Re: [Fis] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples?
I stand corrected. They produce more work for the same input. I think my point stands, Bob. John At 12:21 AM 2014-09-05, Guy A Hoelzer wrote: John, I think you are misreading Stans comments a little. [Stan: please correct me if I am wrong about that.] I think it would be fair to say that older car engines were less well fit between the energy gradient and the system attempting to utilize it. Another way of saying this is that the older car engine mechanism was less efficient in dissipating that gradient, which translated into low gas mileage. Those engines had to work harder in delivering the same outcome (say driving 1 mile) than the newer, more efficient engines. The capacity of the new engines to work harder than old engines does not mean they work harder to produce the same outcome. I dont see the flaw in saying that working harder to achieve a constant outcome degrades more energy. Clever design and selection can indeed utilize information to yield greater efficiencies, which can only approach the limit imposed by the 2nd law. It looks to me like you and Stan are really in agreement here. Am I missing something? Cheers, Guy On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:06 PM, John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za wrote: S: In decline in the actual material world that we inhabit. That is, the local world -- the world of input and dissipation. I think the information problem may be advanced if we try to explain why the energy efficiency of any work is so poor, and gets worse the harder we work. This is the key local phenomenon that needs to be understood. JC: Information can be used to improve efficiency. SS: That is not same question. Which is: Why is any work constitutively poor in energy efficiency? I wrote a little essay ( Entropy: what does it really mean? General Systems Bulletin 32:5-12.) suggesting that it results from a lack of fittingness between energy gradient and the system attempting to utilize it -- that is, that it is an information problem. Actually, it is part of the same question. As I have said many times, you trivialize the idea of maximum entropy production if you relativize it to all constraints. Howard has made this sort of point over and over as well. But you are right that the important factor is an information problem. I was once asked to referee a paper that argued that we could get around 2nd law degradation by using the exhaust heat in a clever way, and keep doing this ad infinitum. I pointed out (sarcastically) that we could do this, but only if we could make smaller and smaller people to use the energy (apologies to Kurt Vonnegut). We get much more work out of gasoline engines than we used to, even though most are smaller and work harder. So, no, it is not in general true that harder work degrades more energy. Clever design (and selection) can make a difference that is more significant. John ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis Professor John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 Http://web.ncf.ca/collier ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples?
Catching up after a myriad of distracting problems. At 03:51 PM 2014-08-25, Stanley N Salthe wrote: Bob wrote: Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like Helmholz Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the exergy becomes RT times the mutual information among the molecules S: So, the more organized, the more potential available energy. I think not, Stan. Organization requires a middling degree of complexity. Exergy is maximized when the mutual information is 1, like in a crystal. Crystals are not highly organized. See Collier and Hooker Complexly Organised Dynamical Systems (1999) for discussion. I happen to be a radical who feels that the term energy is a construct with little ontological depth. S: I believe it has instead ontological breadth! It is a bookkeeping device (a nice one, of course, but bookkeeping nonetheless). It was devised to maintain the Platonic worldview. Messrs. Meyer Joule simply gave us the conversion factors to make it look like energy is constant. S: It IS constant in the adiabatic boxes used to measure it. *Real* energy is always in decline -- witness what happens to the work functions I just mentioned. S: In decline in the actual material world that we inhabit. That is, the local world -- the world of input and dissipation. I think the information problem may be advanced if we try to explain why the energy efficiency of any work is so poor, and gets worse the harder we work. This is the key local phenomenon that needs to be understood. Information can be used to improve efficiency. John Professor John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 Http://web.ncf.ca/collier ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples?
