Re: [Fis] non-living objects COULD NOT “exchange information”

2017-03-28 Thread Francesco Rizzo 
Caro John,
è sempre un grande piacere leggerti e seguire la teleologica dei tuoi
interventi. In questa stessa logica ritengo che si situino le seguenti
altre considerazioni che completano la e-mail trasmessa ai colleghi qualche
giorno fa.

   1.
   
<https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:L0SsRsEzxIEJ:https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolismo+&cd=2&hl=it&ct=clnk&gl=it>
   2.
   
<https://www.google.it/search?espv=2&biw=1366&bih=638&q=related:https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolismo+Anabolismo+e+catabolismo&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimjtmj6PjSAhXCJJoKHdD4DnYQHwgkMAE>

L'anabolismo o biosintesi è una delle due parti del metabolismo e comprende
l'insieme dei processi di sintesi o bio-formazione delle molecole organiche
(bio-molecole) più complesse da quelle più semplici o dalle sostanze
nutritive. Questi processi richiedono energia, al contrario del catabolismo .
Invece con il
 termine catabolismo si intende l'insieme dei processi metabolici che hanno
come prodotti sostanze strutturalmente
 più semplici e povere di energia, liberando quella in eccesso sotto forma
di energia chimica (ATP) ed energia termica.
Non per niente la mia "Nuova economia" adotta una teoria del valore basata
sulla combinazione creativa di energia e/o
informazione. Difatti il mio processo di tras-in-form-azione, sul quale ci
siamo intrattenuti negli anni scorsi, è anabolico (o neg-entropico),
mentre il mio processo di tras-in-de-form-azione è catabolico (o entropico).
Per quanto riguarda il cosiddetto mondo inorganico, ad esempio quello dei
beni culturali, ho scritto:

 "L'ateniese Takis intende l'opera d'arte come simbolo di energia. S.
Hawking, rivedendo la sua teoria sostiene che i buchi neri
 non si limitano a perdere massa attraverso una radiazione di energia, ma
evaporano o rilasciano informazione. Essi non distruggono
 mai completamente quello che fagocitano. Con-tengono un'informazione, non
casuale e indefinibile, sulla materia di cui sono fatti
che con-sente di predirne il futuro. (...) In tal modo i buchi neri non
evaporano o irradiano un'energia invisibile o enigmatica priva di
 informazione come se fossero  delle inafferrabili e indecidibili entità
cosmiche, e non sfuggono alla (mia) super-legge della combinazione
 creativa (anche se stavolta stupefacente) di energia e in-formazione. I
buchi neri possono considerarsi quindi come speciali scatole
 nere o magici processi di tras-informazione produttivi (i cui "input" e
"output" sono materia, energia e informazione) e prospettici" ( Rizzo
F., "Un'economia della speranza per la città multi-etnica", FrancoAngeli,
Milano, 2007, pp. 312-313).

Quindi, con metodi analitici e processi intellettuali ragionevoli ho,
almeno in una dozzina dei miei libri, esposto questo
 convincimento coerente con il mio pensiero economico che non contiene o
presenta alcune verità assolute ed è aperto ad ogni critica.
 E in particolare ho dimostrato di avere anticipato di circa vent'anni quel che
Hawking ha scoperto dopo. Sia chiaro non perché non sia
grande la genialità del fisico inglese, rispetto al mio essere POVERINO
ESPONENZIALE, bensì perché quando si sceglie un corretto
 approccio onto-logico e paradigmatico la sua pregnanza conoscitiva vale
per tutte le scienze umane e naturali.
In questa prospettiva si vedano:
-Rizzo F., "La scienza non può non essere umana, civile, sociale,
economi(c)a, enigmatica, nobile, profetica", Aracne editrice,
 Roma, 2016;
-Rizzo F.,"Una nuova avventura tra l'idolatria del denaro e lo spirito
dell'amore con compassione o viscerale emo-ra-zionalità",
Aracne, Roma, 2017.
Grazie.
Francesco



