Re: [Fis] Principles of Information

[Emanuel Diamant]

 

Dear Michel,

 

Thank you for your comment.

In the draft version of my post, mentioning the last Nobel Prize award I
have followed it by a remark: 

“All FISers pretend to be Einstein; no one bothers himself with a (LIGO)
detector building”.

Then I decided that the phrase is unnecessary harsh and replaced it with the
"citations from Aristotle, Plato, and others…” passage.

 

You are right – the citations could be “a particular type of IF assumption”.
Generally they can, but in this case – they are not!

 

Loet has presented recently a much more elegant expression:

"Nobody of us provide an operative framework and a single (just one!)
empirical testable prevision able to assess "information".

 

Thank you for a concerned reading,

 

Best regards,

Emanuel.

 

---  

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Michel Godron
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2017 12:07 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Principles of Information

 

The "citations from Aristotle, Plato, Ortega, Leibnitz," are a particular
type of IF " hypothetic assumptions". They cannot be falsifiable as the
hypothesis of gravitional waves, but they may be discussed rationnally as
starting points for principles and definitions of information.   

Cordialement. M. Godron


Le 06/10/2017 à 18:26, Emanuel Diamant a écrit :

Dear FISers,

 

I have heartily welcomed Pedro’s initiative to work out some principles of
information definition quest. But the upsetting discussion unrolled around
the issue pushes me to restrain my support for the Pedro’s proposal.  The
problem (in my understanding) is that FIS discussants are violating the
basic rule of any scientific discourse – the IF/THEN principle. 

We usually start our discourse with a hypothetic assumption (the IF part of
an argument) which is affirmed later by a supporting evidence or by a
prediction that holds under the given assumptions (the THEN part of the
statement). 

The universality of this principle was vividly demonstrated by the recent
Nobel Prize for Physics awarding – 

A hundred years ago, Albert Einstein has predicted the existence of
gravitational waves, but only the construction of the LIGO detector
(implementing the if-then principles) made the observation of gravitational
waves possible. 

Information will become visible and palpable only when an if-then grounded
probe (or an if-then grounded approach) will be devised and put in use.

Until then – long citations from Aristotle, Plato, Ortega, Leibnitz,
alongside with extensive self-citations, will not help us to master the
unavoidable if-then way of thinking.

 

Sincerely yours,

Emanuel. 

__
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es <mailto: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] Principles of Information

[Michel Godron]

The "citations from Aristotle, Plato, Ortega, Leibnitz," are a 
particular type of IF "hypothetic assumptions". They cannot be 
falsifiable as the hypothesis of gravitional waves, but they may be 
discussed rationnally as starting points for principles and definitions 
of information.


Cordialement. M. Godron

Le 06/10/2017 à 18:26, Emanuel Diamant a écrit :


Dear FISers,

I have heartily welcomed Pedro’s initiative to work out some 
principles of information definition quest. But the upsetting 
discussion unrolled around the issue pushes me to restrain my support 
for the Pedro’s proposal.  The problem (in my understanding) is that 
FIS discussants are violating the basic rule of any scientific 
discourse – the IF/THEN principle.


We usually start our discourse with a hypothetic assumption (the IF 
part of an argument) which is affirmed later by a supporting evidence 
or by a prediction that holds under the given assumptions (the THEN 
part of the statement).


The universality of this principle was vividly demonstrated by the 
recent Nobel Prize for Physics awarding –


A hundred years ago, Albert Einstein has predicted the existence of 
gravitational waves, but only the construction of the LIGO detector 
(implementing the if-then principles) made the observation of 
gravitational waves possible.


Information will become visible and palpable only when an if-then 
grounded probe (or an if-then grounded approach) will be devised and 
put in use.


Until then – long citations from Aristotle, Plato, Ortega, Leibnitz, 
alongside with extensive self-citations, will not help us to master 
the unavoidable if-then way of thinking.


Sincerely yours,

Emanuel.



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


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

[Fis] Principles of Information

[Emanuel Diamant]

Dear FISers,

 

I have heartily welcomed Pedro's initiative to work out some principles of
information definition quest. But the upsetting discussion unrolled around
the issue pushes me to restrain my support for the Pedro's proposal.  The
problem (in my understanding) is that FIS discussants are violating the
basic rule of any scientific discourse - the IF/THEN principle. 

We usually start our discourse with a hypothetic assumption (the IF part of
an argument) which is affirmed later by a supporting evidence or by a
prediction that holds under the given assumptions (the THEN part of the
statement). 

The universality of this principle was vividly demonstrated by the recent
Nobel Prize for Physics awarding - 

A hundred years ago, Albert Einstein has predicted the existence of
gravitational waves, but only the construction of the LIGO detector
(implementing the if-then principles) made the observation of gravitational
waves possible. 

Information will become visible and palpable only when an if-then grounded
probe (or an if-then grounded approach) will be devised and put in use.

Until then - long citations from Aristotle, Plato, Ortega, Leibnitz,
alongside with extensive self-citations, will not help us to master the
unavoidable if-then way of thinking.

 

Sincerely yours,

Emanuel. 

