from:"Gyorgy Darvas"

Re: [Fis] Is information physical?

2018-04-25 Thread Gyorgy Darvas


Hi all,

Information is information.
There is no reason to bundle it under any other genus.

There are physical information! (Cf., my paper at the Vienna conference, 
2015.)

... And there are other (non-physical) information.

Other approach:
Information follows, in certain aspects, some laws of physics, and it 
avoids to do so in other instances.
Even following a law of physics doesn't allow to identify the object (in 
our case: information) with physics.


Similar to a well discussed other example: information can be 
characterised by similar mathematics to that of entropy, while this 
similitude does not mean that information as such is entropy.


Good luck,
Gyuri


On 2018.04.25. 6:52, Louis H Kauffman wrote:

Dear Mark,
Thank you for suggesting this topic.
I concur wholeheartedly with your stand on this matter.
Information in the sense that you indicate
is pattern that is independent of the particular substrate on which it 
is ‘carried’.


There is a persistent myth in popular scientific culture that 
mathematics and the physical are identical.

Just as information is not physical, neither is mathematics.
Each mathematical structure is recognizable as mathematics in that it 
is strictly relational and quite independent of the medium in which it 
is expressed.


The example of mathematics as information independent of substrate
is an opening for exploring more deeply the nature of information. For 
we are all aware
of the remarkable interplay of mathematics and the quantitative and 
structural understanding of the physical.


I suspect that the end result of that exploration will be for us to 
admit that

we do not know know what is physical,
that we can deny that information is not physical.

The crux of the matter (sic)
lies in the distinction made between the physical and the non-physical.
There is such a distinction.
The boundary of that distinction is unknown territory.
Very best,
Lou Kauffman


On Apr 24, 2018, at 8:47 PM, Burgin, Mark > wrote:


Dear Colleagues,

I would like to suggest the new topic for discussion

Is information physical?

My opinion is presented below:



Why some people erroneously think that information is physical
The main reason to think that information is physical is the strong 
belief of many people, especially, scientists that there is only 
physical reality, which is studied by science. At the same time, 
people encounter something that they call information.
When people receive a letter, they comprehend that it is information 
because with the letter they receive information. The letter is 
physical, i.e., a physical object. As a result, people start thinking 
that information is physical. When people receive an e-mail, they 
comprehend that it is information because with the e-mail they 
receive information. The e-mail comes to the computer in the form of 
electromagnetic waves, which are physical. As a result, people start 
thinking even more that information is physical.
However, letters, electromagnetic waves and actually all physical 
objects are only carriers or containers of information.
To understand this better, let us consider a textbook. Is possible to 
say that this book is knowledge? Any reasonable person will tell that 
the textbook contains knowledge but is not knowledge itself. In the 
same way, the textbook contains information but is not information 
itself. The same is true for letters, e-mails, electromagnetic waves 
and other physical objects because all of them only contain 
information but are not information. For instance, as we know, 
different letters can contain the same information. Even if we make 
an identical copy of a letter or any other text, then the letter and 
its copy will be different physical objects (physical things) but 
they will contain the same information.
Information belongs to a different (non-physical) world of knowledge, 
data and similar essences. In spite of this, information can act on 
physical objects (physical bodies) and this action also misleads 
people who think that information is physical.
One more misleading property of information is that people can 
measure it. This brings an erroneous assumption that it is possible 
to measure only physical essences. Naturally, this brings people to 
the erroneous conclusion that information is physical. However, 
measuring information is essentially different than measuring 
physical quantities, i.e., weight. There are no “scales” that measure 
information. Only human intellect can do this.
It is possible to find more explanations that information is not 
physical in the general theory of information.


Sincerely,
Mark Burgin


On 4/24/2018 10:46 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:

Dear FIS Colleagues,

A very interesting discussion theme has been proposed by Mark Burgin 
--he will post at his early convenience.
Thanks are due to Alberto for his "dataism" piece. Quite probably we 
will need to revisit that theme, as it is gaining increasing 
m

Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?

2017-10-16 Thread Gyorgy Darvas


Information exists at all levels of Agents.

Good luck,
Gyuri


On 2017.10.15. 23:27, Krassimir Markov wrote:

Dear FIS Colleagues,

After nice collaboration last weeks, a paper Called “Data versus
Information” is prepared in very beginning draft variant and already is
sent to authors for refining.
Many thanks for fruitful work!

What we have till now is the understanding that the information is some
more than data.
In other words:
  d = r
  i = r + e
where:
  d => data;
  i => information;
  r => reflection;
  e => something Else, internal for the Agent (subject, interpreter,
etc.).

Simple question: What is “Agent”?

When an entity became an Agent? What is important to qualify the entity as
Agent or as an Intelligent Agent? What kind of agent is the cell? At the
end - does information exist for Agents or only for Intelligent Agents?

Thesis: Information exists only for the Intelligent Agents.

Antithesis: Information exists at all levels of Agents.

Friendly greetings
Krassimir





___
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] Can the can drink beer ?

2017-03-28 Thread Gyorgy Darvas


Dear FIS-ers,

1) A can is empty or filled. Its "emptiness" or "filledness" is an 
information. This is an objective property. It is independent of whether 
a conscious being perceives it or not. I generally argue for this 
non-subjectivity of information.


2) There is an information change when a filled can loses its content, 
independent of whether a conscious being pours the content, or that 
happens as a result of a damage by an earthquake.


3) Information is transmitted between two telephone exchange centers via 
wires (or wireless) by the way of electromagnetic impulses. Generally it 
is initiated by conscious human beings, and received by another (if one 
answers the call, or detects at her/his computer). In certain cases, the 
impulses can be modified by outside magnetic waves originating from the 
space, e.g., from the Sun. It is also a part of the transmitted 
information, and no "conscious information-processor" takes active part 
in it.


This *information*(by its nickname e-mail), transmitted to you, has been 
in your computer even before you read (and perceived) it.


Best, Gyuri


On 2017.03.26. 11:39, Krassimir Markov wrote:

Dear Brian, Arturo, Karl, Alex, Lars-Goran, Gyuri, and FIS colleagues,
Thank you for your remarks!
What is important is that every theory has its own understanding of 
the concepts it uses.

For “foreigners”, theirs meaning may be strange or unknown.
Some times, concepts of one theory contradict to corresponded concepts 
from other theory.
For years, I have met many different definitions of concept 
“information” and many more kinds of its use.

From materialistic up to weird point of view...
To clear my own understanding, I shall give you a simple example:
CAN THE CAN DRINK BEER ?
CAN THE CAN EXCHANGE BEER WITH THE GLASS ?
The can is used by humans for some goals, for instance to store some 
beer for a given period.
But the can itself “could not understand” its own functions and what 
the can can do with beer it contains.