2017-03-28 9:40 GMT+02:00 John Collier :

>
>
>
>
> John Collier
>
> Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
>
> Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
>
> http://web.ncf.ca/collier
>
>
>
> *From:* John Collier
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 28 March 2017 9:39 AM
> *To:* 'darvasg' 
> *Subject:* RE: [Fis] non-living objects COULD NOT “exchange information”
>
>
>
> I wrote this a few days ago, but it is still worth posting. I might add
> that biological entities making choices grades off into cases where there
> is only one choice. If determinism is true, then there are no real choices.
> If it is false, that doesn’t help either.
>
>
>
> There are cases that I have given references to on this list in which
> information, but no energy leads to step climbing, indicate transformation
> of information into energy. Though the example was constructed by
> experimenters, I see nothing that could not result from a fortuitous set of
> physical circumstances. The movement could be used to trigger an
> informational even (turn a switch, for example, or select a quantum state),
> though turning i

Re: [Fis] non-living objects COULD NOT “exchange information”

2017-03-28 Thread John Collier 


John Collier
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier

From: John Collier
Sent: Tuesday, 28 March 2017 9:39 AM
To: 'darvasg' 
Subject: RE: [Fis] non-living objects COULD NOT “exchange information”

I wrote this a few days ago, but it is still worth posting. I might add that 
biological entities making choices grades off into cases where there is only 
one choice. If determinism is true, then there are no real choices. If it is 
false, that doesn’t help either.

There are cases that I have given references to on this list in which 
information, but no energy leads to step climbing, indicate transformation of 
information into energy. Though the example was constructed by experimenters, I 
see nothing that could not result from a fortuitous set of physical 
circumstances. The movement could be used to trigger an informational even 
(turn a switch, for example, or select a quantum state), though turning 
information into information.

I suspect there are simpler examples, and leave the list to come up with the. 
All I wanted to do was to demonstrate principle.  We tend to give almost 
magical properties to life. Thai violates my understanding of General Systems 
Theory, which applies the same principles to all systems from top to bottom, 
rather than trying to find everything in the lowest levels, as in physicalism.

John Collier
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of darvasg
Sent: Saturday, 25 March 2017 11:40 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>; Krassimir Markov 
mailto:mar...@foibg.com>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] non-living objects COULD NOT “exchange information”


Dear Krassimir,

They can

For details, see my contrinution to the 2015 Vienna IS4IS meeting and following 
publications of the proceedings!

Best, Gyuri




24.03.2017 16:25 időpontban Krassimir Markov ezt írta:
Dear Arturo and FIS Colleagues,
Let me remember that:
The basic misunderstanding that non-living objects could "exchange  
information" leads to many principal theoretical as well as psychological 
faults.
For instance, photon could exchange only energy and/or reflections !
Sorry for this n-th my remark ...
Friendly greetings
Krassimir




From: tozziart...@libero.it<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 4:52 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: [Fis] I: Re: Is information truly important?


Dear  Lars-Göran,
I prefer to use asap my second FIS bullet, therefore it will be my last FIS 
mail for the next days.

First of all, in special relativity, an observer is NOT by definition a 
material object that can receive and store incoming energy from other objects.
In special relativity, an observer is a frame of reference from which a set of 
objects or events are being measured.  Speaking of an observer is not 
specifically hypothesizing an individual person who is experiencing events, but 
rather it is a particular mathematical context which objects and events are to 
be evaluated from. The effects of special relativity occur whether or not there 
is a "material object that can recieve and store incoming energy from other 
objects" within the inertial reference frame to witness them.