 

 

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

Re: [Fis] Principles of IS

[Michel Petitjean]

Dear Arturo, dear FISers,

Citing Beck (Contemp. Phys. 2009, 50, 495–510. doi:
10.1080/00107510902823517), Street wrote: << information can be
defined as a negation of thermodynamic entropy (Beck, 2009): I=-S >>
(pls. read the equal sign with three bars, I don't know how to type
the three bars sign).
But Beck wrote about information theory (i.e. the probabilistic one):
<<  One then defines the entropy S as ‘missing information’, i.e. S=-I
>>.
Thus it is not what claimed Street: (i) Beck referred to probability
theory (no thermodynamics there), and (ii) Beck defined S from I, not
I from S.
So the claim of Street is doubtful, if not false.
Bt the way, the Publisher of "Frontiers Systems in Neuroscience" was
classified as predatory in the Beall's list, but let us forget it.

Beck is in agreement to what is told on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory), << The
inspiration for adopting the word entropy in information theory came
from the close resemblance between Shannon's formula and very similar
known formulae from statistical mechanics. >>
As far as I know, what is related in the Wikipedia page is an historical fact.
Entropy has thus two meanings: a physical quantity in thermodynamics,
and a math quantity in the framework of modeling communication
science.
Information is also a math quantity in the framework of modeling
communication science: it is a modeling concept which is not physical.
Playing again with words, some people introduced the term information
back in thermodynamics, thus concluded that information is physical.
In my opinion it is not a good practice: it adds confusion.

Best regards,

Michel.

Michel Petitjean
MTi, INSERM UMR-S 973, University Paris 7,
35 rue Helene Brion, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France.
Phone: +331 5727 8434; Fax: +331 5727 8372
E-mail: petitjean.chi...@gmail.com (preferred),
michel.petitj...@univ-paris-diderot.fr
http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html

2017-09-29 14:01 GMT+02:00  :
> Dear FISers,
> Hi!
> ...a very hot discussion...
> I think that it is not useful to talk about Aristotle, Plato and Ortega y 
> Gasset, it the modern context of information... their phylosophical, not 
> scientific approach, although marvelous, does not provide insights in a 
> purely scientific issue such the information we are talking about...
>
> Once and forever, it must be clear that information is a physical quantity.
> Please read (it is not a paper of mine!):
> Street S.  2016.  Neurobiology as information physics.  Frontiers in Systems 
> neuroscience.
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5108784/
>
> In short, Street shows how information can be clearly defined in terms of 
> Bekenstein entropy!
>
> Sorry,
> and BW...
>
> Arturo Tozzi
> AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
> Pediatrician ASL Na2­Nord, Italy
> Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
> http://arturotozzi.w­ebnode.it/
>
> -

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

Re: [Fis] Principles of IS

[Michel Godron]

Dear Pedro,

" Rafael and  Michel are talking more about principles as general 
concepts". It is not exactly  what I meant, because the general 
principles (for example the principle of identity or the principle of 
non-contradiction)  are not exactly  "concepts".


Yet I agree with "the connection between Euclidean geometry and 
politics, biology, etc. is factually impossible."


In " the panorama of biological information" we could include the 
thermodynamical information gained by photosynthsis, the structural and 
biochemical information used by macromolecules self-reproducting and by 
the division of cellules in epigenetics, the strucutural and bionomical 
information of vegetal and animal communities. and the formal 
information used by humans in economy.


Cordialement.
M. Godron
Le 29/09/2017 à 12:55, Pedro C. Marijuan a écrit :


I also agree with Ji and John Torday about the tight relationship 
between information and communication. Actually Principle 5 was 
stating : "Communication/information exchanges among adaptive 
life-cycles underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all 
scales." However, let me suggest that we do not enter immediately in 
the discussion of cell-cell communication, because it is very 
important and perhaps demands some more exchanges on the preliminary 
info matters.


May I return to principles and Aristotle? I think that Rafael and 
Michel are talking more about principles as general concepts than 
about principles as those peculiar foundational items that allow the 
beginning of a new scientific discourse. Communication between 
principles of the different disciplines is factually impossible (or 
utterly irrelevant): think on the connection between Euclidean 
geometry and politics, biology, etc. I think Ortega makes right an 
interpretation about that. When Aristotle makes the first 
classification of the sciences, he is continuing with that very idea. 
Theoretical sciences, experimental or productive sciences, and applied 
or practical sciences--with an emphasis on the explanatory theoretical 
power of both physics and mathematics (ehm, Arturo will agree fully 
with him). I have revisited my old reading notes and I think that the 
Aristotelian confrontation with the Platonic approach to the unity of 
knowledge that Ortega comments is extremely interesting for our 
current debate on information principles.


There is another important aspect related to the first three 
principles in my original message (see at the bottom). It would be 
rather strategic to achieve a consensus on the futility of struggling 
for a universal information definition. Then, the tautology of the 
first principle ("info is info") is a way to sidestep that 
definitional aspect. Nevertheless, it is clear that interesting 
notions of information may be provided relative to some particular 
domains or endeavors. For instance, "propagating influence" by our 
colleague Bob Logan, Stuart Kauffman and others, and many other 
notions or partial definitions as well--I include my own "distinction 
on the adjacent" as valuable for the informational approach in 
biology. Is this "indefinability" an undesirable aspect? To put an 
example from physics, time appears as the most undefinable of the 
terms, but it shows up in almost all equations and theories of 
physics... Principle three means that one can do a lot of things with 
info without the need of defining it.