S: In decline in the actual material world that we inhabit. That is, the local world -- the world of input and dissipation. I think the information problem may be advanced if we try to explain why the energy efficiency of any work is so poor, and gets worse the harder we work. This is the key local phenomenon that needs to be understood. JC: Information can be used to improve efficiency. SS: That is not same question. Which is: Why is any work constitutively poor in energy efficiency? I wrote a little essay ( Entropy: what does it really mean? General Systems Bulletin 32:5-12.) suggesting that it results from a lack of fittingness between energy gradient and the system attempting to utilize it -- that is, that it is an information problem. Actually, it is part of the same question. As I have said many times, you trivialize the idea of maximum entropy production if you relativize it to all constraints. Howard has made this sort of point over and over as well. But you are right that the important factor is an information problem. I was once asked to referee a paper that argued that we could get around 2nd law degradation by using the exhaust heat in a clever way, and keep doing this ad infinitum. I pointed out (sarcastically) that we could do this, but only if we could make smaller and smaller people to use the energy (apologies to Kurt Vonnegut). We get much more work out of gasoline engines than we used to, even though most are smaller and work harder. So, no, it is not in general true that harder work degrades more energy. Clever design (and selection) can make a difference that is more significant. John ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples?
Cari Tutti e Caro Krassimir, anche per la qualità del Tuo stile, mi rendo conto delle difficoltà che Vi provoco. Ma non è certo per mancanza di rispetto che uso la lingua italiana. Anche se avessi una maggiore e migliore conoscenza dell'inglese, non riuscirei mai a comunicarvi tutto ciò che il mio pensiero pensante produce con un linguaggio diverso dal mio. Continuerò a seguire la discussione-dibattito a cui date luogo e non vi costringerò più a leggere versi in lingua italiana. Nel salutarVi Tutti, Vi ringrazio per quel che mi avete insegnato e m'insegnerete ancora. Francesco Rizzo. 2014-08-25 15:51 GMT+02:00 Stanley N Salthe ssal...@binghamton.edu: Bob wrote: Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like Helmholz Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the exergy becomes RT times the mutual information among the molecules S: So, the more organized, the more potential available energy. I happen to be a radical who feels that the term energy is a construct with little ontological depth. S: I believe it has instead ontological breadth! It is a bookkeeping device (a nice one, of course, but bookkeeping nonetheless). It was devised to maintain the Platonic worldview. Messrs. Meyer Joule simply gave us the conversion factors to make it look like energy is constant. S: It IS constant in the adiabatic boxes used to measure it. *Real* energy is always in decline -- witness what happens to the work functions I just mentioned. S: In decline in the actual material world that we inhabit. That is, the local world -- the world of input and dissipation. I think the information problem may be advanced if we try to explain why the energy efficiency of any work is so poor, and gets worse the harder we work. This is the key local phenomenon that needs to be understood. STAN On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:40 AM, John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za wrote: Nice post, Bob. I agree pretty much. Brooks and Wiley got slammed by Morowitz for using the *Real* energy in their book, which being about biology is the only sensible notion of energy. There is still a need for a clear dimensional analysis of the relation(s) between information and energy. I work on that periodically, but only minimal progress so far. Perhaps I can focus on it better now that I am retired. John At 02:11 AM 2014-08-22, Robert E. Ulanowicz wrote: Dear Joseph, Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like Helmholz Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the exergy becomes RT times the mutual information among the molecules. I happen to be a radical who feels that the term energy is a construct with little ontological depth. It is a bookkeeping device (a nice one, of course, but bookkeeping nonetheless). It was devised to maintain the Platonic worldview. Messrs. Meyer Joule simply gave us the conversion factors to make it look like energy is constant. *Real* energy is always in decline -- witness what happens to the work functions I just mentioned. Well, enough heresy for one night! Cheers, Bob U. Dear Mark and All, I return belatedly to this short but key note of Mark's in which he repeats his view, with which I agree, that Energy is a kind of information and information is a kind of energy. My suggestion is that it may be useful to expand this statement by looking at both Information and Energy (mass-energy) as emergent properties of the universe. Since we agree they are not identical, we may then look at how the properties differ. Perhaps we can say that Energy is an extensive property, measured primarily by quantity, and Information is an intensive property. The difficulty is that both Energy and Information themselves appear to have both intensive and extensive properties, measured by vector and scalar quantities respectively. I am encouraged to say that this approach might yield results that are compatible with advanced theories based on the sophisticated mathematics to which Mark refers. I would say then that in our world it is not the question of which is more fundamental that is essential, but that Energy and Information share properties which are linked dynamically. In this dialectical interpretation, the need for a 'demon' that accomplishes some function, as in the paper referred to in John's note, is a formal exercise. Thank you and best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From: Burgin, Mark To: Joseph Brenner Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples? Dear Joseph and Colleagues, An answer to the perhaps badly posed question of whether information or energy is more fundamental is given in
Re: [Fis] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples?