Furthermore, take a photon (traveling at speed light) that crosses a cosmic 
zone close to the sun.  The photon "detects" (and therefore can interact with) 
a huge sun surface (because of its high speed), while we humans on the Earth 
"detect" (and can interact with) a much smaller sun surface.
Therefore, the photon may exchange more information with the sun than the 
humans on the Earth: both the photon and the humans interact with the same sun, 
but they "detect" different surfaces, and therefore they may exchange with the 
sun a different information content.
If we also take into account that the photon detects an almost infinite, fixed 
time, this means once again that it can exchange much more information with the 
sun than we humans can.


In sum, once again, information does not seem to be a physical quantity, rather 
just a very subjective measure, depending on the speed and of the time of the 
"observer".


Arturo Tozzi
AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/

Messaggio originale
Da: "Lars-Göran Johansson" 
mailto:lars-goran.johans...@filosofi.uu.se>>
Data: 24/03/2017 14.50
A: 
"tozziart...@libero.it<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>"mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>>
Ogg: Re: [Fis] Is information truly important?
24 mars 2017 kl. 13:15 skrev 
tozziart...@libero.it<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>:

Dear Fisers,
a big doubt...

We kn

Re: [Fis] non-living objects COULD NOT “exchange information”

2017-03-27 Thread Dai Griffiths 

On 24/03/17 18:24, Karl Javorszky wrote:


1) Let me second to the point Alex raises:
machines, computers, do exchange information. It would be against 
cultural conventions to say that the notification that the 
refrigerator sends to your phone's app "to-do-list" of the content 
"milk only 0.5 liter available" is not an information.


The signals my car's pressure sensor sends to my dashboard, saying 
"tire pressure front right wheel is critically low" is a clear case of 
information, whether I read it or not.


This is a good point, and worthy of our attention. But in this case of 
'information', cultural conventions are tremendously confused and 
contradictory. I do not think that we will achieve a coherent theory of 
information without violating some of them.


I'd argue that a deep cultural convention, or perhaps human tendency, is 
a bias towards reification over the description of processes. Perhaps 
some of the tangles around 'information' are the result of trying to 
understand phenomena by means of the qualities of things, rather than 
elucidating the dynamics of a process? If so, any resolution will 
certainly be against cultural conventions.


Dai

-

Professor David (Dai) Griffiths
Professor of Education
School of Education and Psychology
The University of Bolton
Deane Road
Bolton, BL3 5AB

Office: T3 02
http://www.bolton.ac.uk/IEC

SKYPE: daigriffiths
UK Mobile +44 (0)7491151559
Spanish Mobile: + 34 687955912
Work: + 44 (0)7826917705
(Please don't leave voicemail)
email:
   d.e.griffi...@bolton.ac.uk
   dai.griffith...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Fis] non-living objects COULD NOT “exchange information”

2017-03-26 Thread HowlBloom 

gyuri, how can we get online or email access to your article on how  
inanimate things exchange information?
 
with warmth and oomph--howard
 
ps i believe i'm in the volume for the information summit in vienna with  
you.  but if you get me a word or pdf version of your article, i can upload  
it to my kindle, carry it with me wherever i go, and read it.
 
--
Howard Bloom
Howardbloom.net
author of : The  Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces 
of History  ("mesmerizing"-The Washington Post), Global Brain: The 
Evolution of Mass Mind  from the Big Bang to the 21st Century  ("reassuring and 
sobering"-The New  Yorker), The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of 
Capitalism  ("Impressive, stimulating, and tremendously enjoyable."James 
Fallows, National  Correspondent, The Atlantic), The God Problem: How A Godless 
Cosmos Creates  ("Bloom's argument will rock your world." Barbara Ehrenreich), 
How I  Accidentally Started the Sixties (“a monumental,epic, glorious 
literary  achievement.” Timothy Leary), and The Muhammad Code:  How a Desert 
Prophet  Gave You ISIS, al Qaeda, and Boko Haram--or How Muhammad Invented 
Jihad (
“a  terrifying book…the best book I’ve read on Islam,” David Swindle, PJ  
Media).
Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting  Scholar
—Graduate Psychology Department, NewYork University
Founder:  International PaleopsychologyProject; founder and chair, Space 
Development  Steering Committee; Founding Board Member: Epic of Evolution 
Society; Founding  Board Member, The Darwin Project; Board Of Governors, 
National Space Society;  Founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New 
York 
Academy of  Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 
American  Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior 
and  Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology,  Scientific 
 Advisory Board Member, Lifeboat Foundation.  

