Re: [Fis] It from Bit redux . . . Loss of Information

2015-06-15 Thread Joseph Brenner
Dear Colleagues and Reasoned Opponents,

A scientific position may be the object of rational disagreement and 
discussion, but the 'ganging up' of some individuals on a highly respected 
colleague is disgraceful and unacceptable. By this note I am suggesting to 
Pedro that Ericsson-Zenith, Sherman and Abundis be removed from the group.

The formulation of Loet's comment was somewhat rapid, since the key questions 
are 'what physics, what mathematics (and what logic). As Loet knows well, he 
and I do not agree on all issues surrounding information. Here I believe he 
might have been over-reacting to speakers at the conference who took 
superannuated postions on the physical grounding of information.

Among these positions is the idea that there must be exact, immutable 
defintions and terminology, as if we were not all involved in a complex 
learning process. Who is doing the alleged 'needless blurring of terms'? If 
after all this Abundis is still wondering how he can contribute, as he has 
already said, perhaps he should draw the obvious conclusion.

The inability to engage in civilized debate corresponds to an enormous LOSS of 
information in our Information Society. I would not blame the new media, since 
they are only tools, but they enable the very facile expression of some ideas 
better left for other venues.

Sadly,

Joseph

 




  
  - Original Message - 
  From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith 
  To: Marcus Abundis 
  Cc: Foundations of Information Science Information Science 
  Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 8:28 AM
  Subject: Re: [Fis] It from Bit redux . . .


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


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

2015-06-15 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan

Dear FIS Colleagues,

Traditionally the fis list is a place where polite exchange and 
scholarly style of communication are maintained. We have been in place 
for almost 20 years, and very rarely we have had any personally 
disappointing message. Let us keep that way, please. At the time being I 
see no big matter to intervene, particularly after Loet's calming 
message, so let us get get ahead with the exchanges, emphasizing not 
incurring in derogatory or ironic comments. Let us keep fis style up!


For the new people in the list, they are reminded that _individual 
exchanges are restricted to two messages per week_, that  _attached 
files are unwelcome_, and that there are _fis archives where massive 
records of exchanged messaged are kept_:


(shorter term) http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/
(longer term) https://www.mail-archive.com/fis@listas.unizar.es/

Unfortunately, several thousand messages were lost in a computer crash 
at the University of Zaragoza's servers and in previous migrations of 
the list. We are trying to recover all of them and properly archive in 
the new FIS web pages at http://fis.sciforum.net/ (courtesy of 
Sciforum-MDPI).


all the best ---Pedro
--

-
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, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 ( 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

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


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

2015-06-15 Thread 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
 
  http://about.me/marcus.abundis?promo=email_sig 
 
 ___
 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] FIS newcomer

2015-06-15 Thread Emanuel Diamant
Dear FISlists, 

 

I am a newcomer to the FIS discussion table. The debate that is going on in
your list-exchange is very interesting to me, but frankly, for the most of
the time, I only guess about what you are talking - my vocabulary and my
notions of Information are quite different from yours. Nevertheless, I would
like to add my voice to the ongoing discourse - I would like to direct you
to my page on the Research Gate
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emanuel_Diamant) to see my uploads
from the last IS4IS Vienna Conference. Maybe you will find them interesting.

 

Best regards,

Emanuel Diamant.

 

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


[Fis] Fw: It from Bit redux . . . Gain of Information

2015-06-15 Thread Joseph Brenner
Dear Pedro, Dear Loet and All,

My thanks first to Pedro for his note, especially for its emphasis on the 
necessity of scholarly style. I thank Loet also for what may be a quite 
unexpected result of my partial defense of his approach, his restatement of the 
Cartesian dualistic position. This brings out some differences, whose value may 
now be discussed, with the non-Cartesian dualisms of LIR.