Nice post, Bob. I agree pretty much. Brooks and Wiley got slammed by Morowitz for using the *Real* energy in their book, which being about biology is the only sensible notion of energy. There is still a need for a clear dimensional analysis of the relation(s) between information and energy. I work on that periodically, but only minimal progress so far. Perhaps I can focus on it better now that I am retired. John At 02:11 AM 2014-08-22, Robert E. Ulanowicz wrote: Dear Joseph, Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like Helmholz Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the exergy becomes RT times the mutual information among the molecules. I happen to be a radical who feels that the term energy is a construct with little ontological depth. It is a bookkeeping device (a nice one, of course, but bookkeeping nonetheless). It was devised to maintain the Platonic worldview. Messrs. Meyer Joule simply gave us the conversion factors to make it look like energy is constant. *Real* energy is always in decline -- witness what happens to the work functions I just mentioned. Well, enough heresy for one night! Cheers, Bob U. Dear Mark and All, I return belatedly to this short but key note of Mark's in which he repeats his view, with which I agree, that Energy is a kind of information and information is a kind of energy. My suggestion is that it may be useful to expand this statement by looking at both Information and Energy (mass-energy) as emergent properties of the universe. Since we agree they are not identical, we may then look at how the properties differ. Perhaps we can say that Energy is an extensive property, measured primarily by quantity, and Information is an intensive property. The difficulty is that both Energy and Information themselves appear to have both intensive and extensive properties, measured by vector and scalar quantities respectively. I am encouraged to say that this approach might yield results that are compatible with advanced theories based on the sophisticated mathematics to which Mark refers. I would say then that in our world it is not the question of which is more fundamental that is essential, but that Energy and Information share properties which are linked dynamically. In this dialectical interpretation, the need for a 'demon' that accomplishes some function, as in the paper referred to in John's note, is a formal exercise. Thank you and best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From: Burgin, Mark To: Joseph Brenner Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples? Dear Joseph and Colleagues, An answer to the perhaps badly posed question of whether information or energy is more fundamental is given in the book M.Burgin, Theory of information. The answer is a little bit unexpected: Energy is a kind of information and information is a kind of energy. It's a pity that very few researchers read books with advanced theories based on sophisticated mathematics. Sincerely, Mark Burgin On 7/31/2014 2:40 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote: Dear Krassimir and Colleagues, I have followed this discussion with interest but not total agreement. As I have commented to Krassimir previously, I feel that his system, based on symbols as outlined in his paper, is too static to capture the dynamics of complex information processes and their value (valence). It suffers from the same problems as that of Peirce and of set-theoretic approaches, namely, a certain arbitrariness in the selection and number of independent elements and their grounding in nature (or rather absence of grounding). If you will permit a naïve but well-intentioned question, why not have a theory whose elements are quintuples? Would this not be a 'better', more complete theory? This opens the possibility of an infinite regress, but that is the point I am trying to make: the form of the theory is, to a certain extent, defining its content. The /development/ of any GIT should, from the beginning I think, recognize the existence in real time, so to speak, of any new suggestions in the context of other recent contributions of a different form, such as those of Luhn, Hofkirchner, Marijuan, Deacon, Dodig-Crnkovic, Wu and so on. Several of these already permit a more directed discussion of the perhaps badly posed question of whether information or energy is more fundamental. Otherwise, all that work will need to be done at the end. In any case, the GIT itself, to the extent that it could be desirable and useful, would also have to have some dynamics capable of accepting theories of different forms. 20th Century physics sought only identities throughout nature and the balance is now being somewhat restored. I think keeping the diversity of theories of information in
Re: [Fis] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples?
