[Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM

[Marcus Abundis]

Following John's, Loet's, and Terry's posts . . .

I don't think anyone would or could reasonably debate the contribution of
Shannon's framing. Even though (per Shanon-Weaver) it is an "unsatisfying"
notion they present, there is/was a bit of brilliance in that work. STILL,
they too saw that they did not go far enough . . . (framing multiple Levels
of information).

Further to Bateson's "difference" Bateson also saw that his own concept did
not go far enough in that he stated "differences themselves must be
differentiated." But neither does he add any useful details. Instead he
seemed to go in the direction of parables and Freudian psychology as the
only reasonable means (Esalen epistemology lecture) of tracking and
reporting on complex informational roles. Which is to say I think he
recognized the issue, but felt defeated by the challenge (near end of
life?). This also, perhaps, explains his fondness for explaining concepts
in terms of "conversations with my daughter" as a type of reported parable.

On top of this I have noticed Søren Brier's comment that "to whom or to
what" it makes a difference is not remarked on by Bateson. And I would add
that "to what end" it makes a difference is not noted – all of which, I
think, ultimately points in the direction of Terry's notion of work.

>From John Collier's post: Fri Jun 26 20:59:47 CEST 2015
> I believe that information in itself must be interpreted, and is not,
therefore intrinsically meaningful<

I would agree with this as a basic comment, but then "In the good old days"
how is it not DATA that scientists would be, in fact, gathering and
interpreting? Why is there this need to displace the notion of data (as a
specific type of "uninterpreted" information) with a more generic usage of
"information"? Do we really need to add a "meaningless" qualifier (pun
wholly intended) in front of every usage of "information" meant to denote
data?

On Brenner's "faint perfume of reductionism" . . .
Not exactly sure how to take this – it sounds dismissive, is this
meant to suggest
that reductionism is, per se, bad and to be avoided? Is it all to be an
"unexplainable mystery"? As I understand Terry's view (and my own) it is
essentially reductionistic,  but I would also say that I don't think it
strives to be "naively reductionistic."

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

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

Re: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM

[Koichiro Matsuno]

At 6:19 PM 06/27/2015, Loet Leydersdorff wrote:

 

Remains the need to specify: 

1.  The first difference [cf. Shannon's information bits]; 

2.  The second difference [cf. Brillouin's negentropy]; 

 

[KM] Loet, if you stick to first-order logic, there would be no need for
recruiting an observer for the decidable theoretical edifice. Both Shannon's
information and Brillouin's information-cum-thermodynamics belong to
first-order logic as implying that the distinction between the existential
quantifier and the universal one applies only to the subject. The role of
measurement in first-order logic is at most secondary and no more than
confirming the theoretical predictions.  However, if you consider the
difference making a difference making a further difference ad infinitum, the
resulting proposition would be of the type following at the least
second-order logic in the sense that quantification would also apply to the
predicate. If one further wants to see a proposition of second-order logic
decidable, some qualifier would have to be implemented of course naturally.
That natural aspect would make biology quite unique in the material world.
This has been my second for this week. 

 

   Koichiro

 

 

 

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

Re: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM

[Loet Leydesdorff]

From: John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za] 
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 11:10 AM
To: l...@leydesdorff.net; 'Koichiro Matsuno'; 'fis'
Subject: Re: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM

 

Sorry Loet, but I just don't see the need for an observer. I do think the
difference must be by something to something (perhaps the same thing) but
Koichiro's formulation implies this.  Again, I warn against unneeded
complication. 

 

 

Sent from Samsung Mobile


OK. Let's get rid of Koichiro's observer. Remains the need to specify: 

1.  The first difference; 

2.  The second difference; 

 

The first difference can be measured using Shannon-type information, since a
probability distribution can be considered as a set of (first-order)
differences. Brillouin tried to specify the second difference as a ΔH. ΔH
can also be negative ("negentropy"). But how does one proceed to the
measurement?

 

Best, 

Loet

 

PS. I apologize to Pedro if this is beyond my second posting. I'll shut up. 

I needed to correct the misunderstanding as if the observer would be
important to me. L.

 

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

Re: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM

[John Collier]

Sorry Loet, but I just don't see the need for an observer. I do think the 
difference must be by something to something (perhaps the same thing) but 
Koichiro's formulation implies this.  Again, I warn against unneeded 
complication.


Sent from Samsung Mobile


 Original message 
From: Loet Leydesdorff
Date:27/06/2015 10:00 (GMT+02:00)
To: 'Koichiro Matsuno' ,John Collier ,'fis'
Subject: RE: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM

Koichiro: "In order to make them decidable or meaningful, some qualifier must 
definitely be needed. A popular example of such a qualifier is a subjective 
observer."