All its functionality is a human’s consciousness model.
Can cannot exchange beer with the glass if there are no human activity 
or activity of additional devices invented by humans to support this.

Further:
CAN THE ARTIFICIAL LEG WALK  ?
You know the answer ... Human with an artificial leg can walk ...
All functionality of artificial leg is a result from human’s 
consciousness modeling and invention.

In addition:
IS THE “PHYSICAL INFORMATION” INFORMATION ?
If it is, the first question is how to measure the quantity and 
quality of such “information” and who can do this?
I prefer the answer “NO” – “physical information” is a concept which 
means something else but not “information” as it is in my understanding.
From my point of view, “physical information” is a kind of reflection 
(see “Theory of reflections” of T.Pavlov).
Every reflection may be assumed as information iff (if and only if) 
there exist a subjective information expectation to be resolved by 
given reflection.
For physical information this low is not satisfied. Because of this, I 
prefer to call this phenomenon simply “a reflection”.

And so on ...
Finally:
Human been invented too much kinds of prostheses including ones for 
our intellectual functionalities, i.e. many different kinds of 
electronic devices which, in particular, can generate some electrical, 
light, etc. impulses, which we assume as “information”; usually a 
combination of impulses we assume as s structure to be recognized by 
us as “information”.
A special kind of prostheses are Robots. They have some autonomous 
functionalities but are still very far from living consciousness. The 
level of complexity of robot’s consciousness is far of human’s one. 
Someone may say that robots understand and exchange “information”, but 
still they only react on incoming signals following the instructions 
given by humans. Theirs functioning is similar to human ones but only 
similar. They may recognize some structures of signals and exchange 
such ones with other robots or living creatures. Maybe someone wants 
to call this “information exchange”, but, after Shannon, I call this 
“sending and/or receiving signals”. And automatic reaction to signals.
One may say, the Robot (Computer) memory contains information but 
really it does not contain anything – it has its own structure which 
can be changed temporally of permanently by external electrical impulses.
Is the human memory the same – a structure which can be changed 
temporally of permanently by external or internal signals? I think – 
yes, It is!
What is the difference? Why we may say that the living creatures 
process information but not living couldn’t?
The answer is: because the living creatures may create and resolve the 
“information expectation” with very high level of complexity.

Maybe in the future robots will can do it ...
Such robot I call “INFOS”. It will be artificial living creature. 
Possibly with some biological elements.
It will be very interesting and amazin

Re: [Fis] WHY WE ARE HERE? ...AN UNPLEASANT ANSWER?!

2017-03-01 Thread Gyorgy Darvas

David:

The nature of evolution is such that symmetries emerge and disappear
(change).

Gyuri

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Scie/ScieDarv.htm
http://epistemologia.zoomblog.com/archivo/2007/11/28/symmetry-breaking-in-a-philosophical-c.html

Darvas, G. (1998) Laws of symmetry breaking, /Symmetry: Culture and
Science/, 9, 2-4, 119-127
http://journal-scs.symmetry.hu/content-pages/volume-9-numbers-2-4-pages-113-464-1998/
;
Darvas, G, (2015) The unreasonable effectiveness of symmetry in the
sciences, /Symmetry: Culture and Science/, 26, 1, 39-82.
http://journal-scs.symmetry.hu/content-pages/volume-26-number-1-pages-001-128-2015/
; http://journal-scs.symmetry.hu/purchase/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284341950_THE_UNREASONABLE_EFFECTIVENESS_OF_SYMMETRY_IN_THE_SCIENCES

On 2017.02.28. 19:01, Dave Kirkland wrote:

Dear Arturo Tozzi and FISers
Thank you for your _*very*_ interesting ideas. For me they raise more
questions:

Why did the number of cosmic symmetries ever _*start*_ diminishing?
Could the whole process be eternally cyclical?
I like your respectful use of capital letters.
My mind boggles.
Best rgds
David

On 24 Feb 2017, at 15:24, tozziart...@libero.it
wrote:

Dear FISers,

hi!

A possible novel discussion (if you like it, of course!):

*A SYMMETRY-BASED ACCOUNT OF LIFE AND EVOLUTION*

After the Big Bang, a gradual increase in thermodynamic entropy is
occurring in our Universe (Ellwanger, 2012). Because of the
relationships between entropy and symmetries (Roldán et al., 2014),
the number of cosmic symmetries, the highest possible at the very
start, is declining as time passes. Here the evolution of living
beings comes into play. Life is a space-limited increase of energy
and complexity, and therefore of symmetries. The evolution proceeds
towards more complex systems (Chaisson, 2010), until more advanced
forms of life able to artificially increase the symmetries of the
world. Indeed, the human brains’ cognitive abilities not just think
objects and events more complex than the physical ones existing in
Nature, but build highly symmetric crafts too. For example, human
beings can watch a rough stone, imagine an amygdala and build it from
the same stone. Humankind is able, through its ability to manipulate
tools and technology, to produce objects (and ideas, i.e., equations)
with complexity levels higher than the objects and systems
encompassed in the pre-existing physical world. Therefore, human
beings are naturally built by evolution in order to increase the
number of environmental symmetries. This is in touch with recent
claims, suggesting that the brain is equipped with a number of
functional and anatomical dimensions higher than the 3D environment
(Peters et al., 2017). Intentionality, typical of the living beings
and in particular of the human mind, may be seen as a mechanism able
to increase symmetries. As Dante Alighieri stated (/Hell,/ /XXVI,
118-120/), “y/ou were not made to live as brutes, but to follow
virtue and knowledge/”.

In touch with Spencer’s (1860) and Tyler’s (1881) claims, it looks
like evolutionary mechanisms tend to achieve increases in
environmental complexity, and therefore symmetries (Tozzi and Peters,
2017). Life is produced in our Universe in order to restore the
initial lost symmetries. At the beginning of life, increases in
symmetries are just local, e.g., they are related to the
environmental niches where the living beings are placed. However, in
long timescales, they might be extended to the whole Universe. For
example, Homo sapiens, in just 250.000 years, has been able to build
the Large Hadron Collider, where artificial physical processes make
an effort to approximate the initial symmetric state of the Universe.
Therefore, life is a sort of gauge field (Sengupta et al., 2016),
e.g., a combination of forces and fields that try to counterbalance
and restore, in very long timescales, the original cosmic symmetries,
lost after the Big Bang. Due to physical issues, the “homeostatic”
cosmic gauge field must be continuous, e.g., life must stand,
proliferate and increase in complexity over very long timescales.
This is the reason why every living being has an innate tendency
towards self-preservation and proliferation. With the death,
continuity is broken. This talks in favor of intelligent life
scattered everywhere in the Universe: if a few species get extinct,
others might continue to proliferate and evolve in remote planets, in
order to pursue the goal of the final symmetric restoration. In
touch with long timescales’ requirements, it must be kept into
account that life has been set up after a long gestation: a
childbearing which encompasses the cosmic birth of fermions, then
atoms, then stars able to produce the more sophisticated matter
(metals) required for molecular life.