As for the subject that is usually coupled to the info term, as our 
discussion advances further, entering the "information flows" will 
tend to clarify things. The open-ended relationship with the 
environment that the "informational entities" maintain via the 
channeling of those info flows--it is a very special coupling 
indeed--allows these entities the further channeling of the "energy 
flows" for self-maintenance. Think on the living cells and their 
signaling systems, or think on our "info" societies. Harold Morowitz's 
"energy flow in biology" has not been paralleled yet by a similar 
"information flow in biology". One is optimistic that the recent 
incorporation of John Torday, plus Shungchul Ji and others, may lead 
to a thought-collective capable of illuminating the panorama of 
biological information.


(shouldn't we make an effort to incorporate other relevant parties, 
also interested in biological information, to this discussion?)


Best wishes--Pedro


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

Re: [Fis] Principles of IS

[Karl Javorszky]

processes, and *h* requires
> a pre-existing code or language that acts as the rule of mapping A and C.
>
>
> Again, just as generations of thermodynamicists in the 19-20th
> centuries have defined various kinds of "energies" (enthalpy, Helmholtz
> free energy, Gibbs free energy) applicable to different kinds of
> thermodynamic systems, so 'information scientists' of the 21st century  may
> have the golden opportunity to define as many kinds of 'informations' as
> needed for the different kinds of "communcation systems" of their interest,
> some examples of which being presented in Table 1.
>
>
> 
>
> Table 1.  A 'parametric' definition of information based on the values of
> the three nodes
> of the *ITR, *Figure 1.
>
> 
>
>
> *Communication system*   *A  B
>C *
> (Information)
>
> 
>
>
> *Cells  *   DNA/RNA
>  Proteins Chemcal reactions
> (Biological informations)
>   or chemical waves
>
> _________
>
>
> *Humans *   Sender
>Message   Receiver
> (Linguistic informations)
>
> _
>
> *Signs  *Object
>   RepresentamenInterpretant
> (Semiotic informations, or
>
> 'Universal informations' (?))
> __
>
>
> With all the best.
>
>
> Sung
>
>
> --
> *From:* Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es>
> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY <jtor...@ucla.edu> <jtor...@ucla.edu>
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:44:33 AM
> *To:* fis@listas.unizar.es
> *Subject:* [Fis] Principles of IS
>
> Dear Fis, I am a newcomer to this discussion, but suffice it to say that I
> have spent the last 20 years trying to understand how and why physiology
> has evolved. I stumbled upon your website because Pedro Maijuan had
> reviewed a paper of ours on 'ambiguity' that was recently published in
> Progr Biophys Mol Biol July 22, 2017 fiy.
> Cell-cell communication is the basis for molecular
> embryology/morphogenesis. This may seem tangential at best to your
> discussion of Information Science, but if you'll bear with me I will get to
> the point. In my (humble) opinion, information is the 'language' of
> evolution, but communication of information as a process is the mechanism.
> In my reduction of evolution as communication, it comes down to the
> interface between physics and biology, which was formed when the first cell
> delineated its internal environment (Claude Bernard, Walter B Cannon) from
> the outside environment. From that point on, the dialog between the
> environment and the organism has been on-going, the organism internalizing
> the external environment and compartmentalizing it to form what we
> recognize as physiology (Endosymbiosis Theory). Much of this thinking has
> come from new scientific evidence for Lamarckian epigenetic inheritance
> from my laboratory and that of many others- how the organism internalizes
> information from the environment by chemically changing the information in
> DNA in the egg and sperm, and then in the zygote and offspring, across
> generations. So here we have a fundamental reason to reconsider what
> 'information' actually means biologically. If you are interested in any of
> my publications on this subject please let me know (jtor...@ucla.edu).
> Thank you for any interest you may have in this alternative way of thinking
> about information, communication and evolution.
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing 
> listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>
> As promised herewith the "10 principles of information science". A couple
> of previous comments may be in order.
> First, what is in general the role of principles in science? I was
> motivated by the unfinished work of philosopher Ortega y Gasset, "The idea
> of principle in Leibniz and the evolution of deductive theory"
> (posthumously published in 1958). Our tentative information science seems
> to be very different from othe

Re: [Fis] Principles of IS

[tozziarturo]