"A difference that makes a difference" for a qualifier, thus requires 
specification of:

1.  The first difference;

2.  The second difference;

3.  The qualifier (e.g., the observer).

The first difference can be measured using Shannon-type information, since a 
probability distribution can be considered as a set of (first-order) 
differences. Brillouin tried to specify the second difference as a ?H. ?H can 
also be negative ("negentropy"). But how does one proceed to the measurement?

Best,
Loet


Loet Leydesdorff
Emeritus University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
l...@leydesdorff.net <mailto: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.html> Beijing;
Visiting Professor, Birkbeck<http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London;
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ&hl=en

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Koichiro Matsuno
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 9:04 AM
To: 'John Collier'; 'fis'
Subject: Re: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM

At 4:00 AM 06/27/2015, John Collier wrote:

I also see no reason that Bateson's difference that makes a difference needs to 
involve meaning at either end.

[KM] Right.  The phrase saying "a difference that makes a difference" must be a 
prototypical example of second-order logic in that the difference appearing 
both in the subject and predicate can accept quantification. Most statements 
framed in second-order logic  are not decidable. In order to make them 
decidable or meaningful, some qualifier must definitely be needed. A popular 
example of such a qualifier is a subjective observer. However, the point is 
that the subjective observer is not limited to Alice or Bob in the QBist 
parlance.

   Koichiro



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

Re: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Koichiro: “In order to make them decidable or meaningful, some qualifier must 
definitely be needed. A popular example of such a qualifier is a subjective 
observer.”

 

“A difference that makes a difference” for a qualifier, thus requires 
specification of: 

1.  The first difference; 

2.  The second difference; 

3.  The qualifier (e.g., the observer).

 

The first difference can be measured using Shannon-type information, since a 
probability distribution can be considered as a set of (first-order) 
differences. Brillouin tried to specify the second difference as a ΔH. ΔH can 
also be negative (“negentropy”). But how does one proceed to the measurement?

 

Best, 

Loet

 

  _  

Loet Leydesdorff 

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

 <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ;  
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 
Honorary Professor,  <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of 
Sussex; 

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

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

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

 

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Koichiro Matsuno
Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 9:04 AM
To: 'John Collier'; 'fis'
Subject: Re: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM

 

At 4:00 AM 06/27/2015, John Collier wrote:

 

I also see no reason that Bateson’s difference that makes a difference needs to 
involve meaning at either end.

 

[KM] Right.  The phrase saying “a difference that makes a difference” must be a 
prototypical example of second-order logic in that the difference appearing 
both in the subject and predicate can accept quantification. Most statements 
framed in second-order logic  are not decidable. In order to make them 
decidable or meaningful, some qualifier must definitely be needed. A popular 
example of such a qualifier is a subjective observer. However, the point is 
that the subjective observer is not limited to Alice or Bob in the QBist 
parlance. 

 

   Koichiro

 

 

 

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

Re: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM

[Koichiro Matsuno]

At 4:00 AM 06/27/2015, John Collier wrote:

 

I also see no reason that Bateson’s difference that makes a difference needs to 
involve meaning at either end.

 

[KM] Right.  The phrase saying “a difference that makes a difference” must be a 
prototypical example of second-order logic in that the difference appearing 
both in the subject and predicate can accept quantification. Most statements 
framed in second-order logic  are not decidable. In order to make them 
decidable or meaningful, some qualifier must definitely be needed. A popular 
example of such a qualifier is a subjective observer. However, the point is 
that the subjective observer is not limited to Alice or Bob in the QBist 
parlance. 

 

   Koichiro

 

 

 

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

Re: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM

[Terrence W. DEACON]

Dear Marcus,

Thank you for this simple and absolutely essential intervention. Allowing
ourselves the freedom to use the same term—'information' which is the
defining term for this entire enterprise—for such different relationships
as intrinsic signal properties and extrinsic referential and normative
properties is a recipe for irrelevance.

— Terry

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Loet Leydesdorff 
wrote:

> Dear Marcus and colleagues,
>
>
>
> Katherine Hayles (1990, pp. 59f.) compared this discussion about the
> definition of “information” with asking whether a glass is half empty or
> half full. Shannon-type information is a measure of the variation or
> uncertainty, whereas Bateson’s “difference which makes a difference”
> presumes a system of reference for which the information can make a
> difference and thus be meaningful.
>
>
>
> In my opinion, the advantage of measuring uncertainty in bits cannot be
> underestimated, since the operationalization and the measurement provide
> avenues to hypothesis testing and thus control of speculation (Theil,
> 1972). However, the semantic confusion can also be solved by using the
> words “uncertainty” or “probabilistic entropy” when Shannon-type
> information is meant.
>
>
>
> I note that “a difference which makes a difference” cannot so easily be
> measured. J I agree that it is more precise to speak of “meaningful
> information” in that case. The meaning has to be specified in the system of
> reference (e.g., physics and/or biology).
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Loet
>
>
>
>
>
> References:
>
>
>
> Hayles, N. K. (1990). *Chaos Bound; Orderly Disorder in Contemporary
> Literature and Science *Ithaca, etc.: Cornell University.
>
> Theil, H. (1972). *Statistical Decomposition Analysis*. Amsterdam/
> London: North-Holland.
>
>
> --
>
> 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.html>Beijing;
>
> Visiting Professor, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of
> London;
>
> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en
>
>
>
> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Marcus
> Abundis
> *Sent:* Friday, June 26, 2015 7:02 PM
> *To:* fis@listas.unizar.es
> *Subject:* [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM
>
>
>
> Dear Andrei,
>
>
>
> I would ask for clarification on whether you speak of "information" in
> your examples as something that has innate "meaning" or something that is
> innately "meaningless" . . . which has been a core issue in earlier
> exchanges. If this issue of "meaning" versus "meaningless" in the use of
> the term "information" is not resolved (for the group?) it seems hard (to
> me) to have truly meaningful exchanges . . . without having to put a
> "meaningful" or "meaningless" qualifier in front of "information" every
> time it is use.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Marcus Abundis*
>
> about.me/marcus.abundis
>
> [image: http://d13pix9kaak6wt.cloudfront.net/signature/colorbar.png]
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>


-- 
Professor Terrence W. Deacon
University of California, Berkeley
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM

[John Collier]

Dear folks,

I believe that information in itself must be interpreted, and is not, therefore 
intrinsically meaningful. The addition requires, I think, semiotics. Without 
that there are mere mechanical relations, and at best codes that translate one 
domain to another without understanding or integration required. I also see no 
reason that Bateson’s difference that makes a difference needs to involve 
meaning at either end. He did not add makes a difference “to something about 
something”. He just talked about making a difference. Best not to 
over-interpret.

I think that to ignore this distinction does a great disservice to information 
theory by glossing over a problem that any information processing system needs 
to deal with if it is to achieve meaning.

John

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
Sent: June 26, 2015 7:34 PM
To: 'Marcus Abundis'; 'fis'
Subject: Re: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM

Dear Marcus and colleagues,

Katherine Hayles (1990, pp. 59f.) compared this discussion about the definition 
of “information” with asking whether a glass is half empty or half full. 
Shannon-type information is a measure of the variation or uncertainty, whereas 
Bateson’s “difference which makes a difference” presumes a system of reference 
for which the information can make a difference and thus be meaningful.

In my opinion, the advantage of measuring uncertainty in bits cannot be 
underestimated, since the operationalization and the measurement provide 
avenues to hypothesis testing and thus control of speculation (Theil, 1972). 
However, the semantic confusion can also be solved by using the words 
“uncertainty” or “probabilistic entropy” when Shannon-type information is meant.

I note that “a difference which makes a difference” cannot so easily be 
measured. ☺ I agree that it is more precise to speak of “meaningful 
information” in that case. The meaning has to be specified in the system of 
reference (e.g., physics and/or biology).

Best,
Loet


References:

Hayles, N. K. (1990). Chaos Bound; Orderly Disorder in Contemporary Literature 
and Science Ithaca, etc.: Cornell University.
Theil, H. (1972). Statistical Decomposition Analysis. Amsterdam/ London: 
North-Holland.


Loet Leydesdorff
Emeritus University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
l...@leydesdorff.net <mailto: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.html> Beijing;
Visiting Professor, Birkbeck<http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of London;
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ&hl=en

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Marcus Abundis
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 7:02 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM

Dear Andrei,

I would ask for clarification on whether you speak of "information" in your 
examples as something that has innate "meaning" or something that is innately 
"meaningless" . . . which has been a core issue in earlier exchanges. If this 
issue of "meaning" versus "meaningless" in the use of the term "information" is 
not resolved (for the group?) it seems hard (to me) to have truly meaningful 
exchanges . . . without having to put a "meaningful" or "meaningless" qualifier 
in front of "information" every time it is use.

Thanks.



Marcus Abundis
about.me/marcus.abundis







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

Re: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Marcus and colleagues, 

 

Katherine Hayles (1990, pp. 59f.) compared this discussion about the definition 
of “information” with asking whether a glass is half empty or half full. 
Shannon-type information is a measure of the variation or uncertainty, whereas 
Bateson’s “difference which makes a difference” presumes a system of reference 
for which the information can make a difference and thus be meaningful. 