 
In a message dated 3/25/2017 5:48:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
darv...@iif.hu writes:

Dear Krassimir, 
They can 
For details, see my contrinution to the 2015 Vienna IS4IS meeting and  
following publications of the proceedings! 
Best, Gyuri 

24.03.2017 16:25 időpontban Krassimir Markov ezt írta: 
 
 
Dear Arturo and FIS  Colleagues,
Let me remember that:
The basic misunderstanding that  non-living objects could "exchange  
information" leads to many  principal theoretical as well as psychological 
faults. 
   
For instance, photon could exchange only  energy and/or reflections !
Sorry for this n-th my remark ...  
Friendly greetings
Krassimir
 
 
 
 
 

 
From: _tozziarturo@libero.it_ (mailto:tozziart...@libero.it) 
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 4:52 PM
To: _fis@listas.unizar.es_ (mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es) 
Subject: [Fis] I: Re: Is information truly  important?


 

 


Dear  Lars-Göran, 
I prefer to use asap my second FIS  bullet, therefore it will be my last 
FIS mail for the next days.  

First of all, in special relativity,  an observer is NOT by definition a 
material object that can receive  and store incoming energy from other 
objects.  
In special relativity, an observer is a frame of reference from which  a 
set of objects or events are being measured.  Speaking of an  observer is not 
specifically hypothesizing an individual person who is  experiencing events, 
but rather it is a particular mathematical context  which objects and 
events are to be evaluated from. The effects of special  relativity occur 
whether 
or not there is a "material object that can  recieve and store incoming 
energy from other objects" within the inertial  reference frame to witness them.
 
Furthermore, take a photon (traveling at speed light)  that crosses a 
cosmic zone close to the sun.  The photon "detects"  (and therefore can 
interact 
with) a huge sun surface (because of its high  speed), while we humans on 
the Earth "detect" (and can interact with) a  much smaller sun surface.
Therefore, the photon may exchange more information with the sun than  the 
humans on the Earth: both the photon and the humans interact with the  same 
sun, but they "detect" different surfaces, and therefore they may  exchange 
with the sun a different information content. 
If we also take into account that the photon detects an almost  infinite, 
fixed time, this means once again that it can exchange much more  information 
with the sun than we humans can.
 
 
In sum, once again, information does not seem to be a physical  quantity, 
rather just a very subjective measure, depending on the speed  and of the 
time of the "observer".  
 
 
Arturo  Tozzi 
AA Professor Physics,  University North Texas 
Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord,  Italy 
Comput Intell Lab,  University Manitoba 
http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 



Messaggio originale
Da: "Lars-Göran Johansson"  
Data: 24/03/2017  14.50
A: "tozziart...@libero.it"
Ogg:  Re: [Fis] Is information truly important?



24 mars 2017 kl. 13:15

Re: [Fis] non-living objects COULD NOT “exchange information”

2017-03-25 Thread darvasg 
Dear Krassimir, 

They can 

For details, see my contrinution to the 2015 Vienna IS4IS meeting and
following publications of the proceedings! 