Bob wrote: Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like Helmholz Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the exergy becomes RT times the mutual information among the molecules S: So, the more organized, the more potential available energy. I happen to be a radical who feels that the term energy is a construct with little ontological depth. S: I believe it has instead ontological breadth! It is a bookkeeping device (a nice one, of course, but bookkeeping nonetheless). It was devised to maintain the Platonic worldview. Messrs. Meyer Joule simply gave us the conversion factors to make it look like energy is constant. S: It IS constant in the adiabatic boxes used to measure it. *Real* energy is always in decline -- witness what happens to the work functions I just mentioned. S: In decline in the actual material world that we inhabit. That is, the local world -- the world of input and dissipation. I think the information problem may be advanced if we try to explain why the energy efficiency of any work is so poor, and gets worse the harder we work. This is the key local phenomenon that needs to be understood. STAN On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:40 AM, John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za wrote: Nice post, Bob. I agree pretty much. Brooks and Wiley got slammed by Morowitz for using the *Real* energy in their book, which being about biology is the only sensible notion of energy. There is still a need for a clear dimensional analysis of the relation(s) between information and energy. I work on that periodically, but only minimal progress so far. Perhaps I can focus on it better now that I am retired. John At 02:11 AM 2014-08-22, Robert E. Ulanowicz wrote: Dear Joseph, Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like Helmholz Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the exergy becomes RT times the mutual information among the molecules. I happen to be a radical who feels that the term energy is a construct with little ontological depth. It is a bookkeeping device (a nice one, of course, but bookkeeping nonetheless). It was devised to maintain the Platonic worldview. Messrs. Meyer Joule simply gave us the conversion factors to make it look like energy is constant. *Real* energy is always in decline -- witness what happens to the work functions I just mentioned. Well, enough heresy for one night! Cheers, Bob U. Dear Mark and All, I return belatedly to this short but key note of Mark's in which he repeats his view, with which I agree, that Energy is a kind of information and information is a kind of energy. My suggestion is that it may be useful to expand this statement by looking at both Information and Energy (mass-energy) as emergent properties of the universe. Since we agree they are not identical, we may then look at how the properties differ. Perhaps we can say that Energy is an extensive property, measured primarily by quantity, and Information is an intensive property. The difficulty is that both Energy and Information themselves appear to have both intensive and extensive properties, measured by vector and scalar quantities respectively. I am encouraged to say that this approach might yield results that are compatible with advanced theories based on the sophisticated mathematics to which Mark refers. I would say then that in our world it is not the question of which is more fundamental that is essential, but that Energy and Information share properties which are linked dynamically. In this dialectical interpretation, the need for a 'demon' that accomplishes some function, as in the paper referred to in John's note, is a formal exercise. Thank you and best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From: Burgin, Mark To: Joseph Brenner Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples? Dear Joseph and Colleagues, An answer to the perhaps badly posed question of whether information or energy is more fundamental is given in the book M.Burgin, Theory of information. The answer is a little bit unexpected: Energy is a kind of information and information is a kind of energy. It's a pity that very few researchers read books with advanced theories based on sophisticated mathematics. Sincerely, Mark Burgin On 7/31/2014 2:40 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote: Dear Krassimir and Colleagues, I have followed this discussion with interest but not total agreement. As I have commented to Krassimir previously, I feel that his system, based on symbols as outlined in his paper, is too static to capture the dynamics of complex information processes and their value (valence). It suffers
[Fis] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples?