 

In my opinion, the advantage of measuring uncertainty in bits cannot be 
underestimated, since the operationalization and the measurement provide 
avenues to hypothesis testing and thus control of speculation (Theil, 1972). 
However, the semantic confusion can also be solved by using the words 
“uncertainty” or “probabilistic entropy” when Shannon-type information is meant.

 

I note that “a difference which makes a difference” cannot so easily be 
measured. J I agree that it is more precise to speak of “meaningful 
information” in that case. The meaning has to be specified in the system of 
reference (e.g., physics and/or biology).

 

Best,

Loet

 

 

References:

 

Hayles, N. K. (1990). Chaos Bound; Orderly Disorder in Contemporary Literature 
and Science Ithaca, etc.: Cornell University.

Theil, H. (1972). Statistical Decomposition Analysis. Amsterdam/ London: 
North-Holland.

 

  _  

Loet Leydesdorff 

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

 <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ;  
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 
Honorary Professor,  <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of 
Sussex; 

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

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

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

 

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Marcus Abundis
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 7:02 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM

 

Dear Andrei,

 

I would ask for clarification on whether you speak of "information" in your 
examples as something that has innate "meaning" or something that is innately 
"meaningless" . . . which has been a core issue in earlier exchanges. If this 
issue of "meaning" versus "meaningless" in the use of the term "information" is 
not resolved (for the group?) it seems hard (to me) to have truly meaningful 
exchanges . . . without having to put a "meaningful" or "meaningless" qualifier 
in front of "information" every time it is use.

 

Thanks.



 



 

Marcus Abundis

about.me/marcus.abundis


http://d13pix9kaak6wt.cloudfront.net/signature/colorbar.png

  



 

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

[Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM

[Marcus Abundis]

Dear Andrei,

I would ask for clarification on whether you speak of "information" in
your examples as something that has innate "meaning" or something that is
innately "meaningless" . . . which has been a core issue in earlier
exchanges. If this issue of "meaning" versus "meaningless" in the use of
the term "information" is not resolved (for the group?) it seems hard (to
me) to have truly meaningful exchanges . . . without having to put a
"meaningful" or "meaningless" qualifier in front of "information" every
time it is use.

Thanks.

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

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

Re: [Fis] It-from-Bit and information interpretation of QM

[Andrei Khrennikov]

 Dear all,
I think that Wheeler's "it from bit" was the great step in physics, it was the 
basis of modern information interpretations 
of QM, due to Zeilinger and Brukner, and Quantum subjective probability 
interpretation of QM, QBism of Fuchs.
yours, andrei

Andrei Khrennikov, Professor of Applied Mathematics,
International Center for Mathematical Modeling
in Physics, Engineering, Economics, and Cognitive Science
Linnaeus University, Växjö-Kalmar, Sweden

From: Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] on behalf of Marcus Abundis 
[55m...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 4:37 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] It-from-Bit and the TAO

>From Pedro's post of: Fri Jun 26 14:39:52 CEST 2015

>it is nice returning to the main discussion topic . . . <
Am I out of step, did I miss a topic chance? I thought the discussion topic was 
still "Four Domains"


Re Xueshan's post of: Tue Jun 23 05:10:30 CEST 2015

>So far, on the argument of “It from Bit”, we can not prove it is correct, but 
>can not prove it is wrong too.<
I argue “It from Bit,” if taken literally, is patently wrong in claiming to 
present ANY information. To even raise to the level of presenting some type of 
entropic value it would at least need to be "It from BitS" (but it is not 
framed so). . . and a close reading of Wheeler's writing shows his mention of 
"bits" and he never(?) references a naked "bit" as having informational value. 
Further, he notes "the posing of yes–no questions" and that this is equivalent 
to "a participatory universe". So, who or what is formulating and then asking 
these universal questions, and what is the point or cause of those questions?! 
This is Krassimir's inferred God, from the earlier posting, is it not?

To my eye "It from Bit" is a step backwards, and further muddies the waters, as 
the author did not clearly frame his true meaning in this too simplistic 
phrasing – leading to misinterpretations, etc.. This is the same "muddy 
problem" (but now made worse) in the earlier noted "bizarre and unsatisfying" 
use of the term information in Shannon-Weaver.

The whole matter of referencing the Tao in tandem with It for Bit I find odd. I 
recall from my own studies that "The Tao that can be named is not the true 
Tao." So, to take a purely(?) mystical notion and then to try to overlay or 
relate that notion to information . . . just don't see how that would fit. At 
best I would see an encounter with the Tao as an encounter with Kantian like 
noumena.

My thoughts, for what they are worth . . .




Marcus Abundis
about.me/marcus.abundis








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