Best, Gyuri

24.03.2017 16:25 időpontban Krassimir Markov ezt írta:

> Dear Arturo and FIS Colleagues, 
> Let me remember that: 
> The basic misunderstanding that non-living objects could "exchange  
> information" leads to many principal theoretical as well as psychological 
> faults.   
> For instance, photon could exchange only energy and/or reflections ! 
> _Sorry for this n-th my remark ... _ 
> Friendly greetings 
> Krassimir 
> 
> FROM: tozziart...@libero.it 
> SENT: Friday, March 24, 2017 4:52 PM 
> TO: fis@listas.unizar.es 
> SUBJECT: [Fis] I: Re: Is information truly important? 
> 
> Dear  Lars-Göran, 
> I prefer to use asap my second FIS bullet, therefore it will be my last FIS 
> mail for the next days. 
> 
> First of all, in special relativity, an observer is NOT by definition a 
> material object that can receive and store incoming energy from other 
> objects.  
> 
> In special relativity, an observer is a frame of reference from which a set 
> of objects or events are being measured.  Speaking of an observer is not 
> specifically hypothesizing an individual person who is experiencing events, 
> but rather it is a particular mathematical context which objects and events 
> are to be evaluated from. The effects of special relativity occur whether or 
> not there is a "material object that can recieve and store incoming energy 
> from other objects" within the inertial reference frame to witness them. 
> Furthermore, take a photon (traveling at speed light) that crosses a cosmic 
> zone close to the sun.  The photon "detects" (and therefore can interact 
> with) a huge sun surface (because of its high speed), while we humans on the 
> Earth "detect" (and can interact with) a much smaller sun surface. 
> Therefore, the photon may exchange more information with the sun than the 
> humans on the Earth: both the photon and the humans interact with the same 
> sun, but they "detect" different surfaces, and therefore they may exchange 
> with the sun a different information content.  
> If we also take into account that the photon detects an almost infinite, 
> fixed time, this means once again that it can exchange much more information 
> with the sun than we humans can. 
> 
> In sum, once again, information does not seem to be a physical quantity, 
> rather just a very subjective measure, depending on the speed and of the time 
> of the "observer".   
> 
> ARTURO TOZZI 
> 
> AA Professor Physics, University North Texas 
> 
> Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy 
> 
> Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba 
> 
> http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/  
> 
> Messaggio originale
> Da: "Lars-Göran Johansson" 
> Data: 24/03/2017 14.50
> A: "tozziart...@libero.it"
> Ogg: Re: [Fis] Is information truly important?
> 
> 24 mars 2017 kl. 13:15 skrev tozziart...@libero.it: 
> 
> Dear Fisers, 
> a big doubt... 
> 
> We know that the information of a 3D black hole is proportional to its 2D 
> horizon, according to the Bekenstein-Hawking equations. 
> 
> However, an hypotetical observer traveling at light speed (who watches a 
> black hole at rest) detects a very large black hole horizon, due to 
> Einstein's equations. 
> Therefore, he detects more information from the black hole than an observer 
> at rest, who sees a smaller horizon... An observer is by definition a 
> material object that can recieve and store incoming energy from other 
> objects. Since it requires infinite energy  to accelerate even a slighest 
> object to the velocity of light, no observer can travel at the speed of 
> light. That means that your thought experiment is based in inconsistent 
> assumptions and no vaild conclusions from them can be drawn. 
> Lars-Göran Johansson 
> 
> In sum, information does not seem to be a physical quantity, rather just a 
> very subjective measure...
> 
> 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 
> 
> Lars-Göran Johansson 
> lars-goran.johans...@filosofi.uu.se 
> 0701-679178

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

Re: [Fis] non-living objects COULD NOT “exchange information”

2017-03-24 Thread Karl Javorszky 
1) Let me second to the point Alex raises:
machines, computers, do exchange information. It would be against cultural
conventions to say that the notification that the refrigerator sends to
your phone's app "to-do-list" of the content "milk only 0.5 liter
available" is not an information.

The signals my car's pressure sensor sends to my dashboard, saying "tire
pressure front right wheel is critically low" is a clear case of
information, whether I read it or not.