A symmetry-based framework gives rise to two opposite feelings, by
our s

Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

2017-01-11 Thread Gyorgy Darvas


Dear All,

I follow O. Rössler's concerns for a few years.

As a physicist (who is probably not the best specialist in the black 
hole physics), I do not want to involve in detailed physical 
explanations and mathematical proofs for information specialists, not 
certainly specialised in physics.


According to me, there is a misunderstanding that makes the story curious.

Stellar black holes are a result of a gravitational collapse. That 
collapse takes place, when the mass of the star exceeds a critical 
value; it is a result of the locally high gravitational field. that 
gravitational field is stronger than the electromagnetic field that (in 
a very simplified picture) keeps the  electrons revolve in a distance 
around the nucleus.
In the course of that gravitational collapse the electron shells of the 
atoms fall in the nucleus. The properties of the black holes are defined 
for them. The star becomes very small in size, but has a strong 
gravitational field, and behaves like described in the bh literature.

Cause: high gravity; effect: collapse, emergence of a bh.

One can produce single atom collapse in extreme laboratory 
circumstances. Why not? However, that single (or few) atom collapse will 
not produce a gravitational field exceeding the critical value; since 
its mass is much less than the critical. The reason is that it was 
"created" not by a self-generated gravitational collapse. Therefore, it 
will not "eat" matter in its environment. According to the lack of 
distance between the nucleus and electron shell(s) around it, these 
"atoms" (sic!) are called mini-black-holes. However, they do not behave 
like the stellar black holes over the critical mass. *The name is only 
an analogy*, marked by the prefix "mini-".
Cause: not high gravity; effect: no critical mass, no more attraction of 
other masses around it than before its collapse.


Regards,
Gyuri



On 2017.01.11. 11:33, Otto E. Rossler wrote:

I like this response from Lou,
Otto



*From:* Louis H Kauffman 
*To:* Pedro C. Marijuan 
*Cc:* fis 
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 10, 2017 6:09 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

Dear Folks,
It is very important to not be hasty and assume that the warning 
Professor Rossler made is to be taken seriously.
It is relatively easy to check if a mathematical reasoning is true or 
false.
It is much more difficult to see if a piece of mathematics is 
correctly alligned to physical prediction.

Note also that a reaction such as
"THIS STORY IS A GOOD REASON FOR SHUTTING DOWN CERN PERMANENTLY AND 
SAVING A LOT OF LARGELY WASTED MONEY.”.
Is not in the form of scientific rational discussion, but rather in 
the form of taking a given conclusion for granted

 and using it to support another opinion that is just that - an opinion.

By concatenating such behaviors we arrive at the present political 
state of the world.


This is why, in my letter, I have asked for an honest discussion of 
the possible validity of Professor Rossler’s arguments.


At this point I run out of commentary room for this week and I shall 
read and look forward to making further comments next week.

Best,
Lou Kauffman


On Jan 9, 2017, at 7:17 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan 
mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>> wrote:



From Alex Hankey
 Mensaje reenviado 
Asunto: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
Fecha:  Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:55:55 +0530
De: Alex Hankey  
Para: 	PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ  





THIS STORY IS A GOOD REASON FOR SHUTTING DOWN CERN PERMANENTLY AND 
SAVING A LOT OF LARGELY WASTED MONEY.


On 5 January 2017 at 16:36, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ 
mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>> wrote:


Dear FISers,

Herewith the Lecture inaugurating our 2017 sessions.
I really hope that this Curious Story is just that, a curiosity.
But in science we should not look for hopes but for arguments and
counter-arguments...

Best wishes to All and exciting times for the New Year!
--Pedro




*De:* Otto E. Rossler [oeros...@yahoo.com ]
*Enviado el:* miércoles, 04 de enero de 2017 17:51
*Para:* PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ
*Asunto:* NY session
--

*A Curious Story*
Otto E. Rossler, University of Tübingen, Germany

Maybe I am the only one who finds it curious. Which fact would
then make it even more curious for me. It goes like this: Someone
says “I can save your house from a time bomb planted into the
basement” and you respond by saying “I don’t care.” This curious
story is taken from the Buddhist bible.
It of course depends on who is offering to help. It could be a
lunatic person claiming that he alone can save the planet from a
time-bomb about to be planted into it. In that case, t

Re: [Fis] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN

2016-11-24 Thread Gyorgy Darvas


A recommended recent additional reading:
http://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(16)30500-1


On 2016.11.24. 17:45, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:

Dear Arturo, James, and FIS Colleagues,

Thanks for the intriguing presentation. Maybe it is difficult to make 
sense in depth of these curious topological views applied to nervous 
systems function. In an offline exchange with the authors I was 
arguing that the countless mappings among cerebral areas, both 
cortical and subcortical, are almost universally described as 
"topographical" and that the information related to deformations, 
twisting, gradients, inversions, bifurcating "duplications", etc. is 
not considered much valuable for the explanatory schemes. However, 
just watching any of those traditional "homunculus" described for both 
motor and somatosensory mappings, the extent of deformations and 
irregularities becomes an eloquent warning that something else is at 
play beyond the strictly topographic arrangement.


Now, what we are being proposed --in my understanding-- is sort of an 
extra-ordinary cognitive role for crucial parts of the whole 
topological scheme. Somehow, the projection of brain "metastable 
dynamics" (Fingelkurts) to higher dimensionalities could provide new 
integrative possibilities for information processing. And that 
marriage between topology and dynamics would also pave the way to new 
evolutionary discussions on the emergence of the "imagined present" of 
our minds. Our bi-hemispheric cortex so densely interconnected could 
also be an exceedingly fine topological playground with respect to the 
previous organizational rudiments in the midbrain (in non-mammalian 
brains). Therefore, couldn't we somehow relate emergent 
topological-dynamic properties and consciousness characteristics?...


In what follows am trying to respond the initial questions posed:

1)Could we use projections and mappings, in order to describe brain 
activity?


**Yes, quite a bit; in my opinion, they are an essential ingredient of 
complex brains.


2)Is such a topological approach linked with previous claims of old 
“epistemologists” of recent “neuro-philosophers”?


** At the time being I am not aware of similar directions, except a 
few isolated papers and a remarkable maverick working in late 1980s 
(Kenneth Paul Collins), with whom I could cooperate a little (with his 
help, I prepared a booklet in Spanish) .


3)Is such a topological approach linked with current neuroscientific 
models?