>>                ^
>>>                                     |                      
>>>                |
>>>                                     |__|
>>>                                                           h
>>>
>>>Figure 1.  The Irreducible Triadic Relation ( ITR ) of
>>>C. S. Peirce (1839-21914) represented as a 3-node,  closed
>>>and directed network.  The arrows  form the  commutative
>>>  triangle  of category theory, i.e., operations  f followed by  
>>> g leads to the same result as operation h , here denoted as  fxg = h.  
>>>f = information production;  g = information
>>>interpretation;  h = correspondence or information
>>>flow.   Please note that Processes f and g are driven by
>>>exergonic physicochemical processes, and  h requires
>>>a pre-existing code or language that acts as the rule of
>>>mapping A and C.
>>>
>>>Again, just as generations of thermodynamicists in the
>>>19-20th centuries have defined various kinds of "energies"
>>>(enthalpy, Helmholtz free energy, Gibbs free
>>>energy) applicable to different kinds of thermodynamic
>>>systems, so 'information scientists' of the 21st century
>>> may have the golden opportunity to define as many kinds of
>>>'informations' as needed for the different kinds of
>>>"communcation systems" of their interest, some examples of
>>>which being presented in Table 1. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Table 1.  A 'parametric' definition of information based on
>>>the values of the three nodes 
>>>                of the  ITR,  Figure 1. 
>>>
>>>
>>>Communication system                 A            
>>>           B                                  C         
>>>(Information)                                       
>>>       
>>>
>>>
>>>Cells                                              
>>>  DNA/RNA        Proteins                     Chemcal
>>>reactions    
>>>(Biological informations)                                  
>>>                                                or chemical
>>>waves
>>>_
>>>
>>>Humans                                           
>>> Sender            Message                   Receiver
>>>(Linguistic informations)
>>>_
>>>
>>>Signs                                                
>>>  Object             Representamen        Interpretant
>>>(Semiotic informations, or  
>>>'Universal informations' (?))
>>>__
>>>
>>>With all the best.
>>>
>>>Sung
>>>
>>>--
>>>From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY  
>>><jtor...@ucla.edu>
>>>Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:44:33 AM
>>>To: fis@listas.unizar.es
>>>Subject: [Fis] Principles of IS
>>> 
>>>Dear Fis, I am a newcomer to this discussion,
>>>but suffice it to say that I have spent the last 20 years
>>>trying to understand how and why physiology has evolved. I
>>>stumbled upon your website because Pedro Maijuan had
>>>reviewed a paper of ours on 'ambiguity' that was recently
>>>published in Progr Biophys Mol Biol July 22, 2017 fiy.  
>>>Cell-cell communication is the basis for molecular
>>>embryology/morphogenesis. This may seem tangential at best
>>>to your discussion of Information Science, but if you'll
>>>bear with me I will get to the point. In my (humble)
>>>opinion, information is the 'language' of evolution, but
>>>communication of information as a process is the mechanis

Re: [Fis] Principles of IS

[Rafael Capurro]

ion flow in biology". One is optimistic that the recent 
incorporation of John Torday, plus Shungchul Ji and others, may lead 
to a thought-collective capable of illuminating the panorama of 
biological information.


(shouldn't we make an effort to incorporate other relevant parties, 
also interested in biological information, to this discussion?)


Best wishes--Pedro

El 23/09/2017 a las 21:27, Sungchul Ji escribió:


Hi Fisers,


I agree.

Communication may be the key concept in developing a theory of 
informaton.



Just as it is impossible to define what energy is without defining 
the thermodynamic system under consideration (e.g., energy is 
conserved only in an isolated system and not in closed or open 
systems; the Gibbs free energy content decreases only when 
a spontaneous process  occurs in non-isolsted systems with a constant 
temperature and pressure, etc), so it may be that 'information' 
cannot be defined rigorously without  first defining the 
"communication system" under consideration.   If this analogy is 
true, we can anticipate that, just as there are many different kinds 
of energies depending on the characteristics of the thermodynamic 
systems involved, so there may be many different kinds of 
'informations' depending on the nature of the communication systems 
under consideration.



The properties or behaviors of all thermodynamic systems depend on 
their environment, and there are three  system-environment relations 
-- (i) isolated (e.g., the Universe, or the thermos bottle), (ii) 
closed (e.g., refriegerator), and (iii) open (e.g., the biosphere, 
living cells).



It is interesting to note that, all communication systems (e.g., 
cell, organs, animals, humans) may embody ITR (Irreducible Triadic 
Relation) which I  found it convenient to represent diagramamatically 
using a 3-node network arrows as shown below:



/ f   g/

*A* --> *B *-> *C*
 | ^
 | |
 |__|
/h/


Figure 1.  The Irreducible Triadic Relation (*ITR*) of C. S. Peirce 
(1839-21914) represented as a 3-node,  closed and directed network. 
 The arrows  form the /commutative triangle /of category theory, 
i.e., operations /f/ followed by /g/ leads to the same result as 
operation /h/, here denoted as /fxg = h./


/f/ = information production; /g/ = information interpretation; /h/ = 
correspondence or information flow.   Please note that Processes f 
and g are driven by exergonic physicochemical processes, and /h/ 
requires a pre-existing code or language that acts as the rule of 
mapping A and C.



Again, just as generations of thermodynamicists in the 19-20th 
centuries have defined various kinds of "energies" (enthalpy, 
Helmholtz free energy, Gibbs free energy) applicable to different 
kinds of thermodynamic systems, so 'information scientists' of the 
21st century  may have the golden opportunity to define as many kinds 
of 'informations' as needed for the different kinds of "communcation 
systems" of their interest, some examples of which being presented in 
Table 1.





Table 1.  A 'parametric' definition of information based on the 
values of the three nodes

of the *ITR, *Figure 1.




*Communication system* *A  B  C *
(Information)**




/Cells /   DNA/RNAProteins Chemcal reactions
(Biological informations) 
or chemical waves


_


/Humans /  SenderMessage   Receiver
(Linguistic informations)

_

/Signs /   Object RepresentamenInterpretant
(Semiotic informations, or

'Universal informations' (?))
__


With all the best.


