Dear Sung, One J/K corresponds to 1.045×1023 bits. Indeed, The Gibbs entropy formula states that thermodynamic entropy S equals kB*sum[pi*ln(1/pi)], with units of J/K, where kB is the Boltzmann constant and pi is the probability of microstate i. On the other hand, the Shannon entropy is defined as H = sum[pi*log2(1/pi)], with units of bits. With the same probability mass function, you can see that H = S/(ln(2)*kB), so setting S = 1J/K gives a Shannon entropy of 1.045×1023 bits. On the other side, The energy consumption per bit of data on the Internet is around 75 μJ at low access rates and decreases to around 2-4 μJ at an access rate of 100 Mb/s. see: http://www.ing.unitn.it/~fontana/GreenInternet/Recent%20Papers%20and%20p2p/Baliga_Ayre_Hinton_Sorin_Tucker_JLT0.pdf
Futher, according to Landauer's theory, a minimum amount of heat – roughly 10–21 J per erased bit – must be dissipated when information is destroyed.http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/mar/12/wiping-data-will-cost-you-energy In other words, summarizing, if you use the free energy to assess the information, it works the same, giving a quantifiable value. Arturo TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ ----Messaggio originale---- Da: "Sungchul Ji" <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu> Data: 12/10/2017 22.08 A: "Francesco Rizzo"<13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>, "Pedro C. Marijuan"<pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> Cc: "fis@listas.unizar.es >> fis@listas.unizar.es"<fis@listas.unizar.es> Ogg: Re: [Fis] A PROPOSAL ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF INFORMATION --> Hi FISers, The following statement cannot be true. "a proposal: information might stand for free energy." Fore one thing, the unit of information is bits and that of energy is cal or erg. The proper relation between information and energy (including free energy) may be complementarity, just as is the relation between wave and particle. According to the ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation) model of of signs and communication, information and energy are entangled in the sense that both are irreplaceably implicated in the process of communication. Both information and energy are needed for communication, the minimum energy cost of transmitting one bit of information being ~ 0.6 Kcal/mole, according to Shannon. All the best. Sung From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 3:00 AM To: Pedro C. Marijuan Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es >> fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] A PROPOSAL ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF INFORMATION Caro Pedro e cari tutti, gli ingressi e le uscite delle cellule viventi con l'ambiente, non sono altro che materia, energia e informazione che entrano (INPUT) ed escono (OUTPUT) dando luogo al processo di TRAS-IN-FORM-AZIONE che ho elaborato nella Nuova Economia a proposito dei sistemi produttivi entropici (energia degradata o dis-informazione) e neg-entropici (energia libera o informazione) che hanno un carattere generale. Tanto è vero che circa 20 anni fa ho applicato e riferito alla cellula che stabilisce con l'ambiente (biologico-naturale) un rapporto simile a quello che l'intrapresa (azienda) stabilisce con l'ambiente (sociale-economico). In fondo la bio-chimica e l'economia risultano complementari nella vita degli uomini la cui esistenza e conoscenza possono ben comprendersi secondo la onto-logica empirica o concreta, altrimenti detta LIR, che la generosità di Joseph Brenner ha intravisto anche nella mia analisi scientifica. Purtroppo questa problematica, ben espressa e sintetizzata dal processo di TRAS-IN-FORM-AZIONE e più volte oggetto di confronto e discussione nel dibattito Fis, è poco conosciuta perchè si ritrova esposta in una ventina dei miei libri scritti in italiano. Comunque il TEMPO è (sempre galantuomo e fornisce) l'INFORMAZIONE giusta svolgendo la funzione della LINGUA delle LINGUE che tutti possono com-prendere, prima o poi. Grazie, per l'opportunità che mi date a partire da Pedro che ha il grande merito dell'iniziazione-mediazione in tal senso. Un abbraccio, Francesco Rizzo. 