** I think Collins was a (doomed, ill-fated) precursor of both the 
topological ideas and the quest for dynamic optimization principles, 
somehow reminding contemporary ideas, eg, the great work of Alexander 
and Andrew Fingelkurts, who are also inscribed in the list for this 
discussion.


4)The BUT and its variants display four ingredients, e.g., a 
continuous function, antipodal points, changes of dimensions and the 
possibility of types of dimensions other than the spatial ones. Is it 
feasible to assess brain function in terms of BUT and its variants?


**  I think it should be explored. Future directions to investigate 
this aspect could also contemplate the evolutionary changes in central 
nervous system structures and behavioral/cognitive performances.


5)How to operationalize the procedures?

** Today's research in connectomics can help. Some very new 
neurotechnologies about cell-to-cell visualization of neuronal 
activity and gene expression could also help for future 
operationalization advancements.


6)Is it possible to build a general topological theory of the brain?

** Topology, Dynamics, Neuroinformation and also elements of Systems 
Biology and Signaling Science should go hand-with-hand for that crazy 
purpose.


7)Our “from afar”  approach takes into account the dictates of 
far-flung branches, from mathematics to physics, from algebraic 
topology, to neuroscience.  Do you think that such broad 
multidisciplinary tactics could be the key able to unlock the 
mysteries of the brain, or do you think that more specific and “on 
focus” approaches could give us more chances?


** In my view, both the disciplinary specific and the 
multidisciplinary synthetic have to contribute. Great syntheses 
performed upon great analyses--and which should be updated after every 
new epoch or new significant advancements. One of the founding fathers 
of neuroscience, Ramón y Cajal, made a great neuro-anatomical (and 
functional) synthesis with the elements of his time at the beginning 
of the past century. It was called the "doctrine of the neuron" and 
marked the birth of modern neuroscience...


Finally, before saying goodbye, half dozen new Chinese parties from 
the recent conference in Chengdu have joined the list; they have ample 
expertise in neuroscientific fields and in theoretical science 
domains. At their convenience, it would be quite nice hearing from 
them in this discussion.


Greetings to all, and thanks again to Arturo and James for their 
va

Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

2016-11-03 Thread Gyorgy Darvas


John:
The article describes very really the conflicting attitudes. Interesting 
to see the diverse arguments together.
I agree, some think so, some do not. I do the latter, but this does not 
make any matter.

Gyuri


On 2016.11.03. 19:52, John Collier wrote:


Apparently some physicists think so.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tangled-up-in-spacetime/?WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20161102

John Collier

Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate

Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal

http://web.ncf.ca/collier



___
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] SYMMETRY & _ On BioLogic

2016-03-27 Thread Gyorgy Darvas


A thematic issue on symmetries and information is planned in the MDPI
Information journal.
Editors assigned.
The rest is planned to be published in Symmetry: Culture and Science.

On 2016.03.27. 9:53, Dr. Shu-Kun Lin wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

May organize a thermatic special issue for publication in Symmetry
(http://www.mdpi.com/journal/symmetry).

Best regards,
Shu-Kun

--
Dr. Shu-Kun Lin
Publisher of MDPI journals
President of MDPI
MDPI AG
Postfach, CH-4005 Basel, Switzerland
Office Location: Klybeckstrasse 64, CH-4057 Basel, Switzerland
Tel. +41 61 683 77 34 (office)
Fax +41 61 302 8918
Mobile: +41 79 322 3379; Skype: mdpibasel-lin
E-mail: l...@mdpi.com
Company homepage: http://www.mdpi.com
My homepage: http://www.mdpi.org/lin
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis






---
Ezt az e-mailt az Avast víruskereső szoftver átvizsgálta.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] _ RE: _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

2016-01-21 Thread Gyorgy Darvas


Dear Pedro, and the previous discussants,

I refer to my paper presented last year at the Vienna summit:
- quarks continuously exchange gluons;
- gluon exchange takes place between quarks in different "colour" states
(otherwise they were in identical quantum states, what is excluded by 
the Pauli principle);
- they must avoid to get into identical colour state even after the 
gluon exchange;
- for this reason, before (or at least parallel to) gluon exchange, they 
must obtain information on the (colour) state of the partner;
- whatever physical phenomenon mediates this knowledge about the 
partner, this is a kind of *information* exchange.

Isn't it a "real" communication?
I argue: it is.

Best regards, Gyuri



On 2016.01.21. 15:06, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:

Dear FIS Colleagues,

Thanks to Jerry and Koichiro for their insightful and deep comments. 
Nevertheless the question from Howard was very clear and direct and I 
wonder whether we have responded that way --as usual, the simplest 
becomes the most difficult. I will try here.


There is no "real" communication between quarks as they merely follow 
physical law--the state of the system is altered by some input 
according to boundary conditions and to the state own variables and 
parameters that dictate the way Law(s) have to intervene. The outcome 
may be probabilistic, but it is inexorably determined.


There is real communication between cells, people, organizations... as 
the input is sensed (or disregarded) and judged according to boundary 
conditions and to the accumulated experiential information content of 
the entity. The outcome is adaptive: aiming at the 
self-production/self-propagation of the entity.


In sum, the former is blind, while the second is oriented and made 
meaning-ful by the life cycle of the entity.


Well, if we separate communication from the phenomenon of life, from 
its intertwining with the life cycle of the entity, then everything 
goes... and yes, quarks communicate, as well as billiard balls, 
stones, cells, etc. Directly we provide further anchor to the 
mechanistic way of thinking.


best regards--Pedro



Koichiro Matsuno escribió:


At 2:43 AM 01/19/2016, Jerry wrote:

In order for symbolic chemical communication to occur, the language 
must go far beyond such simplistic notions of a primary interaction 
among forces, such as centripetal orbits or even the four basic forces.


The quark physicist is quirky in confining a set of quarks, 
including possibly tetra- or even penta-, within a closed bag with 
use of a virtual exchange of matter called gluons. This bag is 
methodologically tightly-cohesive because of the virtuality of the 
things to be exchanged exclusively in a closed manner. In contrast, 
the real exchange of matter underlying the actual instantiation of 
cohesion, which concerns the information phenomenologist facing 
chemistry and biology in a serious manner, is about something 
referring to something else in the actual and is thus open-ended. 
Jerry, you seem calling our attention to the actual cohesion acting 
in the empirical world which the physicist has failed in coping with, 
so far.


   Koichiro

*From:*Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Jerry 
LR Chandler

*Sent:* Tuesday, January 19, 2016 2:43 AM
*To:* fis 
*Subject:* [Fis] _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

Koichiro, Bob U., Pedro:

Recent posts here illustrate the fundamental discord between modes of 
human communication.  Pedro’s last post neatly addresses the 
immediate issue.


 But, the basic issue goes far, far deeper.

