Re: [Fis] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples?

2014-08-25 Thread John Collier
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?

2014-08-25 Thread Stanley N Salthe
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.

2014-08-25 Thread Krassimir Markov
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.

2014-08-25 Thread Guy A Hoelzer
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