2017-10-11 14:30 GMT+02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>: Dear Arturo and colleagues, I think that relating information to free energy can be a good idea. I am not sure whether the expressions derived from Gibbs free energy (below) have sufficient generality; at least they work very well for chemical reactions. And it is in the biomolecular (chemical) realm where the big divide between "animate information" and "inanimate information" occurs. In that sense, I include herein the scheme we have just published of prokaryotic cells in their management of the "information flow". In a next message I will make suggestions on how the mapping of biological information may conduce to a more general approach that includes the other varieties of information (anthropocentric, physical, chemical, cosmological, etc). Biological information is the most fundamental and radical track to unite the different approaches! Best--Pedro Pedro C. Marijuán, Jorge Navarro, Raquel del Moral. How prokaryotes ‘encode’ their environment: Systemic tools for organizing the information flow. Biosystems. October 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2017.10.002 Abstract An important issue related to code biology concerns the cell’s informational relationships with the environment. As an open self-producing system, a great variety of inputs and outputs are necessary for the living cell, not only consisting of matter and energy but also involving information flows. The analysis here of the simplest cells will involve two basic aspects. On the one side, the molecular apparatuses of the prokaryotic signaling system, with all its variety of environmental signals and component pathways (which have been called 1–2-3 Component Systems), including the role of a few second messengers which have been pointed out in bacteria too. And in the other side, the gene transcription system as depending not only on signaling inputs but also on a diversity of factors. Amidst the continuum of energy, matter, and information flows, there seems to be evidence for signaling codes, mostly established around the arrangement of life-cycle stages, in large metabolic changes, or in the relationships with conspecifics (quorum sensing) and within microbial ecosystems. Additionally, and considering the complexity growth of signaling systems from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, four avenues or “roots” for the advancement of such complexity would come out. A comparative will be established in between the signaling strategies and organization of both kinds of cellular systems. Finally, a new characterization of “informational architectures” will be proposed in order to explain the coding spectrum of both prokaryotic and eukaryotic signaling systems. Among other evolutionary aspects, cellular strategies for the construction of novel functional codes via the intermixing of informational architectures could be related to the persistence of retro-elements with obvious viral ancestry. ------------------------------------------- El 10/10/2017 a las 11:14, tozziart...@libero.it escribió: Dear FISers, a proposal: information might stand for free energy. Indeed, we know that, for an engine: enthalpy = free energy + entropy x temperature. At a fixed temperature, enthalpy = free energy +entropy The information detected (from an environmental object) by an observer is not the total possible one (the enthalpy encompassed in the object), but just a part, i.e., the part that it is not uncertain for him (the free energy). Hence, every observer, depending on his peculiar features, detects a different amont of free energy and does not detect the uncertain part (the entropy). Arturo Tozzi AA Professor Physics, University North Texas Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ ----Messaggio originale---- Da: "Christophe Menant" <christophe.men...@hotmail.fr> Data: 10/10/2017 11.01 A: "dea...@berkeley.edu"<dea...@berkeley.edu> Cc: "fis@listas.unizar.es"<fis@listas.unizar.es> Ogg: [Fis] TR: Data - Reflection - Information Thanks for these comments Terry. We should indeed be careful not to focus too much on language because 'meaning' is not limited to human communication. And also because starting at basic life level allows to address 'meaning' without the burden of complex performances like self-consciousness or free will. (The existing bias on language may come from analytic philosophy initially dealing with human performances). Interestingly, a quite similar comment may apply to continental philosophy where the 'aboutness' of a mental state was invented for human consciousness. And this is of some importance for us because 'intentionality' is close to 'meaning'. Happily enough 'bio-intentionality' is slowly becoming an acceptable entity (https://philpapers.org/rec/MENBAM-2). Regarding Peirce, I'm a bit careful about using the triadic approach in FIS because non human life was not a key subject for him and also because the Interpreter which creates the meaning of the sign (the Interpretant) does not seem that much explicited or detailed. The divisions you propose look interesting (intrinsic, referential, normative). Would it be possible to read more on that (sorry if I have missed some of your posts)? Best Christophe De : Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> de la part de Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu> Envoyé : lundi 9 octobre 2017 02:30 À : Sungchul Ji Cc : foundationofinformationscience