The challenge of communicating our meanings is not restricted to just 
scientific meaning vs. historical meaning.  Nor, communication 
between the general community and, say, the music (operatic and 
ballad) communities.


Nor, is it merely a matter of definition of terms and re-defining 
terms as “metaphor”in another discipline.


Pedro’s post aims toward the deeper issues, issues that are fairly 
known and understood in the symbolic  logic and chemical communities. 
 In the chemical community, the understanding is at the level of 
intuition because ordinary usage within the discipline requires an 
intuitive understanding of the way symbolic usage manifests itself in 
different disciplines.


(For a detailed description of these issues, see, The Primary Logic, 
Instruments for a dialogue between the two Cultures. M. Malatesta, 
Gracewings, Fowler Wright Books, 1997.)


The Polish Logician, A. Tarski, recognized the separation of meanings 
and definitions requires the usage of METALANGUAGES. For example, 
ordinary public language is necessary for expression of meaning of 
mathematical symbolic logic.  But, from the basic mathematical 
language, once it grounded in ordinary grammar, develops new set of 
symbols and new meanings for relations among mathematical symbols. 
 Consequently, mathematicians re-define a long index of terms that 
are have different meanings in its technical langua

Re: [Fis] Answer to the comments made by Joseph

2015-07-23 Thread Gyorgy Darvas


In maintenance of the position by Joseph:

I accept all approaches.
We must study any phenomenon from different aspects.
This does not mean that all actors should study all of the possible 
aspects, but accept them.
According to me, Joe is right. Ontological aspects are as much important 
as epistemological.
Episteme is about the way how we obtain information from certain 
(existing) entities.
Ontology is about the study of these entities, independent of whether we 
obtain or not (and if so, which way) any information about them.
The two approaches should be studied separately in themselves, but not 
denying the raison d'etre of the other.


Best,
Gyuri


2015.07.23. 15:58 keltezéssel, Fernando Flores írta:


Hello everybody:

I will answer to the comments made by Joseph and Luis will answer to the 
comments made by Moisés.

Dear Joseph:

Thank you for your comments. We are not sure about the usefulness of 
identifying “information” (order) with “mater”. In this sense we are 
very carefully to avoid any hard physicalist approach. In this sense 
we believe with Norbert Wiener:


The mechanical brain does not secrete thought “as the liver does 
bile”, as the earlier materialist claimed, nor does it put it out in 
the form of energy, as the muscle puts out its activity. Information 
is information, not matter nor energy. No materialism, which does not 
admit this, can survive at the present day.


An informational description of the world must stand as a new branch 
of science in which “digitalism” will be the natural language.  Of 
course as any other science, it is a simplification of the complexity 
of nature/society/culture. I believe that we are shown that we are 
very conscious about the risks of a hard simplification, and that is 
why we introduced that idea of freedom in a chain of acts and use 
probability as mathematical language. We considered the vital acts as 
∞-free.


Fernando Flores PhD

Associate Professor

History of Ideas and Sciences

Lund University




--

Probably interesting publications online:
A few consequences of the presence of isotopic field-charges in QED 
 

Electromagnetic interaction in the presence of isotopic field-charges 

Physical consequences of a new gauge-symmetry and its associated 
conservation law 


Greetings from Budapest 


__
György Darvas , Editor: /*Symmetry*: 
Culture and Science/ 
E-mail ; Skype: darvasgy; S Y M M E T R I O N 
 , ISA  on Facebook 

/Address/: 29 Eötvös St., Budapest, H-1067 Hungary; Phone: +36 (1) 
302-6965;

Monograph: /Symmetry/ /;/
Course of lectures on /Symmetry 
/,
Course of lectures on /Physical Symmetries and Conservation Laws/ 
,
Course of lectures on /Interactions in Kinetic Fields and the 
Conservation of IFCS/ 


___


This email has been protected by YAC (Yet Another Cleaner) http://www.yac.mx

---
Ezt az e-mailt az Avast víruskereső szoftver átvizsgálta.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] FIS News (Moscow 2013)

2013-04-13 Thread Gyorgy Darvas

Dear Pedro, Joe, and all FISers,

Great news!

As I notified you before, the Symmetry Festival 2013 (Delft, The
Netherlands, 2-6 August) 

http://symmetry.hu/festival2013.html  is open and glad to host a
FIS symposium on symmetries in information studies. The Festival consists
of a series of symposia, and FIS would well fit among them. You are
welcome!

Best wishes,
Gyuri






. 
Symmetry Festival
2013, Delft, 2-7
August 
Download and
print the
poster in A3 size, post it at your department, 
throughout your parent institution, and distribute among colleagues
outside. 
Thank you for your contribution to publicize the event! 
. 
A recent publication online: 

Physical consequences of a new gauge-symmetry and its associated
conservation law 
. 

Greetings from Budapest 
__ 
Gyorgy Darvas 
E-mail ; Skype: darvasgy;
S Y M M E T R I O N 
Address: 29 Eotvos St., Budapest, H-1067 Hungary 
Phone: 36 (1) 302-6965;   
Monograph:

Symmetry; 
Course of
lectures on

Symmetry, 

Course of lectures on

Interactions in Kinetic Fields and the Conservation of IFCS 
___



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

Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Fw: dark matter]--J.Brenner

2013-01-03 Thread Gyorgy Darvas

Ladies and Guys,

I do not understand fully, why the problematic of dark matter is so
much important from the aspect of information.

We, physicists either, cannot agree what is dark matter. 
Several physicists interpret the notion in different ways, and this
ambiguity is reflected in the Fis discussion as well.
I have my own interpretation as well, what differs from that of most
physicists. (I do not want to bore you with my interpretation.)
We do not agree even in that, whether dark matter and dark energy
are the same. (According to me, they aren't. cf., e.g. my paper linked in
my signo)

 From my aspects of symmetry/invariance, I'd add only one, I think
so, important issue:
all physicists agree in the conservation of mass in the universe,
but
- we do not agree which mass is conserved (i.e., it may be the
gravitational mass, or may be the sum of the gravitational and inertial
masses);
- many physicists are not aware that although "the mass"
(which?) is conserved, the value of the conserved quantity depends on the
reference frame from which we observe it.
The latter has two important consequences:
- once, there must be such a reference frame, in which the conserved
quantity of mass - counted on the basis of the first Noether theorem - is
minimal; in this case that reference frame is distinguished from all
other reference frames; and this distinction would contradict to one of
the basic principles of the relativity theory, according to which all
reference frames are equivalent.
- at second, if we would like to avoid this contradiction, there
must be such a gauge field, in the presence of which all reference frames
lead to the same amount of conserved mass. This means, there is not the
Lorentz transformation alone under which the mass will be conserved in
the universe, but the Lorentz transformation plus another transformation
in that gauge field (which should depend on velocity). (I proved the
existence of such combined transformation in a series of papers in
2009-12. It holds not only for mass.)

