Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT.
Dear Mark and colleagues, I totally agree! The need of variety of information theories which explain the information phenomena from different point of view and on different levels was fixed more than twenty years ago in the name of the first ITHEA Int. Journal called “Information theories and applications”. As more theories so much systematized knowledge. Mark, thank you for brilliant remark! As you see we continue and extend our common research started in 1989-1991. Friendly regards Krassimir From: Burgin, Mark Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 11:33 PM To: Krassimir Markov Subject: Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Dear Krassimir and Colleagues, In his e-mail, Krassimir very well explained the differences between energy and information in the sense of General Information Theory (GIT). These differences appear because GIT studies information on the higher level than the General Theory of Information (GTI). If we look into mathematics, we see that group theory studies mathematical structures on on the higher level than set theory. Although set theory is most basic, while group theory has more applications outside mathematics, both theories - set theory and group theory - are necessary for mathematics as a whole. Thus, we may compare GIT to group theory and GTI to set theory as groups have additional structure in comparison with sets as the information quadruple of GIT has additional structure in comparison with the information triad of GTI. Sincerely, Mark Burgin On 8/25/2014 11:51 AM, Krassimir Markov wrote: Dear Colleagues, Thank you for comments and remarks. Many thanks to Mark for his interesting post. Really, the correspondence between energy and information is fundamental and needs to be clearly explained. I want to present my point of view because it is different from other ones. It is clear, the energy is needed to create a reflection. Without energy no internal changes (reflections) in the entities may be realized. This means that energy is needed to realize reflection which may become information for given subject. Without energy information is impossible. But the opposite correspondence does not exist. Energy does not depend on information. It exists in reality without subjects’ “decisions”. Energy is objective phenomenon , Information is subjective phenomenon. Let see a simple example. Let we have two equal pieces of paper. They contain some energy, let assume that its quantities are equal in both pieces. In other words, for instance, if we burn these pieces they will release practically the same quantities of energy. If I have such piece of paper and you have another such one, we may exchange them as equivalent without any additional conditions. Let now the pieces of paper are painted with some colors. The paint will add some additional energy to pieces. Let assume that again it is in equal quantities in both pieces. Again, we may exchange pieces as equivalent without any additional conditions. At the end, let pieces of paper are painted as follow: - the first piece is painted as USD 100 (one hundred dollars) - the second one is pained as RUB 100 (one hundred rubles) i.e. let have two real banknotes. Now, we will not agree to exchange these pieces of paper without additional conditions. As it is shown by Bloomberg, on 08/25/2014, 12.59:59, (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USDRUB:CUR) US DOLLAR-RUSSIAN RUBLE Exchange Rate is: Price of 1 USD in RUB is 36.1646, i.e now the first piece of paper is equivalent to more than 36 pieces of second one. Because of information for the subjects, the pieces became different notwithstanding that the energy quantities are equal in both pieces. The subjective decisions have important role in this case. In conclusion, the energy and information are different phenomena – objective and subjective, respectively. Energy may be explained by triple (see Mark’s nice explanations about triples!) : (source, recipient, transition) = (x, y, f) = y=f(x) . Information has to be explained by quadruple (source, recipient, evidence, subject). Here, it is important to remember Mark’s “Infological System” as Subject. The triples are object of study by Mathematics, quadruples – by Informatics. Friendly regards Krassimir From: Stanley N Salthe Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 4:51 PM To: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples? Bob wrote: Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like Helmholz Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the exergy becomes RT times the mutual information among the molecules S: So, the more organized, the more potential available energy. I happen to be a radical who feels that the term energy
Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT.