Sung



*From:* Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY 
<jtor...@ucla.edu>

*Sent:* Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:44:33 AM
*To:* fis@listas.unizar.es
*Subject:* [Fis] Principles of IS
Dear Fis, I am a newcomer to this discussion, but suffice it to say 
that I have spent the last 20 years trying to understand how and why 
physiology has evolved. I stumbled upon your website because Pedro 
Maijuan had reviewed a paper of ours on 'ambiguity' that was recently 
published in Progr Biophys Mol Biol July 22, 2017 fiy.
Cell-cell communication is the basis for molecular 
embryology/mo

Re: [Fis] Principles of IS

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

mmunication systems (e.g., cell, 
organs, animals, humans) may embody ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation) 
which I  found it convenient to represent diagramamatically using a 
3-node network arrows as shown below:



/ f g/

*A* --> *B *-> *C*
 |   ^
 |   |
 |__|
/h/


Figure 1.  The Irreducible Triadic Relation (*ITR*) of C. S. Peirce 
(1839-21914) represented as a 3-node,  closed and directed network. 
 The arrows  form the /commutative triangle /of category theory, i.e., 
operations /f/ followed by /g/ leads to the same result as operation 
/h/, here denoted as /fxg = h./


/f/ = information production; /g/ = information interpretation; /h/ = 
correspondence or information flow.   Please note that Processes f and 
g are driven by exergonic physicochemical processes, and /h/ requires 
a pre-existing code or language that acts as the rule of mapping A and C.



Again, just as generations of thermodynamicists in the 19-20th 
centuries have defined various kinds of "energies" (enthalpy, 
Helmholtz free energy, Gibbs free energy) applicable to different 
kinds of thermodynamic systems, so 'information scientists' of the 
21st century  may have the golden opportunity to define as many kinds 
of 'informations' as needed for the different kinds of "communcation 
systems" of their interest, some examples of which being presented in 
Table 1.





Table 1.  A 'parametric' definition of information based on the values 
of the three nodes

of the *ITR, *Figure 1.




*Communication system* *AB  C *
(Information)**




/Cells / DNA/RNAProteins Chemcal reactions
(Biological informations) 
  or chemical waves


_


/Humans /  SenderMessage   Receiver
(Linguistic informations)

_

/Signs / Object RepresentamenInterpretant
(Semiotic informations, or

'Universal informations' (?))
__


With all the best.


Sung



*From:* Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY 
<jtor...@ucla.edu>

*Sent:* Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:44:33 AM
*To:* fis@listas.unizar.es
*Subject:* [Fis] Principles of IS
Dear Fis, I am a newcomer to this discussion, but suffice it to say 
that I have spent the last 20 years trying to understand how and why 
physiology has evolved. I stumbled upon your website because Pedro 
Maijuan had reviewed a paper of ours on 'ambiguity' that was recently 
published in Progr Biophys Mol Biol July 22, 2017 fiy.
Cell-cell communication is the basis for molecular 
embryology/morphogenesis. This may seem tangential at best to your 
discussion of Information Science, but if you'll bear with me I will 
get to the point. In my (humble) opinion, information is the 
'language' of evolution, but communication of information as a process 
is the mechanism. In my reduction of evolution as communication, it 
comes down to the interface between physics and biology, which was 
formed when the first cell delineated its internal environment (Claude 
Bernard, Walter B Cannon) from the outside environment. From that 
point on, the dialog between the environment and the organism has been 
on-going, the organism internalizing the external environment and 
compartmentalizing it to form what we recognize as physiology 
(Endosymbiosis Theory). Much of this thinking has come from new 
scientific evidence for Lamarckian epigenetic inheritance from my 
laboratory and that of many others- how the organism internalizes 
information from the environment by chemically changing the 
information in DNA in the egg and sperm, and then in the zygote and 
offspring, across generations. So here we have a fundamental reason to 
reconsider what 'information' actually means biologically. If you are 
interested in any of my publications on this subject please let me 
know (jtor...@ucla.edu <mailto:jtor...@ucla.edu>). Thank you for any 
interest you may have in this alternative way of thinking about 
information, communication and evolution.



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



Dear FIS Colleagues,

As promised herewith the "10 principles of information scie

Re: [Fis] Principles of IS

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi Fisers,


I agree.

Communication may be the key concept in developing a theory of informaton.


Just as it is impossible to define what energy is without defining the 
thermodynamic system under consideration (e.g., energy is conserved only in an 
isolated system and not in closed or open systems; the Gibbs free energy 
content decreases only when a spontaneous process  occurs in non-isolsted 
systems with a constant temperature and pressure, etc), so it may be that 
'information' cannot be defined rigorously without  first defining the 
"communication system" under consideration.   If this analogy is true, we can 
anticipate that, just as there are many different kinds of energies depending 
on the characteristics of the thermodynamic systems involved, so there may be 
many different kinds of 'informations' depending on the nature of the 
communication systems under consideration.


The properties or behaviors of all thermodynamic systems depend on their 
environment, and there are three  system-environment relations -- (i) isolated 
(e.g., the Universe, or the thermos bottle), (ii) closed (e.g., refriegerator), 
and (iii) open (e.g., the biosphere, living cells).