2) Let me add to the point Alex states, namely that the "form of
information that I presented to FiS a year ago offers the only
scientifically based,mathematical physics form of 'information' that I have
personally seen in the scientific literature", (Alex, will you please
restate in the present context, for the present discussion, your
formulation) the following:

I have given in my work "Natural orders - de ordinibus naturalibus" (ISBN
9783990571378) the following definition of the term "information":
8.3.3.3 Information is a description of what is not the case.
[Let *x = a**k*. This is a statement, no information contained. Let *x = a*
*k* and *k ** {1,2,...,k,...,n}*. This statement
contains the information *k ***
*{1,2,...,k-1,k+1,...,n}*.]
(Sorry for the included & not-included symbols not making it thru the
simplified  text editor in use here.)

Karl


2017-03-24 18:51 GMT+01:00 Alex Hankey :

> BUT, in common parlance, computers and mobile phones 'exchange
> information' (in the abstract, digital sense) all the time. Including this
> email.
>
> If you wish to cleanly restrict yourself to semantic content, the the form
> of information that I presented to FiS a year ago offers the only
> scientifically based,mathematical physics form of 'information' that I have
> personally seen in the scientific literature.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Alex Hankey
>
>
> On 24 March 2017 at 15:25, Krassimir Markov  wrote:
>
>> Dear Arturo and FIS Colleagues,
>> Let me remember that:
>> The basic misunderstanding that non-living objects could “exchange
>> information” leads to many principal theoretical as well as psychological
>> faults.
>> For instance, photon could exchange only energy and/or reflections !
>> *Sorry for this n-th my remark ... *
>> Friendly greetings
>> Krassimir
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* tozziart...@libero.it
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 24, 2017 4:52 PM
>> *To:* fis@listas.unizar.es
>> *Subject:* [Fis] I: Re: Is information truly important?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear  Lars-Göran,
>> I prefer to use asap my second FIS bullet, therefore it will be my last
>> FIS mail for the next days.
>>
>> First of all, in special relativity, an observer is NOT by definition a
>> material object that can receive and store incoming energy from other
>> objects.
>> In special relativity, an observer is a frame of reference from which a
>> set of objects or events are being measured.  Speaking of an observer is
>> not specifically hypothesizing an individual person who is experiencing
>> events, but rather it is a particular mathematical context which objects
>> and events are to be evaluated from. The effects of special relativity
>> occur whether or not there is a "material object that can recieve and store
>> incoming energy from other objects" within the inertial reference frame to
>> witness them.
>>
>> Furthermore, take a photon (traveling at speed light) that crosses a
>> cosmic zone close to the sun.  The photon "detects" (and therefore can
>> interact with) a huge sun surface (because of its high speed), while we
>> humans on the Earth "detect" (and can interact with) a much smaller sun
>> surface.
>> Therefore, the photon may exchange more information with the sun than the
>> humans on the Earth: both the photon and the humans interact with the same
>> sun, but they "detect" different surfaces, and therefore they may exchange
>> with the sun a different information content.
>> If we also take into account that the photon detects an almost infinite,
>> fixed time, this means once again that it can exchange much more
>> information with the sun than we humans can.
>>
>> In sum, once again, information does not seem to be a physical quantity,
>> rather just a very subjective measure, depending on the speed and of the
>> time of the "observer".
>>
>>
>>
>> *Arturo Tozzi*
>>
>> AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
>>
>> Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
>>
>> Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
>>
>> http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
>>
>>
>> Messaggio originale
>> Da: "Lars-Göran Johansson" 
>> Data: 24/03/2017 14.50
>> A: "tozziart...@libero.it"
>> Ogg: Re: [Fis] Is information truly important?
>>
>>
>> 24 mars 2017 kl. 13:15 skrev tozziart...@libero.it:
>>
>> Dear Fisers,
>> a big doubt...
>>
>> We know that the information of a 3D black hole is proportional to its 2D
>> horizon, according to the Bekenstein-Hawking equations.
>>
>> However, an hypotetical observer traveling at light speed (who watches a
>> black hole at rest) detects a very l

Re: [Fis] non-living objects COULD NOT “exchange information”

2017-03-24 Thread Alex Hankey 
BUT, in common parlance, computers and mobile phones 'exchange information'
(in the abstract, digital sense) all the time. Including this email.