Thus I agree that reality includes the res cogitans, and also physics as a 
science as much as the object of physics, the res extensa. Uncertainty is, I 
think, in reality, and not in our inability to define position and momentum at 
the same time, vs. a unitary reality. It is perhaps easier to see in complex 
emerging situations: the outcome of this discussion is uncertain, as we move 
between something like knowledge and something like ignorance.  I assume  (Loet 
please correct me) that the concept of the res cogitatum, the thing thought, 
applied to the res cogitans, allows for self-reference.

The discussion now turns on the question of access. In contrast to Loet's 
reading, Logic in Reality says that we have access to nature, the res extensa, 
but not only as a referent to the former via discourse, epistemologically. In 
addition, despite our incapacity of interacting directly with nature at 
microphysical levels of reality, the laws which govern change at our level are 
isomorphous with those at ours, making possible some cognition of nature, 
ontologically, due to our inseparability from it. 

Information, in this view, refers to the various processes that constitute both 
'the act and the fact' of this access, and its subsequent processing at higher 
levels of complexity (not abstraction). I see some of the difficulties in 
semiotic approaches as coming from assuming that the necessary stage of 
interpretation of information is not also a natural cognitive process following 
the same rules as those at lower levels.

As I have tried to argue previously but look forward to doing again ;-), such a 
view is relevant to Terry Deacon's approach to the dynamics of information, 
adding something to the 'how' side, but there is a lot more to be done here.

Best wishes,

Joseph


- Original Message - 
From: Loet Leydesdorff 
To: 'Joseph Brenner' ; 'fis' 
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 12:42 PM
Subject: RE: [Fis] It from Bit redux . . . Loss of Information


Dear Joe and colleagues, 

 

It “flamed” a bit. Thank you for the intervention. The confusion is not only 
ours, but also in the literature. Indeed, we should not blame each other for it.

 

I know that you wish to ground information in “reality”: “logic in reality” or 
LIR. But I understood during the conference for the first time, that “reality” 
then includes res cogitans. For example, “uncertainty” would be “in reality” if 
I correctly understand you.

 

Would this imply that physics as a science would be part of the reality as 
would its object (“nature”)? I would classify the first as res cogitans (in 
this case, cogitatum) and the second as res extensa. But we have no access to 
the latter (“nature”) but as a referent to the former (discourse). Is this part 
of the logic in reality? Is that in the neighbourhood of what you mean with LIR?

 

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=ych9gNYJhl=en

 

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Joseph Brenner
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 12:11 PM
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] It from Bit redux . . . Loss of Information

 

Dear Colleagues and Reasoned Opponents,

 

A scientific position may be the object of rational disagreement and 
discussion, but the 'ganging up' of some individuals on a highly respected 
colleague is disgraceful and unacceptable. 

 

The formulation of Loet's comment was somewhat rapid, since the key questions 
are 'what physics, what mathematics (and what logic). As Loet knows well, he 
and I do not agree on all issues surrounding information. Here I believe he 
might have been over-reacting to speakers at the conference who took 
superannuated postions on the physical grounding of information.

 

Among these positions is the idea that there must be exact, immutable 
defintions and terminology, as if we were not all involved in a complex 
learning process. Who is doing the alleged 'needless blurring of terms'? If 
after all this Abundis is still wondering how he can contribute, as he has 
already said, perhaps he should draw the obvious conclusion.

 

The inability to engage in civilized debate corresponds to an enormous 

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

2015-06-15 Thread Jeremy Sherman
Deacon addressed this all very clearly in his January paper. I'm guessing
for most FIS members his argument changed little or nothing.