It is interesting to note that, all communication systems (e.g., cell, organs, 
animals, humans) may embody ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation) which I  found 
it convenient to represent diagramamatically using a 3-node network arrows as 
shown below:


 f   g

A -->  B ->  C
 |   ^
 |   |
 |__|
  h


Figure 1.  The Irreducible Triadic Relation (ITR) of C. S. Peirce (1839-21914) 
represented as a 3-node,  closed and directed network.  The arrows  form the 
commutative triangle of category theory, i.e., operations f followed by g leads 
to the same result as operation h, here denoted as fxg = h.

f = information production; g = information interpretation; h = correspondence 
or information flow.   Please note that Processes f and g are driven by 
exergonic physicochemical processes, and h requires a pre-existing code or 
language that acts as the rule of mapping A and C.


Again, just as generations of thermodynamicists in the 19-20th centuries have 
defined various kinds of "energies" (enthalpy, Helmholtz free energy, Gibbs 
free energy) applicable to different kinds of thermodynamic systems, so 
'information scientists' of the 21st century  may have the golden opportunity 
to define as many kinds of 'informations' as needed for the different kinds of 
"communcation systems" of their interest, some examples of which being 
presented in Table 1.





Table 1.  A 'parametric' definition of information based on the values of the 
three nodes
of the ITR, Figure 1.




Communication system   A  B 
 C
(Information)




Cells DNA/RNAProteins   
  Chemcal reactions
(Biological informations)   
or chemical waves

_


HumansSenderMessage 
  Receiver
(Linguistic informations)

_


Signs  Object 
RepresentamenInterpretant
(Semiotic informations, or

'Universal informations' (?))
__


With all the best.


Sung



From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY 
<jtor...@ucla.edu>
Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:44:33 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] Principles of IS

Dear Fis, I am a newcomer to this discussion, but suffice it to say that I have 
spent the last 20 years trying to understand how and why physiology has 
evolved. I stumbled upon your website because Pedro Maijuan had reviewed a 
paper of ours on 'ambiguity' that was recently published in Progr Biophys Mol 
Biol July 22, 2017 fiy.
Cell-cell communication is the basis for molecular embryology/morphogenesis. 
This may seem tangential at best to your discussion of Information Science, but 
if you'll bear with me I will get to

[Fis] Principles of IS

[JOHN TORDAY]

Dear Fis, I am a newcomer to this discussion, but suffice it to say that I
have spent the last 20 years trying to understand how and why physiology
has evolved. I stumbled upon your website because Pedro Maijuan had
reviewed a paper of ours on 'ambiguity' that was recently published in
Progr Biophys Mol Biol July 22, 2017 fiy.
Cell-cell communication is the basis for molecular
embryology/morphogenesis. This may seem tangential at best to your
discussion of Information Science, but if you'll bear with me I will get to
the point. In my (humble) opinion, information is the 'language' of
evolution, but communication of information as a process is the mechanism.
In my reduction of evolution as communication, it comes down to the
interface between physics and biology, which was formed when the first cell
delineated its internal environment (Claude Bernard, Walter B Cannon) from
the outside environment. From that point on, the dialog between the
environment and the organism has been on-going, the organism internalizing
the external environment and compartmentalizing it to form what we
recognize as physiology (Endosymbiosis Theory). Much of this thinking has
come from new scientific evidence for Lamarckian epigenetic inheritance
from my laboratory and that of many others- how the organism internalizes
information from the environment by chemically changing the information in
DNA in the egg and sperm, and then in the zygote and offspring, across
generations. So here we have a fundamental reason to reconsider what
'information' actually means biologically. If you are interested in any of
my publications on this subject please let me know (jtor...@ucla.edu).
Thank you for any interest you may have in this alternative way of thinking
about information, communication and evolution.
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] PRINCIPLES OF IS

[Krassimir Markov]

remarks are written in red


Bien reçu votre message. MERCI. Cordialement. M. Godron
Le 20/09/2017 à 13:54, Pedro C. Marijuan a écrit :