Dear Colleagues, Thank you for comments and remarks. Many thanks to Mark for his interesting post. Really, the correspondence between energy and information is fundamental and needs to be clearly explained. I want to present my point of view because it is different from other ones. It is clear, the energy is needed to create a reflection. Without energy no internal changes (reflections) in the entities may be realized. This means that energy is needed to realize reflection which may become information for given subject. Without energy information is impossible. But the opposite correspondence does not exist. Energy does not depend on information. It exists in reality without subjects’ “decisions”. Energy is objective phenomenon , Information is subjective phenomenon. Let see a simple example. Let we have two equal pieces of paper. They contain some energy, let assume that its quantities are equal in both pieces. In other words, for instance, if we burn these pieces they will release practically the same quantities of energy. If I have such piece of paper and you have another such one, we may exchange them as equivalent without any additional conditions. Let now the pieces of paper are painted with some colors. The paint will add some additional energy to pieces. Let assume that again it is in equal quantities in both pieces. Again, we may exchange pieces as equivalent without any additional conditions. At the end, let pieces of paper are painted as follow: - the first piece is painted as USD 100 (one hundred dollars) - the second one is pained as RUB 100 (one hundred rubles) i.e. let have two real banknotes. Now, we will not agree to exchange these pieces of paper without additional conditions. As it is shown by Bloomberg, on 08/25/2014, 12.59:59, (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USDRUB:CUR) US DOLLAR-RUSSIAN RUBLE Exchange Rate is: Price of 1 USD in RUB is 36.1646, i.e now the first piece of paper is equivalent to more than 36 pieces of second one. Because of information for the subjects, the pieces became different notwithstanding that the energy quantities are equal in both pieces. The subjective decisions have important role in this case. In conclusion, the energy and information are different phenomena – objective and subjective, respectively. Energy may be explained by triple (see Mark’s nice explanations about triples!) : (source, recipient, transition) = (x, y, f) = y=f(x) . Information has to be explained by quadruple (source, recipient, evidence, subject). Here, it is important to remember Mark’s “Infological System” as Subject. The triples are object of study by Mathematics, quadruples – by Informatics. Friendly regards Krassimir From: Stanley N Salthe Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 4:51 PM To: fis Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples? Bob wrote: Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like Helmholz Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the exergy becomes RT times the mutual information among the molecules S: So, the more organized, the more potential available energy. I happen to be a radical who feels that the term energy is a construct with little ontological depth. S: I believe it has instead ontological breadth! It is a bookkeeping device (a nice one, of course, but bookkeeping nonetheless). It was devised to maintain the Platonic worldview. Messrs. Meyer Joule simply gave us the conversion factors to make it look like energy is constant. S: It IS constant in the adiabatic boxes used to measure it. *Real* energy is always in decline -- witness what happens to the work functions I just mentioned. S: In decline in the actual material world that we inhabit. That is, the local world -- the world of input and dissipation. I think the information problem may be advanced if we try to explain why the energy efficiency of any work is so poor, and gets worse the harder we work. This is the key local phenomenon that needs to be understood. STAN On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:40 AM, John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za wrote: Nice post, Bob. I agree pretty much. Brooks and Wiley got slammed by Morowitz for using the *Real* energy in their book, which being about biology is the only sensible notion of energy. There is still a need for a clear dimensional analysis of the relation(s) between information and energy. I work on that periodically, but only minimal progress so far. Perhaps I can focus on it better now that I am retired. John At 02:11 AM 2014-08-22, Robert E. Ulanowicz wrote: Dear Joseph, Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like Helmholz Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the exergy becomes RT times the mutual
Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT.