Objet : Re: [Fis] Data - Reflection - Information Against "meaning" I think that there is a danger of allowing our anthropocentrism to bias the discussion. I worry that the term 'meaning' carries too much of a linguistic bias. By this I mean that it is too attractive to use language as our archtypical model when we talk about information. Language is rather the special case, the most unusual communicative adaptation to ever have evolved, and one that grows out of and depends on informationa/semiotic capacities shared with other species and with biology in general. So I am happy to see efforts to bring in topics like music or natural signs like thunderstorms and would also want to cast the net well beyond humans to include animal calls, scent trails, and molecular signaling by hormones. And it is why I am more attracted to Peirce and worried about the use of Saussurean concepts. Words and sentences can indeed provide meanings (as in Frege's Sinn - "sense" - "intension") and may also provide reference (Frege's Bedeutung - "reference" - "extension"), but I think that it is important to recognize that not all signs fit this model. Moreover, A sneeze is often interpreted as evidence about someone's state of health, and a clap of thunder may indicate an approaching storm. These can also be interpreted differently by my dog, but it is still information about something, even though I would not say that they mean something to that interpreter. Both of these phenomena can be said to provide reference to something other than that sound itself, but when we use such phrases as "it means you have a cold" or "that means that a storm is approaching" we are using the term "means" somewhat metaphorically (most often in place of the more accurate term "indicates"). And it is even more of a stretch to use this term with respect to pictures or diagrams. So no one would say the a specific feature like the ears in a caricatured face mean something. Though if the drawing is employed in a political cartoon e.g. with exaggerated ears and the whole cartoon is assigned a meaning then perhaps the exaggeration of this feature may become meaningful. And yet we would probably agree that every line of the drawing provides information contributing to that meaning. So basically, I am advocating an effort to broaden our discussions and recognize that the term information applies in diverse ways to many different contexts. And because of this it is important to indicate the framing, whether physical, formal, biological, phenomenological, linguistic, etc. For this reason, as I have suggested before, I would love to have a conversation in which we try to agree about which different uses of the information concept are appropriate for which contexts. The classic syntax-semantics-pragmatics distinction introduced by Charles Morris has often been cited in this respect, though it too is in my opinion too limited to the linguistic paradigm, and may be misleading when applied more broadly. I have suggested a parallel, less linguistic (and nested in Stan's subsumption sense) way of making the division: i.e. into intrinsic, referential, and normative analyses/properties of information. Thus you can analyze intrinsic properties of an informing medium [e.g. Shannon etc etc] irrespective of these other properties, but can't make sense of referential properties [e.g. what something is about, conveys] without considering intrinsic sign vehicle properties, and can't deal with normative properties [e.g. use value, contribution to function, significance, accuracy, truth] without also considering referential properties [e.g. what it is about]. In this respect, I am also in agreement with those who have pointed out that whenever we consider referential and normative properties we must also recognize that these are not intrinsic and are interpretation-relative. Nevertheless, these are legitimate and not merely subjective or nonscientific properties, just not physically intrinsic. I am sympathetic with those among us who want to restrict analysis to intrinsic properties alone, and who defend the unimpeachable value that we have derived from the formal foundations that Shannon's original analysis initiated, but this should not be used to deny the legitimacy of attempting to develop a more general theory of information that also attempts to discover formal principles underlying these higher level properties implicit in the concept. I take this to be the intent behind Pedro's list. And I think it would be worth asking for each of his points: Which information paradigm within this hoierarchy does it assume? — Terry _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis -- ------------------------------------------------- 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
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