In short, I think, it is not our task to solve the problem of
"what is dark matter".
However, this remark does not mean a constraint to wish a happy new
year to all of you,
Gyuri






. 
Symmetry Festival
2013, Delft, 2-7
August 
Download and
print the
poster in A3 size, post it at your department, 
throughout your parent institution, and distribute among colleagues
outside. 
Thank you for your contribution to publicize the event! 
. 
A recent publication online: 

Physical consequences of a new gauge-symmetry and the concluded
conservation law 
. 
__________ 
Gyorgy Darvas 
E-mail ; Skype: darvasgy;
S Y M M E T R I O N 
Mailing address: c/o G. Darvas; 29 Eotvos St., Budapest, H-1067
Hungary 
Phone: 36 (1) 302-6965;   
Monograph:

Symmetry; 
Course of
lectures on

Symmetry, 

Course of lectures on

Interactions in Kinetic Fields and the Conservation of IFCS 
___



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

Re: [Fis] Happy New Year

2012-12-27 Thread Gyorgy Darvas

Thanks Pedro!

I wish the same bests to you, and to all [Fis]-ers,

Gyuri





. 
Symmetry Festival
2013, Delft, 2-7
August 
Download and
print the
poster in A3 size, post it at your department, 
throughout your parent institution, and distribute among colleagues
outside. 
Thank you for your contribution to publicize the event! 
. 
A recent publication online: 

Physical consequences of a new gauge-symmetry and the concluded
conservation law 
. 
__ 
Gyorgy Darvas 
E-mail ; Skype: darvasgy;
S Y M M E T R I O N 
Mailing address: c/o G. Darvas; 29 Eotvos St., Budapest, H-1067
Hungary 
Phone: 36 (1) 302-6965;   
Monograph:

Symmetry; 
Course of
lectures on

Symmetry, 

Course of lectures on

Interactions in Kinetic Fields and the Conservation of IFCS 
___



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

Re: [Fis] Fw: [Fwd: THEORY AND SCIENCE] From QTQ

2012-01-11 Thread Gyorgy Darvas

llows from the
segments that are before, lateral or consequential. 
So the theory of information is a theory of grammar. Grammar deals among
other with the linear succession of carriers of meaning. This grammatical
discussion is now at the disposal of the FIS community, demonstrated on A
and B. We can discuss - the rewards will be not small - how A and B
relate to other As and Bs in the first approach, and then, we can discuss
how our approaches to the idea of order change the relations of A and B
to other As and Bs. This is a purely grammatical discussion, and as such
not very juicy. There is indeed nothing new among the natural numbers,
and there cannot ever be, and the deep study of something that in effect
cannot be otherwise may request some kind of discipline as the rewards
are not directly immediate. Yet, unfortunately Nature has no obligation
to be fascinating and polymorph-perverse or produce histrionic scenes.
Alas, the periodic table of elements is as fascinating as a vintage
exercise in accounting, and the combinations are just combinatorics. So
after we shall have understood that setting 2+3=1+4 and believing that
one gets away with it was an illusion, and that if one wants to model
Nature, one better learns (re-learns) additions, then we shall say that
nothing new comes out of sorting the first 136 additions and then
resorting them and watching how the convoys move, and setting some
convoys as the unit of space-cohesion, because this is just sorting and
resorting and keeping the eyes and the memory open. No big deal and no
news. 
If I have understood QTQ correctly, he is already at this stage.
Discussing tautologies is less important than being open - also in an
instinctive, not only in intellectual fashion. Being imaginative and
creative at first disobeys customary laws and habits of rationality. I
translate QTQ for me with "Accept your ideas." and Gyuri und
Joseph with "You can only talk about them if they are not too
subjective. Communicability means regularity.". Thousand Chinese
kow-tows if this insignificant person has mistranslated.
Karl


2012/1/10 Joseph Brenner
<joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
>


Dear FISers,

Â 

I also agree with Gyuri and disagree with QTQ. Sorry. I think it is
clear that manipulating chemicals or cells or even images ofÂ quasarsÂ is
"science" and not "theory" atÂ a first level of
understanding. ButÂ when one is involved in doing those manipulations,
theory is involved at a higher cognitive level, in a dynamic relation to
the experimental process, and both are informational in nature.

Â 

There is nothing to be gained - no additional explanatory power in
saying -Â "A is different from B"

unless it is trivially the case. Where both physical actions and
cognitive processes are so closely intertwined as in science and theory,Â
in the social sciences as well as in my natural science examples, I think
it is "scientific" to look at logical overlaps or interactions.
Information science is to be found there, among other places.

Â 

Best wishes,

Â 

Joseph

Â 

Â 

Â 

- Original Message - 

From: Gyorgy Darvas


To: Pedro C.
Marijuan ;
fis@listas.unizar.es ;
whhbs...@sina.com 

Cc: mjs ;
Joseph Brenner ;
fislist 

Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:23 PM

Subject: Re: [Fis] [Fwd: THEORY AND SCIENCE] From QTQ

I disagree!

Theory is a part, an important element of science.

Practice should check, can confirm or falsify a theory, but cannot
replace or discredit its mission.

As regards journals, my position is that they must give place to
controversial ideas. The task of a journal is to give forum for
discussion. A journal (i.e., its editors) and the reviewers do not need
to share the opinions put forward in the submitted papers. Scientific
truth can be met only if controversial ideas are discussed. That means,
scientific truth is shaped as a result of discussion. The task of the
reviewers is not to take over the responsibility from the scientific
community, to decide on the correctness of ideas, incl. theories,
expressed in the papers. (They can check whether the mathematical
derivations are not mistaken, experiments are documented and
reproducible, etc.) Ideas can be discussed if they are published for a
wide circle of scientists, so that anyone who wants could express her/his
supporting or controversial ideas and arguments. This is a key to the
development of science.