Dear FISers,

Many thanks for all the comments and criticisms. Beyond concrete
agreements/disagreements the discussion is lively, and that is the main
point. It is complicate pointing at some fundamental, ultimate reality
based on disciplinary claims. Putting it differently, the hierarchies
between scientific disciplines were fashionable particularly in the
reductionism times; but now fortunately those decades (70s, 80s) are far
away. Actually, the new views taking shape are not far from the term
"knowledge recombination" that appears in some of the principles
discussed. Modern research could be typified by being: curiosity-led,
technologically driven, multi-scaled, interdisciplinary, and integrative
(paraphrasing Cuthill et al., 2017). Contemporary philosophers like John
Dupré have dealt with some soft "perspectivism" but they do not deal with
the disciplinary recombination rigorously. I think this is one of the main
concerns of our nascent info-science.
Rafael in his message enters into some undergrounds of the idea of
Principles/Methods/Explanations in the way Ortega discusses it for
Leibnitz. That book is particularly dense, and I am not aware of
interesting synthesis about it. One of its early claims is that Principles
have to be evident (intuitive for Husserl), useful for verification and
for the construction of logical proofs, and further they  have to open
"new ways of thinking" ("modos de pensar" for Ortega).I fully agree.  For
Leibnitz, according to Ortega, "thinking is proving" so the classical
emphasis was on the logical power of principles. Leibniz has built une
"combinatoire" calculable .But their capability to support an inspiring
new way of thinking was ignored or just left implicit. Leibniz has largely
developed new ways of thinking, mainly in his Théodicée.  ! And this is a
big problem not only in our field but in many multidisciplinary endeavors:
excellent research ideas are accompanied by really vulgar "metaphysics"
(or better, metadisciplinary views). See for instance the Big Data
research on so-called "social physics". Or the excellent book on "Scale"
recently published (great at climbing from atoms to cells, organisms,
enterprises, and cities; but really poor in the multifarious
information/communication underlying worlds). The book Ecologie et
évolution du monde vivant showed how Brillouin's  information helps to
understand  Life at all scales by self-organization. Would you like that I
send two or three pages explaining that in my poor english ?
Anyhow, these are superficial comments inspired by the many excellent
messages exchanged. There is a self-organization of the discussion taking
place, and it is nice that we are concentrating discussion on the 3 first
principles, somehow devoted to information per se. Once we smash these
topics, we may go for the biologically related (principles 4-6), later on
for the recombination and ecology of knowledge (principles 7-9), and
finally for the ethical goals of our new science efforts, as Joseph has
commented (principle 10).

Best whishes to all
--Pedro


The El 19/09/2017 a las 11:30, Pedro C. Marijuan escribió:

 Mensaje reenviado 

Asunto:  Re: [Fis] PRINCIPLES OF IS
Fecha:  Tue, 19 Sep 2017 09:21:51 +0200
De:  Rafael Capurro mailto:raf...@capurro.de
Responder a:  raf...@capurro.de
Para:  Pedro C. Marijuan mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es



Dear Pedro,

a short comment to your intro to the 10 principles: I very much agree with
your views (following Ortega) that information science can be conceived as
a multifaceted or "multifarious" network of concepts and theories dealing
phenomena partly related partly not (yet) related with each other for
which we need different languages/concepts and 'translations' and kinds of
calculations also with regard to their goals and 'utility'.

If this makes sense, then we should try to develop some kind of
'principles' or 'archai' in the Greek sense, i.e., of 'initial forces'
that give rise to possibilities of 'un-concealing' different kinds of
phenomena that we could not see when disregarding other paths or by not
entering through other 'portals' each portal announcing different kinds of
what makes sense or not when entering the path.

Sometimes it makes sense to go up and see the landscapes from the top,
knowing that this view(s) from the top also conceal a lot of things on the
bottom. It is easiear to understand these 'principles' if we have
experience with walking in the mountains (but also in other natural and
artificial environments like a forest, a desert, cities etc.). Maybe we
could learn from such experiences which kind of 'principles' are to be
conssidered in the 'methods' (hodos = path)  of scientific research.

So, my suggestion is to invite 

[Fis] Principles of IS

[Emanuel Diamant]

 

Dear Pedro, Dear FIS Colleagues, 

 

I heartily welcome Pedro's attempt to discipline our discussion on
Principles that underpin our engagement with information studies. After all,
the prime and most important purpose of our discussions is to find out the
right and the all-embracing definition about what is information.

 

In this regard, it seems to me as a principle failure that Pedro's list does
not mention (in its first lines) the duality of the information's nature,
the Physical and Semantic information dichotomy as the core notion of
information. 

 

This duality is not my quirk - Shannon was quite aware about it from the
very beginning. But (as a great man and a great scientist) he restricted
himself only to Physical information studies - "It is important to
emphasize, at the start, that we are not concerned with the meaning or the
truth of messages; semantics lies outside the scope of mathematical
information theory". These days we cannot allow ourselves not to take into
account the information duality.  

 

I know how unfriendly my FIS colleagues are to this standpoint (of mine).
Therefore, I will not bother you with further arguments in its favor -
interested people are invited to see my publications on the Research Gate
page: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emanuel_Diamant/contributions 

 

My best wishes and warmest greetings for the coming frighten days of the
Jewish New Year.

 

Sincerely yours,

Emanuel.

 

 

 

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

Re: [Fis] PRINCIPLES OF IS

[ZouXiaohui]

a pair of information for any brain and any computer and any kind of another 
body


iPhone

-- Original --
From: ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com>
Date: ,9?? 16,2017 8:15 
To: Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>, fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>, 
deacon <dea...@berkeley.edu>
Cc: ?? <yanj...@ucas.ac.cn>
Subject: Re: [Fis] PRINCIPLES OF IS




0-10zou's view PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION SCIENCE

0??its unit??. a bit of it ??in information theory??or a pair of it??Xiaohui 
ZOU??

1??three basic categories??. Information is information, neither matter nor 
energy.

2??form of it??. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns, 
messages, or flows.

3??it both for Brain and computer??. Information can be recognized, can be 
measured, and can be  processed (either computationally or non-computationally).

4??and for life??. Information flows are essential organizers of life's 
self-production processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the 
accompanying energy flows.

5??it can inform between bodies or from one to another??. 
Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles underlie the 
complexity of biological organizations at all scales.

