenta and energy. 

 

When I exchange the 50 dollars into 50 euros, the expected information content 
of the distribution of coins goes from one to zero bits, but this is not 
thermodynamic entropy. The physics of the exchange process are external to the 
informational-theoretical evaluation.

 

I know that you wish to express this with hierarchies. Information can be 
measured at each level or as mutual information between them. But what the 
information means, depends on the specific systems of reference.

 

Best,

Loet

 

  _  

Loet Leydesdorff 

Emeritus University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

  l...@leydesdorff.net ;  
 http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 
Honorary Professor,   SPRU, University of 
Sussex; 

Guest Professor   Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; 
Visiting Professor,   ISTIC, Beijing;

Visiting Professor,   Birkbeck, University of London; 

  
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ&hl=en

 

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2015 3:14 PM
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

 

Krassimir -- Thanks. Now I see what your objection is.  You do not agree with 
the Wheeler concept that information was he basis upon which everything else 
was founded. Rather, you see it as appearing along with matter. Or you might 
consider that it appeared 'along with form', in which case information doesn't 
appear in the universe until life makes it appearance.  I would add another 
possibility -- information does not appear in the universe until it is 
manipulated by modern human society as a commodity.

 

STAN

 

On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Krassimir Markov  wrote:

Dear John and Stan,

What is cause, and what is result? This is the question.

If we not assume information and informational processes as secondary effect 
from activity of living mater,  it is not possible to proof anything and we 
have to believe that proposed models maybe are truth. We have to trust to 
Author but not to experiments. 

Information has to be included not in the beginning of the hierarchy – at least 
in the middle where living mater appear.

Sorry that my post was apprehended as careless!

Friendly regards

Krassimir

 

 

 

 

 

From: Stanley N Salthe   

Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 3:30 PM

To: Krassimir Markov   

Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

 

Krassimir -- ???  I fail to understand your assertion.  This (and any 
hierarchy) is a logical formulation, allowing us to allocate influences from 
various aspects of nature in an orderly manner. 

 

So, please explain further your careless assertion!

 

STAN 

 

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Krassimir Markov  wrote:

Dear John and Stan,

Your both hierarchies are good only if you believe in God.

But this is believe, not science.

Sorry, nothing personal!

Friendly regards

Krassimir

 

 

 

 

From: John Collier   

Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 5:02 PM

To: Stanley N Salthe   ; fis 
  

Subject: Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

 

Not quite the same hierarchy, but similar:

 



 

It from bit is just information, which is fundamental, on Seth Lloyd’s 
computational view of nature. Paul Davies and some other physicists agree with 
this.

Chemical information is negentropic, and hierarchical in most physiological 
systems.

 

John

 

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 3:40 PM
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Phi

Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

[Stanley N Salthe]

Krassimir -- Thanks. Now I see what your objection is.  You do not agree
with the Wheeler concept that information was he basis upon which
everything else was founded. Rather, you see it as appearing along with
matter. Or you might consider that it appeared 'along with form', in which
case information doesn't appear in the universe until life makes it
appearance.  I would add another possibility -- information does not appear
in the universe until it is manipulated by modern human society as a
commodity.

STAN

On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Krassimir Markov  wrote:

>   Dear John and Stan,
> What is cause, and what is result? This is the question.
>  If we not assume information and informational processes as secondary
> effect from activity of living mater,  it is not possible to proof anything
> and we have to believe that proposed models maybe are truth. We have to
> trust to Author but not to experiments.
> Information has to be included not in the beginning of the hierarchy – at
> least in the middle where living mater appear.
> Sorry that my post was apprehended as careless!
> Friendly regards
> Krassimir
>
>
>
>
>
>  *From:* Stanley N Salthe 
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 13, 2015 3:30 PM
> *To:* Krassimir Markov 
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!
>
>  Krassimir -- ???  I fail to understand your assertion.  This (and any
> hierarchy) is a logical formulation, allowing us to allocate influences
> from various aspects of nature in an orderly manner.
>
> So, please explain further your careless assertion!
>
> STAN
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Krassimir Markov 
> wrote:
>
>>   Dear John and Stan,
>> Your both hierarchies are good only if you believe in God.
>> But this is believe, not science.
>> Sorry, nothing personal!
>> Friendly regards
>> Krassimir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  *From:* John Collier 
>> *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2015 5:02 PM
>> *To:* Stanley N Salthe  ; fis
>> 
>> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!
>>
>>
>> Not quite the same hierarchy, but similar:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It from bit is just information, which is fundamental, on Seth Lloyd’s
>> computational view of nature. Paul Davies and some other physicists agree
>> with this.
>>
>> Chemical information is negentropic, and hierarchical in most
>> physiological systems.
>>
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Stanley
>> N Salthe
>> *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2015 3:40 PM
>> *To:* fis
>> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!
>>
>>
>>
>> Pedro -- Your list:
>>
>>
>>
>> physical, biological, social, and Informational
>>
>>
>>
>> is implicitly a hierarchy -- in fact, a subsumptive hierarchy, with the
>> physical subsuming the biological and the biological subsuming the social.
>> But where should information appear?  Following Wheeler, we should have:
>>
>>
>>
>> {informational {physicochemical {biological {social
>>
>>
>>
>> STAN
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan <
>> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Ken. I think your previous message and this one are drawing sort
>> of the border-lines of the discussion. Achieving a comprehensive view on
>> the interrelationship between computation and information is an essential
>> matter. In my opinion, and following the Vienna discussions, whenever life
>> cycles are involved and meaningfully "touched", there is info; while the
>> mere info circulation according to fixed rules and not impinging on any
>> life-cycle relevant aspect, may be taken as computation. The distinction
>> between both may help to consider more clearly the relationship between the
>> four great domains of sceince: physical, biological, social, and
>> Informational. If we adopt a pan-computationalist stance, the information
>> turn of societies, of bioinformation, neuroinformation, etc. merely reduces
>> to applying computer technologies. I think this would be a painful error,
>> repeating the big mistake of 60s-70s, when people band-wagon to developed
>> the sciences of the artificial and reduced the nascent info science to
>> library science. People like Alex Pentland (his "social physics" 2014) are
>> again taking the wrong way... Anyhow, it was nicer talking face to face as
>> we did in the past conference!
>>
>> best ---Pedro
>>
>> Ken Herold wrote:
>>
>> FIS:
>>
>> Sorry to have been too disruptive in my restarting discussion post--I did
>> not intend to substitute for the Information Science thread an alternative
>> way of philosophy or computing.  The references I listed are indicative of
>> some bad thinking as well as good ideas to reflect upon.  Our focus is
>> information and I would like to hear how you might believe the formal
>> relational scheme of Rosenbloom could be helpful?
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> --
>> Ken Herold
>> Director, Library Information Systems
>> Hamilton College
>> 198 College Hill Road
>> Clinton, NY 133