Dear Krassimir et al., I like your view very much with one exception. I think it confounds information with meaning, which I think can lead to problems. For example, I could give two people the same message written on your identical pieces of paper. It is written in English, but only one of the readers understands English. My message might be meaningful to one reader, but it cannot be meaningful to the other. I would argue that both pieces of paper contain the same information. In other words, for me it is important to recognize information as existing in the absence of its appreciation or interpretation. Perception and interpretation are generated by an agent, so they are not direct representations of the information and (perhaps universally?) add some error or distortion in the process. I would suggest a revision to what you wrote as follows: Energy AND INFORMATION are objective phenomena. PERCEPTION AND MEANING are subjective phenomena. Can anybody see a problem with this form of the statement? Regards, Guy Hoelzer On Aug 25, 2014, at 11:51 AM, Krassimir Markov mar...@foibg.commailto:mar...@foibg.com wrote: Dear Colleagues, Thank you for comments and remarks. Many thanks to Mark for his interesting post. Really, the correspondence between energy and information is fundamental and needs to be clearly explained. I want to present my point of view because it is different from other ones. It is clear, the energy is needed to create a reflection. Without energy no internal changes (reflections) in the entities may be realized. This means that energy is needed to realize reflection which may become information for given subject. Without energy information is impossible. But the opposite correspondence does not exist. Energy does not depend on information. It exists in reality without subjects’ “decisions”. Energy is objective phenomenon , Information is subjective phenomenon. Let see a simple example. Let we have two equal pieces of paper. They contain some energy, let assume that its quantities are equal in both pieces. In other words, for instance, if we burn these pieces they will release practically the same quantities of energy. If I have such piece of paper and you have another such one, we may exchange them as equivalent without any additional conditions. Let now the pieces of paper are painted with some colors. The paint will add some additional energy to pieces. Let assume that again it is in equal quantities in both pieces. Again, we may exchange pieces as equivalent without any additional conditions. At the end, let pieces of paper are painted as follow: - the first piece is painted as USD 100 (one hundred dollars) - the second one is pained as RUB 100 (one hundred rubles) i.e. let have two real banknotes. Now, we will not agree to exchange these pieces of paper without additional conditions. As it is shown by Bloomberg, on 08/25/2014, 12.59:59, (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USDRUB:CUR) US DOLLAR-RUSSIAN RUBLE Exchange Rate is: Price of 1 USD in RUB is 36.1646, i.e now the first piece of paper is equivalent to more than 36 pieces of second one. Because of information for the subjects, the pieces became different notwithstanding that the energy quantities are equal in both pieces. The subjective decisions have important role in this case. In conclusion, the energy and information are different phenomena – objective and subjective, respectively. Energy may be explained by triple (see Mark’s nice explanations about triples!) : (source, recipient, transition) = (x, y, f) = y=f(x) . Information has to be explained by quadruple (source, recipient, evidence, subject). Here, it is important to remember Mark’s “Infological System” as Subject. The triples are object of study by Mathematics, quadruples – by Informatics. Friendly regards Krassimir From: Stanley N Salthemailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 4:51 PM To: fismailto:fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples? Bob wrote: Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like Helmholz Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the exergy becomes RT times the mutual information among the molecules S: So, the more organized, the more potential available energy. I happen to be a radical who feels that the term energy is a construct with little ontological depth. S: I believe it has instead ontological breadth! It is a bookkeeping device (a nice one, of course, but bookkeeping nonetheless). It was devised to maintain the Platonic worldview. Messrs. Meyer Joule simply gave us the conversion factors to make it look like energy is constant. S: It IS constant in the adiabatic boxes used to measure it. *Real* energy is always in decline -- witness what happens to the work functions I just mentioned. S
[Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples?
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 agent” - what is “information expectation” - ... If it is interesting, answers to these questions may be given in further letters. *** Now I want to make some comments to letters received (their full texts are given below my answers). Pridi: “information cannot be viewed in any absolute sense but as internal representations of external patterns” Kr.: Yes, the “reflection” is a property of Matter, “information” is a reflection for which the information quadruple exists. But information is not “internal representations of external patterns ”. It is result from resolving the subjective information expectation which is process of comparing of internal and external patterns. I know, this will cause new questions Pridi: In this framework then, it seems that information cannot be conceptualized without reference to the both something out there and the internal structures of the receptor/cognitive system. Kr.: Yes. Pridi: How can we really quantify meaningful (semantic) information ... ? Kr.: By distance between external patterns and “information expectation” (sorry to be not clear but it is long text for further letters). Pridi: All objective measures (entropy, negentropy,...) are actually totally dependant of I1 and I2 and can never be considered as absolute. Kr.: Yes, but the world humanity is an Infos and its information expectations we assume as absolute. Pridi: ... some researchers that posit that information may be more fundamental than the fundamental physical (mass, time, space, amps). Kr.: Yes, there are other paradigms which are useful in some cases, but in our paradigm “information” is not fundamental but “reflection” is the fundamental. Pridi: ... no absolute truth (whatever this means) is really gained. Only a richer more complete (subjective but coherent) world-view . Kr.: Yes. Jerry: ... assertion of a quadruple of symbols is rather close to the philosophy of C S Peirce (hereafter CSP) Kr.: Our