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Stanley N Salthe ssal...@binghamton.edu
wrote:

 Loet -- Well, so you favor the definition of information as an invention
 of Western technology related to communication.  Others prefer to define
 information in such a way that it emerges into the world with biology -- in
 the genetic system.  Still others define information in such a way that it
 can be viewed as a physical quantity, perhaps a measure of the importance
 of context in any physical interaction.  As a generalizer, I prefer the
 latter, giving us the subsumptive hierarchy:

  Information ~ {context {material code {uncertainty}}}

 STAN

 On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net
 wrote:

 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, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/University of
 Sussex;

 Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/,
 Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,
 http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.htmlBeijing;

 Visiting Professor, Birkbeck http://www.bbk.ac.uk/, University of
 London;

 http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=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 mar...@foibg.com
 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 ssal...@binghamton.edu

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

 *To:* Krassimir Markov mar...@foibg.com

 *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 mar...@foibg.com
 wrote:

 Dear John and Stan,

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

 But this is 

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

2015-06-15 Thread Stanley N Salthe
Loet -- Well, so you favor the definition of information as an invention of
Western technology related to communication.  Others prefer to define
information in such a way that it emerges into the world with biology -- in
the genetic system.  Still others define information in such a way that it
can be viewed as a physical quantity, perhaps a measure of the importance
of context in any physical interaction.  As a generalizer, I prefer the
latter, giving us the subsumptive hierarchy:

 Information ~ {context {material code {uncertainty}}}

STAN

On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net
wrote:

 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, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/University of
 Sussex;

 Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/,
 Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,
 http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.htmlBeijing;

 Visiting Professor, Birkbeck http://www.bbk.ac.uk/, University of
 London;

 http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJhl=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 mar...@foibg.com
 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 ssal...@binghamton.edu

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

 *To:* Krassimir Markov mar...@foibg.com

 *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 mar...@foibg.com
 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 colli...@ukzn.ac.za

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

 *To:* Stanley N Salthe ssal...@binghamton.edu ; fis
 

[Fis] We have different “fen clubs” depending of sympathy to one or other definition of information

2015-06-15 Thread Krassimir Markov
Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,

This discussion was not planed. It started without any a priory explanation and 
because of this become more emotional.

I see, we have different “fen clubs” depending of  sympathy to one or other 
definition of information.
This is nice. Variety is important for development of science.

What is not good is that we stay only on the stage of definition of 
information. It is not needed if no theory is built on it.
The theory has to be experimented and proved.
Finally, such theory has to explain all information appearances and processes 
around us – I say around us but not all imaginable ones!

How much theories we have till now?
FIS is just place to present Theories!
Unfortunately, Masters stay silent and not teach us to use their theories.

Below I attach my answers to Stan and Bruno which was sent last week.

Friendly regards
Krassimir




Dear Stan,
I have no more attempts for FIS List for this week and will send this my answer 
to FIS tomorrow.
But it is pleasure for me to answer to you now.

Yes, I do not agree with the Wheeler concept that information was the basis 
upon which everything else was founded – this is the concept of God and it 
could not be proved, only to believe.
Yes, information doesn't appear in the universe until life makes it appearance. 
More, the information does not appear independently from live creatures, it is 
their internal state(s).
No, information does not appear in the universe until it is manipulated by 
modern human society as a commodity, it appeared together with live. 
Without reflections of external and internal structures and processes, as well 
as without memory, processing of reflection, and, at the end, reacting – 
without all of this the live is impossible.
What is done by modern society is to start understanding (but still not 
finished) what is the information.

Friendly regards
Krassimir


Dear Bruno,
Thank you for the remarks. Now I will answer only to you due to limit of posts 
in FIS List – tomorrow I’ll resend it for the list.

I agree with you partially.
Deep analysis and explanation of this problem is published in:
http://www.foibg.com/ijitk/ijitk-vol02/ijitk02-4-p06.pdf 
I hope, in this publication you will find answer of your remarks as well as 
basis for further discussion.

I think that it is crucial to keep the harmony and dialectical unity of the 
scientific and non-scientific approaches,
following the wisdom of St. Augustine: Intelligo ut credam, credo ut 
intelligam!.

Finally, please answer: Is the Theology a science or not? What kind of 
experiments one may provide to proof the Theology statements? 

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