Regards,

Gyuri


At 16:48 2012.01.10.Ã¿, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:


 Mensaje original  

Asunto: THEORY AND SCIENCE 

Fecha: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:49:58 +0800 

De: whhbs...@sina.com 

Responder a: whhbs...@sina.com


Para: Pedro C. Marijuan

, mjs
, Joseph Brenner

 , fislist




Dear Pedro, Dear Marcin, Dear Joseph, Dear FIS
Colleagues, 


Theory
is important and necessary, but theory is different from science, theory
is a growing view or hypothesis. We should remember Russell's paradox and
the third number of Math Cr

Re: [Fis] [Fwd: THEORY AND SCIENCE] From QTQ

2012-01-10 Thread Gyorgy Darvas

I disagree!
Theory is a part, an important element of science.
Practice should check, can confirm or falsify a theory, but cannot
replace or discredit its mission.
As regards journals, my position is that they must give place to
controversial ideas. The task of a journal is to give forum for
discussion. A journal (i.e., its editors) and the reviewers do not need
to share the opinions put forward in the submitted papers. Scientific
truth can be met only if controversial ideas are discussed. That means,
scientific truth is shaped as a result of discussion. The task of the
reviewers is not to take over the responsibility from the scientific
community, to decide on the correctness of ideas, incl. theories,
expressed in the papers. (They can check whether the mathematical
derivations are not mistaken, experiments are documented and
reproducible, etc.) Ideas can be discussed if they are published for a
wide circle of scientists, so that anyone who wants could express her/his
supporting or controversial ideas and arguments. This is a key to the
development of science.
Regards,
Gyuri

At 16:48 2012.01.10.ÿ, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:

Mensaje original

Asunto: THEORY AND SCIENCE
Fecha: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:49:58 +0800
De: whhbs...@sina.com
Responder a: whhbs...@sina.com

Para: Pedro C. Marijuan

, mjs
, Joseph Brenner

, fislist

Dear Pedro, Dear Marcin, Dear Joseph, Dear FIS
Colleagues,

Theory is
important and necessary, but theory is different
from science, theory is a growing view or hypothesis. We should remember
Russell's paradox and the third number of Math Crisis, we should remember
Aristotle and Galileo, and we shouldn't forget the article about MDMA by
Jan Hendrik SchÃ¶n in 2002. Let us remember history that go on record
according to gubernatorial volition usually. Furthermore, lie is not
science, for example Hwang's cloning experiments in stem-cell research.

Newton's mechanics is science, computer science is
true, and however there is no information science. The sole criterion for
truth or science is practice.

Of course, after the Hwang affair,
Scienceï¼journal
ï¼gets its wrist slapped for publishing a
fraudulent stem-cell paper. Instead, the committee recommends that papers
received by the journal should be divided into uncontroversial and
controversial, and the latter gone over with a fine comb of new check. Â
This is a way to arrive at science, too.

BestÂ wishes

QTQ

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es

https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Recent publications online:
- Mathematical description of a so far undisclosed symmetry of
nature:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.3189v1
- Physical consequences of a new gauge-symmetry and the concluded
conservation law:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28q43v2112721r1/
- Spontaneous symmetry breaking in non-Euclidean systems:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k272555u06q2074w/?p=14dd4c9c5b5e4c1396b3e4855a87e9e2&pi=1

______
Gyorgy Darvas
E-mail / Skype;
S Y M M E T R I O N
Mailing address: c/o G. Darvas; 29 Eotvos St., Budapest, H-1067
Hungary
Phone: 36 (1) 302-6965;
Monograph:

Symmetry;
Course of
lectures
___

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

Re: [Fis] [Fwd: THEORY AND SCIENCE] From QTQ

2012-01-10 Thread Gyorgy Darvas

At 16:48 2012.01.10.ÿ, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:

Mensaje original

Asunto: THEORY AND SCIENCE
Fecha: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:49:58 +0800
De: whhbs...@sina.com
Responder a: whhbs...@sina.com

Para: Pedro C. Marijuan

, mjs
, Joseph Brenner

, fislist

Dear Pedro, Dear Marcin, Dear Joseph, Dear FIS
Colleagues,

Newton's mechanics is science, computer science is
true, and however there is no information science. The sole criterion for
truth or science is practice.

BestÂ wishes

QTQ

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es

https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Recent publications online:
- Mathematical description of a so far undisclosed symmetry of
nature:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.3189v1
- Physical consequences of a new gauge-symmetry and the concluded
conservation law:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g28q43v2112721r1/
- Spontaneous symmetry breaking in non-Euclidean systems:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k272555u06q2074w/?p=14dd4c9c5b5e4c1396b3e4855a87e9e2&pi=1

______
Gyorgy Darvas
E-mail / Skype;
S Y M M E T R I O N
Mailing address: c/o G. Darvas; 29 Eotvos St., Budapest, H-1067
Hungary
Phone: 36 (1) 302-6965;
Monograph:

Symmetry;
Course of
lectures
___

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

Re: [Fis] Information as form conveyed by data

2011-10-04 Thread Gyorgy Darvas

The question can be put even so:
Is there information only when the recipient is (or it is perceived) by a
conscious human being?  (in a weaker form: by a sensitive,
brain-equipped animal?)
or
Can we speak about information between inanimate objects as well? (e.g.,
when a valence electron of an atom "feels" the electric field
of the electron-shell of a nearby other atom.) 
Depending on the answers on the above questions, then we can ask, whether
can we speak about information on "there is a valence
electron", when there is no other atom at Coulomb-range to which
this data were conveyed?
In general: is information a subjective category, or independent of
whether it was perceived by somebody/something?
(Further, see my paper in "Information" FIS-Beijing issue, this
summer.)
Regards,
Gyuri

At 12:08 2011.10.04.ÿ, you wrote:
Dear Dick,
Replying to the following two questions may help:
(1) Is there information in the situation there is no data ?
(2) If yes, an example would be great; If no, is there information
if
no data is conveyed ?
Best,
Michel.
2011/10/4 Dick Stoute :
> This is my first post to this list - so my apologies if I get it
wrong.
>
> I am looking for arguments for/against the concept of information as
"form
> conveyed by data".  Any references/ideas would be
appreciated.
>
> Dick
>
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es

https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Recent publications online: 
- Mathematical description of a so far undisclosed symmetry of
nature: 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.3189v1 
- Physical consequences of a new gauge-symmetry and the concluded
conservation law: 

http://www.springer.com/home?SGWID=0-0-1003-0-0&aqId=1788954&download=1&checkval=489b8c72cdf8948cf719b8838b49e656

- Spontaneous symmetry breaking in non-Euclidean systems: 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k272555u06q2074w/?p=14dd4c9c5b5e4c1396b3e4855a87e9e2&pi=1

Symmetry Festival 2009, Keynote and Plenary lectures 
__ 
Gyorgy Darvas 
E-mail / Skype; 
S Y M M E T R I O N 
Address: c/o MTA KSZI; 18 Nador St., Budapest, H-1051 Hungary 
Fax: 36 (1) 331-3161;    Phone: 36 (1)
312-3022;   36 (1) 331-3975 
Monograph:

Symmetry; 
Course of
lectures 
___

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

Re: [Fis] The Inventor of Information as Asymmetry

2009-11-15 Thread Gyorgy Darvas



Dear  FISers:
A short notice to add to Shu-Kun's info:
The journal "Symmetry: Culture and Science"

http://symmetry.hu/aus_journal_content_abs.html 
covers the topics "asymmetry" too (or mainly?) 
and published two entropy related special issues recently:

Volume 16, Number 1, pages 1-112 (2005)    Order,
Entropy and Symmetry 
and

Volume 18, Number 4, pages 273-352 (2007)    Symmetry
and Entropy .
Two, much earlier issues covered symmetry and information (as cited by
John yesterday):

Volume 7, Number 3, pages 225-336 (1996)    Symmetry
and Information, 1 

Volume 8, Number 2, pages 113-224 (1997)    Symmetry
and Information, 2 
Regards,
Gyuri



At 01:20 2009.11.15. +0100, you wrote:
...
Another special issue is "Entropy, Order and Symmetry",

http://www.mdpi.com/journal/symmetry/special_issues/entropy-symmetry
.
I sincerely welcome you to contribute your paper and bring some progress
to
the studies of this topic.
..
Best regards,
Shu-Kun




Symmetry Festival 2009,
Keynote and Plenary lectures
Foreword to the Symmetry Festival 2009
Symmetry  
Festival   2009, 
Budapest,  31 July  -  5 August

________
Gyorgy Darvas
  
E-mail / Skype: darv...@iif.hu   
S Y M M E T R I O N
Address: c/o MTA KSZI; 18 Nador St., Budapest, H-1051 Hungary
Mailing address:  P.O. Box 994,  
Budapest, H-1245 Hungary
Fax:  36 (1) 331-3161   Phone: 36 (1) 312-3022;  36
(1) 331-3975 

Monograph: Symmetry 
Course
of lectures 





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

Re: [Fis] information(s)

2008-12-14 Thread Gyorgy Darvas

Dear Michel, Dear FISers,

In my native language, Hungarian, information can be countable in 
certain cases.

For example, there is an event, and I got information from Mr. A, 
from Mr. B and Ms. C about the same event. Then we say, "I have 
informations about the event", distinguishing it from the situation 
when I would have information only from a single source. Even much, 
we say, "I've got two informations from Mr. D" about the same 
event.  In other cases, we say, "police have got several informations 
about the crime". "Several informations are available". In these 
cases we do not say "much information", because those are countable. 
3 or 4, etc. This plural usage is most often in the forms "my 
informations", "his informations", their informations" etc. At least 
in Hungarian.

In scientific usage, when a physicist detects an event, e.g., the 
trace of a decayed particle, a beta radiation, a single photon, etc., 
that is called "an" information on the system (not in general, 
information, rather a concrete, well determined kind of information). 
We emphasize in this way, that we know, what is the information he 
got on the system. If he detects three different events, those are 
together "three informations" on the system. Also, at least in Hungarian.

:-) Gyuri

At 15:35 2008.12.06. +0100, you wrote:
>Hello FISers.
>
>Recently, one of my colleagues attract my attention on the following point.
>In French, we often use information as a countable quantity,
>so that we can write "informations".
>In English, it seems that it is unusual, if not incorrect, to do that.
>(1) Please can some English native FISers give their opinion about that ?
>(2) Please can some FISers from non English-speaking countries tell us
>how is the situation in their own language ?
>
>Thank you very much.
>
>Michel.
>
>Michel Petitjean,
>DSV/iBiTec-S/SB2SM (CNRS URA 2096), CEA Saclay, bat. 528,
>91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France.
>Phone: +331 6908 4006 / Fax: +331 6908 4007
>E-mail: michel.petitj...@cea.fr
>http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html
>
>___
>fis mailing list
>fis@listas.unizar.es
>https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

<http://conferences.hu/symmetry2009/>Symmetry Festival 
<http://conferences.hu/symmetry2009/> 2009, Registration, Abstract 
submission etc.
<http://symmetry.hu/coming-meetings.html>Symmetry   Festival   2009, 
 Budapest,  31 July  -  4 August

<http://www.mtakszi.iif.hu/darvas.htm>Gyorgy Darvas
E-mail / Skype: darv...@iif.hu<http://symmetry.hu/>S Y M M E T R I O N
Address: c/o MTA KSZI; 18 Nador St., Budapest, H-1051 Hungary
Mailing address:  P.O. Box 994,   Budapest, H-1245 Hungary
Fax:  36 (1) 331-3161   Phone: 36 (1) 312-3022;  36 (1) 331-3975
<http://www.springer.com/birkhauser/mathematics/book/978-3-7643-7554-6>Monograph:

Symmetry 
<http://hps.elte.hu/oktaeder/atmeneti/darvas.htm#English>Course of lectures

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

Re: [Fis] Information - Meaning - Knowledge

2008-09-18 Thread Gyorgy Darvas

Joseph,

I think both have of common social value, and in this sense they are 
not subjective (psychological), rather either personal (cf. Polanyi) 
or objective, or both.
I see the difference between knowledge and meaning in their 
reference: knowledge refers to a wider or more general information, 
while meaning is an interpretation, explanation of perceived 
concepts, facts, statements, etc. Meaning is a commonly accepted 
evaluation (in some instances classification) of the obtained knowledge.

Gyuri

<http://www.mtakszi.iif.hu/darvas.htm>Gyorgy Darvas
E-mail / Skype: [EMAIL PROTECTED]<http://symmetry.hu/>S Y M M E T R I O N
Address: c/o MTA KSZI; 18 Nador St., Budapest, H-1051 Hungary
Mailing address:  P.O. Box 994,   Budapest, H-1245 Hungary
Fax:  36 (1) 331-3161   Phone: 36 (1) 312-3022;  36 (1) 331-3975
<http://www.springer.com/birkhauser/mathematics/book/978-3-7643-7554-6>Monograph:
 
Symmetry 
<http://hps.elte.hu/oktaeder/atmeneti/darvas.htm#English>Course of lectures




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

Re: [Fis] Is information physical?

Re: [Fis] What is “Agent”?

Re: [Fis] Can the can drink beer ?

Re: [Fis] WHY WE ARE HERE? ...AN UNPLEASANT ANSWER?!

Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

Re: [Fis] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN

Re: [Fis] Is quantum information the basis of spacetime?

Re: [Fis] SYMMETRY & _ On BioLogic

Re: [Fis] _ RE: _ Re: Cho 2016 The social life of quarks

Re: [Fis] Answer to the comments made by Joseph

Re: [Fis] FIS News (Moscow 2013)

Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Fw: dark matter]--J.Brenner

Re: [Fis] Happy New Year

Re: [Fis] Fw: [Fwd: THEORY AND SCIENCE] From QTQ

Re: [Fis] [Fwd: THEORY AND SCIENCE] From QTQ

Re: [Fis] [Fwd: THEORY AND SCIENCE] From QTQ

Re: [Fis] Information as form conveyed by data

Re: [Fis] The Inventor of Information as Asymmetry

Re: [Fis] information(s)

Re: [Fis] Information - Meaning - Knowledge

20 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information