6??it main form as language??. It is symbolic language what conveys the 
essential communication exchanges of the human species--and constitutes the 
core of its "social nature." 

7??it can be known??. Human information may be systematically converted into 
efficient knowledge, by following the "knowledge instinct" and further up by 
applying rigorous methodologies.

8??but it difficulty to know all about it??. Human cognitive limitations on 
knowledge accumulation are partially overcome via the social organization of 
"knowledge ecologies." 


9??it is helpful for creativity??. Knowledge circulates and recombines 
socially, in a continuous actualization that involves "creative destruction" of 
fields and disciplines: the intellectual Ars Magna. 


10??see it in scientific way??. Information science proposes a new, radical 
vision on the information and knowledge flows that support individual lives, 
with profound consequences for scientific-philosophical practice and for social 
governance. 



iPhone

-- Original --
From: Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
Date: ????,9?? 15,2017 8:15 
To: 'fis' <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [Fis] PRINCIPLES OF IS



   Dear FIS Colleagues,
 
 As promised herewith the "10 principles of information science". A 
couple of previous comments may be in order. 
 First, what is in general the role of principles in science? I was 
motivated by the unfinished work of philosopher Ortega y Gasset, "The idea 
of principle in Leibniz and the evolution of deductive theory" 
(posthumously published in 1958). Our tentative information science seems 
to be very different from other sciences, rather multifarious in appearance 
and concepts, and cavalierly moving from scale to scale. What could be the 
specific role of principles herein? Rather than opening homogeneous realms 
for conceptual development, these information principles would appear as a 
sort of "portals" that connect with essential topics of other disciplines 
in the different organization layers, but at the same time they should 
try to be consistent with each other and provide a coherent vision of the 
information world.
 And second, about organizing the present discussion, I bet I was too 
optimistic with the commentators scheme. In any case, for having a first 
glance on the whole scheme, the opinions of philosophers would be very 
interesting. In order to warm up the discussion, may I ask John Collier, 
Joseph Brenner and Rafael Capurro to send some initial comments / 
criticisms? Later on, if the commentators idea flies, Koichiro Matsuno and 
Wolfgang Hofkirchner would be very valuable voices to put a perspectival 
end to this info principles discussion (both attended the Madrid bygone FIS 
1994 conference)... 
 But this is FIS list, unpredictable in between the frozen states and 
the chaotic states! So, everybody is invited to get ahead at his own, with 
the only customary limitation of two messages per week.
 
 Best wishes, have a good weekend --Pedro
 
 
10 PRINCIPLES   OF INFORMATION SCIENCE
 
1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy.
 
2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns,   messages, or 
flows.
 
3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can beprocessed 
(either computationally or non-computationally).
 
4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's   self-production 
processes--an

[Fis] PRINCIPLES OF IS

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear FIS Colleagues,

As promised herewith the "10 principles of information science". A 
couple of previous comments may be in order.
First, what is in general the role of principles in science? I was 
motivated by the unfinished work of philosopher Ortega y Gasset, "The 
idea of principle in Leibniz and the evolution of deductive theory" 
(posthumously published in 1958). Our tentative information science 
seems to be very different from other sciences, rather multifarious in 
appearance and concepts, and cavalierly moving from scale to scale. What 
could be the specific role of principles herein? Rather than opening 
homogeneous realms for conceptual development, these information 
principles would appear as a sort of "portals" that connect with 
essential topics of other disciplines in the different organization 
layers, but at the same time they should try to be consistent with each 
other and provide a coherent vision of the information world.
And second, about organizing the present discussion, I bet I was too 
optimistic with the commentators scheme. In any case, for having a first 
glance on the whole scheme, the opinions of philosophers would be very 
interesting. In order to warm up the discussion, may I ask John Collier, 
Joseph Brenner and Rafael Capurro to send some initial comments / 
criticisms? Later on, if the commentators idea flies, Koichiro Matsuno 
and Wolfgang Hofkirchner would be very valuable voices to put a 
perspectival end to this info principles discussion (both attended the 
Madrid bygone FIS 1994 conference)...
But this is FIS list, unpredictable in between the frozen states and the 
chaotic states! So, everybody is invited to get ahead at his own, with 
the only customary limitation of two messages per week.


Best wishes, have a good weekend --Pedro

*10 **PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION SCIENCE*

1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy.

2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns, messages, or 
flows.


3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can be processed 
(either computationally or non-computationally).


4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's self-production 
processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying 
energy flows.


5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles 
underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all scales.


6. It is symbolic language what conveys the essential communication 
exchanges of the human species--and constitutes the core of its "social 
nature."


7. Human information may be systematically converted into efficient 
knowledge, by following the "knowledge instinct" and further up by 
applying rigorous methodologies.


8. Human cognitive limitations on knowledge accumulation are partially 
overcome via the social organization of "knowledge ecologies."


9. Knowledge circulates and recombines socially, in a continuous 
actualization that involves "creative destruction" of fields and 
disciplines: the intellectual /Ars Magna./


10. Information science proposes a new, radical vision on the 
information and knowledge flows that support individual lives, with 
profound consequences for scientific-philosophical practice and for 
social governance.


--
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

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