If you wish to cleanly restrict yourself to semantic content, the the form
of information that I presented to FiS a year ago offers the only
scientifically based,mathematical physics form of 'information' that I have
personally seen in the scientific literature.

Best wishes,

Alex Hankey


On 24 March 2017 at 15:25, Krassimir Markov  wrote:

> Dear Arturo and FIS Colleagues,
> Let me remember that:
> The basic misunderstanding that non-living objects could “exchange
> information” leads to many principal theoretical as well as psychological
> faults.
> For instance, photon could exchange only energy and/or reflections !
> *Sorry for this n-th my remark ... *
> Friendly greetings
> Krassimir
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tozziart...@libero.it
> *Sent:* Friday, March 24, 2017 4:52 PM
> *To:* fis@listas.unizar.es
> *Subject:* [Fis] I: Re: Is information truly important?
>
>
>
>
> Dear  Lars-Göran,
> I prefer to use asap my second FIS bullet, therefore it will be my last
> FIS mail for the next days.
>
> First of all, in special relativity, an observer is NOT by definition a
> material object that can receive and store incoming energy from other
> objects.
> In special relativity, an observer is a frame of reference from which a
> set of objects or events are being measured.  Speaking of an observer is
> not specifically hypothesizing an individual person who is experiencing
> events, but rather it is a particular mathematical context which objects
> and events are to be evaluated from. The effects of special relativity
> occur whether or not there is a "material object that can recieve and store
> incoming energy from other objects" within the inertial reference frame to
> witness them.
>
> Furthermore, take a photon (traveling at speed light) that crosses a
> cosmic zone close to the sun.  The photon "detects" (and therefore can
> interact with) a huge sun surface (because of its high speed), while we
> humans on the Earth "detect" (and can interact with) a much smaller sun
> surface.
> Therefore, the photon may exchange more information with the sun than the
> humans on the Earth: both the photon and the humans interact with the same
> sun, but they "detect" different surfaces, and therefore they may exchange
> with the sun a different information content.
> If we also take into account that the photon detects an almost infinite,
> fixed time, this means once again that it can exchange much more
> information with the sun than we humans can.
>
> In sum, once again, information does not seem to be a physical quantity,
> rather just a very subjective measure, depending on the speed and of the
> time of the "observer".
>
>
>
> *Arturo Tozzi*
>
> AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
>
> Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
>
> Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
>
> http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
>
>
> Messaggio originale
> Da: "Lars-Göran Johansson" 
> Data: 24/03/2017 14.50
> A: "tozziart...@libero.it"
> Ogg: Re: [Fis] Is information truly important?
>
>
> 24 mars 2017 kl. 13:15 skrev tozziart...@libero.it:
>
> Dear Fisers,
> a big doubt...
>
> We know that the information of a 3D black hole is proportional to its 2D
> horizon, according to the Bekenstein-Hawking equations.
>
> However, an hypotetical observer traveling at light speed (who watches a
> black hole at rest) detects a very large black hole horizon, due to
> Einstein's equations.
> Therefore, he detects more information from the black hole than an
> observer at rest, who sees a smaller horizon…
>
> An observer is by definition a material object that can recieve and store
> incoming energy from other objects. Since it requires infinite energy  to
> accelerate even a slighest object to the velocity of light, no observer can
> travel at the speed of light. That means that your thought experiment is
> based in inconsistent assumptions and no vaild conclusions from them can be
> drawn.
> Lars-Göran Johansson
>
>
> In sum, information does not seem to be a physical quantity, rather just a
> very subjective measure...
>
> *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
>
>
> Lars-Göran Johansson
> lars-goran.johans...@filosofi.uu.se
> 0701-679178
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ___
> 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
>
>


-- 
Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.