Dear Mark and All, I return belatedly to this short but key note of Mark's in which he repeats his view, with which I agree, that Energy is a kind of information and information is a kind of energy. My suggestion is that it may be useful to expand this statement by looking at both Information and Energy (mass-energy) as emergent properties of the universe. Since we agree they are not identical, we may then look at how the properties differ. Perhaps we can say that Energy is an extensive property, measured primarily by quantity, and Information is an intensive property. The difficulty is that both Energy and Information themselves appear to have both intensive and extensive properties, measured by vector and scalar quantities respectively. I am encouraged to say that this approach might yield results that are compatible with advanced theories based on the sophisticated mathematics to which Mark refers. I would say then that in our world it is not the question of which is more fundamental that is essential, but that Energy and Information share properties which are linked dynamically. In this dialectical interpretation, the need for a 'demon' that accomplishes some function, as in the paper referred to in John's note, is a formal exercise. Thank you and best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From: Burgin, Mark To: Joseph Brenner Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 9:19 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples? Dear Joseph and Colleagues, An answer to the perhaps badly posed question of whether information or energy is more fundamental is given in the book M.Burgin, Theory of information. The answer is a little bit unexpected: Energy is a kind of information and information is a kind of energy. It's a pity that very few researchers read books with advanced theories based on sophisticated mathematics. Sincerely, Mark Burgin On 7/31/2014 2:40 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote: Dear Krassimir and Colleagues, I have followed this discussion with interest but not total agreement. As I have commented to Krassimir previously, I feel that his system, based on symbols as outlined in his paper, is too static to capture the dynamics of complex information processes and their value (valence). It suffers from the same problems as that of Peirce and of set-theoretic approaches, namely, a certain arbitrariness in the selection and number of independent elements and their grounding in nature (or rather absence of grounding). If you will permit a naïve but well-intentioned question, why not have a theory whose elements are quintuples? Would this not be a 'better', more complete theory? This opens the possibility of an infinite regress, but that is the point I am trying to make: the form of the theory is, to a certain extent, defining its content. The /development/ of any GIT should, from the beginning I think, recognize the existence in real time, so to speak, of any new suggestions in the context of other recent contributions of a different form, such as those of Luhn, Hofkirchner, Marijuan, Deacon, Dodig-Crnkovic, Wu and so on. Several of these already permit a more directed discussion of the perhaps badly posed question of whether information or energy is more fundamental. Otherwise, all that work will need to be done at the end. In any case, the GIT itself, to the extent that it could be desirable and useful, would also have to have some dynamics capable of accepting theories of different forms. 20th Century physics sought only identities throughout nature and the balance is now being somewhat restored. I think keeping the diversity of theories of information in mind is the most worthwhile strategy. One of the values of Krassimir's approach is that it recognizes the existence of some of these more complex questions that need to be answered. I simply suggest that process language and a recognition of dynamic interactions (e.g., between 'internal' and 'external') could be part of the strategy. Best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From: Krassimir Markov To: Jerry LR Chandler ; FIS ; Pridi Siregar Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 10:42 AM Subject: [Fis] Information quadruple Dear Jerry, Pridi, and Colleagues, Thank you for the nice comments! To answer to questions I have to present next step from the GIT (General Information Theory) we are developing. Let remember in words (below Infos is abbreviation from Information Subject, it is an intelligent natural or artificial agent (system)): Information is quadruple (Source, Recipient, Evidence, Infos) or formally i = (s, r, e, I) The nest step is to define elements of the quadruple: s and r are structured sets; e is a mapping from s in r which preserves (all or partial) structure of s and resolves any information expectation of I I expect new questions: - what is an intelligent
Re: [Fis] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples?
