Dear colleagues,
This discussion and reading the beautiful book of Bob Logan entitled What
is information? (shortly forthcoming) made me go back to reading MacKay
(1969) once more. I cannot find the distinction that makes a difference as
it is quoted by Floridi (2005) -- and thereafter repeated
At 09:45 PM 2014-01-21, Robert E. Ulanowicz wrote:
The reason of being of
information, whatever its content or quantity, is
to be used by an agent (biological or artificial).
Dear Christophe,
In making this restriction you are limiting the domain of information
to
communication and excluding
Dear Bob U,
If your are talking about resident information, as available for usage, I take
it as being part of information that can be used by the agent.
Let me go through John's paper (thanks John).
Best
Christophe
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 14:45:15 -0500
Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: Responses
Dear Joseph,
you are going toward quantum probability theory where
probabilities are determined by vectors; moreover, the vectors
belong to complex Hilbert space, i.e., roughly speaking each probability
has not only the direction but even the phase, andrei
Andrei Khrennikov, Professor of
ONLY TWO MESSAGES PER WEEK ARE ALLOWED IN THE FIS LIST
--
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13,
Dear Andrei, Hans and all
I agree with Andrei. And why make quantum theory more complex than it is? One
may use all kinds of mathematical tools in a scientific theory, and the more
these tools simplify calculations the better. I see no reason to avoid using
amplitudes or matrices in quantum
Dear colleagues,
Encouraged by your recent exchanges, which show that the topic of Hans' New
Year Lecture is
far from exhausted, I would like to think a bit more on the fundamental change
from Frequentist to Bayesian statistics. Hans writes:
“On the one hand each individual agent assembles the
Dear Lars-Göran, Andrei and Hans,
As you (I hope) have seen, I am trying to see how the evolution of macroscopic
processes can be described in terms of changing probabilities, and I am
encouraged to believe this is possible. If you allow the extension from QM, all
of the following would seem
Let me clarify one point: by saying that probability amplitudes represent real
physical features I reject the instrumentalist idea that they are mere
calculational devices. But of course, the probability amplitude is no
observable. But there is no need to claim that only observables have any