Re: [Fis] non-living objects COULD NOT “exchange information”

2017-03-24 Thread Lars-Göran Johansson 

24 mars 2017 kl. 16:25 skrev Krassimir Markov 
mailto:mar...@foibg.com>>:

Dear Arturo and FIS Colleagues,
Let me remember that:
The basic misunderstanding that non-living objects could “exchange  
information” leads to many principal theoretical as well as psychological 
faults.
For instance, photon could exchange only energy and/or reflections !
Sorry for this n-th my remark ...
Friendly greetings
Krassimir

And let me add: a photon is not something that can exchange information, or 
energy or anything whatsoever. A photon is portion of electromagnetic 
radiation, it comes into exitence when a material object decreases its energy 
and is destroyed when another (or the same) material object absorbs that 
portion. A photon cannot increase its energy, or decrease it. And, of course, 
we cannot attribute information or information change to it.

Furthermore, as was proved by Gegerfeldt and Malament quite some time ago, a 
particle interpretation of quantum electro dynmaics is impossible. So thinking 
that a photon is confined to well defined portion of  spacetime contradicts QED.

cheers
Lars-Göran



From: tozziart...@libero.it
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 4:52 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] I: Re: Is information truly important?



Dear  Lars-Göran,
I prefer to use asap my second FIS bullet, therefore it will be my last FIS 
mail for the next days.

First of all, in special relativity, an observer is NOT by definition a 
material object that can receive and store incoming energy from other objects.
In special relativity, an observer is a frame of reference from which a set of 
objects or events are being measured.  Speaking of an observer is not 
specifically hypothesizing an individual person who is experiencing events, but 
rather it is a particular mathematical context which objects and events are to 
be evaluated from. The effects of special relativity occur whether or not there 
is a "material object that can recieve and store incoming energy from other 
objects" within the inertial reference frame to witness them.

Furthermore, take a photon (traveling at speed light) that crosses a cosmic 
zone close to the sun.  The photon "detects" (and therefore can interact with) 
a huge sun surface (because of its high speed), while we humans on the Earth 
"detect" (and can interact with) a much smaller sun surface.
Therefore, the photon may exchange more information with the sun than the 
humans on the Earth: both the photon and the humans interact with the same sun, 
but they "detect" different surfaces, and therefore they may exchange with the 
sun a different information content.
If we also take into account that the photon detects an almost infinite, fixed 
time, this means once again that it can exchange much more information with the 
sun than we humans can.

In sum, once again, information does not seem to be a physical quantity, rather 
just a very subjective measure, depending on the speed and of the time of the 
"observer".



Arturo Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/


Messaggio originale
Da: "Lars-Göran Johansson" 
mailto:lars-goran.johans...@filosofi.uu.se>>
Data: 24/03/2017 14.50
A: 
"tozziart...@libero.it"mailto:tozziart...@libero.it>>
Ogg: Re: [Fis] Is information truly important?


24 mars 2017 kl. 13:15 skrev 
tozziart...@libero.it:

Dear Fisers,
a big doubt...

We know that the information of a 3D black hole is proportional to its 2D 
horizon, according to the Bekenstein-Hawking equations.

However, an hypotetical observer traveling at light speed (who watches a black 
hole at rest) detects a very large black hole horizon, due to Einstein's 
equations.
Therefore, he detects more information from the black hole than an observer at 
rest, who sees a smaller horizon…
An observer is by definition a material object that can recieve and store 
incoming energy from other objects. Since it requires infinite energy  to 
accelerate even a slighest object to the velocity of light, no observer can 
travel at the speed of light. That means that your thought experiment is based 
in inconsistent assumptions and no vaild conclusions from them can be drawn.
Lars-Göran Johansson


In sum, information does not seem to be a physical quantity, rather just a very 
subjective measure...


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

Lars-Göran Johansson
lars-goran.johans...@filosofi.uu.se
0701-679178









_