Cari colleghi, il 4 agosto ho scritto alcune cose che stranamente non sono state considerate né positivamente né negativamente. Mentre sul concetto processo di tras-in-form-azione o trans-in-form-azione sì è discusso abbastanza. Forse troppo. Tra le cose già scritte il 4 agosto vi è il rapporto-equivalenza energia/informazione implicito nel meccanismo del diavoletto di Maxwell da me accennato. Perché non se ne parla? Potrebbe essere utile farlo. Saluti cordiali. Francesco Rizzo. 2014-08-21 15:59 GMT+02:00 Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch: Dear Mark and All, I return belatedly to this short but key note of Mark's in which he repeats his view, with which I agree, that Energy is a kind of information and information is a kind of energy. My suggestion is that it may be useful to expand this statement by looking at both Information and Energy (mass-energy) as emergent properties of the universe. Since we agree they are not identical, we may then look at how the properties differ. Perhaps we can say that Energy is an extensive property, measured primarily by quantity, and Information is an intensive property. The difficulty is that both Energy and Information themselves appear to have both intensive and extensive properties, measured by vector and scalar quantities respectively. I am encouraged to say that this approach might yield results that are compatible with advanced theories based on the sophisticated mathematics to which Mark refers. I would say then that in our world it is not the question of which is more fundamental that is essential, but that Energy and Information share properties which are linked dynamically. In this dialectical interpretation, the need for a 'demon' that accomplishes some function, as in the paper referred to in John's note, is a formal exercise. Thank you and best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - *From:* Burgin, Mark mbur...@math.ucla.edu *To:* Joseph Brenner joe.bren...@bluewin.ch *Sent:* Friday, August 01, 2014 9:19 PM *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples? Dear Joseph and Colleagues, An answer to the perhaps badly posed question of whether information or energy is more fundamental is given in the book M.Burgin, Theory of information. The answer is a little bit unexpected: Energy is a kind of information and information is a kind of energy. It's a pity that very few researchers read books with advanced theories based on sophisticated mathematics. Sincerely, Mark Burgin On 7/31/2014 2:40 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote: Dear Krassimir and Colleagues, I have followed this discussion with interest but not total agreement. As I have commented to Krassimir previously, I feel that his system, based on symbols as outlined in his paper, is too static to capture the dynamics of complex information processes and their value (valence). It suffers from the same problems as that of Peirce and of set-theoretic approaches, namely, a certain arbitrariness in the selection and number of independent elements and their grounding in nature (or rather absence of grounding). If you will permit a naïve but well-intentioned question, why not have a theory whose elements are quintuples? Would this not be a 'better', more complete theory? This opens the possibility of an infinite regress, but that is the point I am trying to make: the form of the theory is, to a certain extent, defining its content. The /development/ of any GIT should, from the beginning I think, recognize the existence in real time, so to speak, of any new suggestions in the context of other recent contributions of a different form, such as those of Luhn, Hofkirchner, Marijuan, Deacon, Dodig-Crnkovic, Wu and so on. Several of these already permit a more directed discussion of the perhaps badly posed question of whether information or energy is more fundamental. Otherwise, all that work will need to be done at the end. In any case, the GIT itself, to the extent that it could be desirable and useful, would also have to have some dynamics capable of accepting theories of different forms. 20th Century physics sought only identities throughout nature and the balance is now being somewhat restored. I think keeping the diversity of theories of information in mind is the most worthwhile strategy. One of the values of Krassimir's approach is that it recognizes the existence of some of these more complex questions that need to be answered. I simply suggest that process language and a recognition of dynamic interactions (e.g., between 'internal' and 'external') could be part of the strategy. Best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - *From:* Krassimir Markov mar...@foibg.com *To:* Jerry LR Chandler jerry_lr_chand...@me.com ; FIS fis@listas.unizar.es ; Pridi Siregar pridi.sire...@ibiocomputing.com *Sent:* Saturday, July 26, 2014 10:42 AM *Subject:* [Fis] Information quadruple Dear Jerry,
