Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Info Theory]--From John Collier

[Guy A Hoelzer]

Hi Gavin,

I’m not quite sure how to respond as you didn’t ask a particular question.  
Here are my thoughts about your points.

Waves are indeed about energy, which I think fits nicely into the scheme I 
described regarding information.  I suggested a very simple definition of 
information as a contrast.  Physical gradients provide a nice example of 
contrast between different conditions on either side of a gradient.  Energy 
generically fits this view whether you think about it in either particle (e.g., 
photon) or wave form.  I am not a physicist, but I think energy always exists 
as some sort of localized concentration with a gradient between regions of 
higher energy and regions of lower energy.  In this sense, energy can always be 
considered as a spatially configured pattern, and thus as information.

I also agree that flows are about entropy production, and they must always be 
channeled in a way that requires a structural configuration.   This is how I 
think about self-organizing dissipative systems.  Flows cross gradients and 
dissipate those gradients in the process, which diminishes the contrast and 
thus the amount of information exhibited by the gradient.  I would describe the 
emergent structure of such systems as information captured by the system, or 
transferred to the system, as the gradient is diminished.  I see this as an 
alternative way to say that the system captures free energy from the flow and 
uses it to construct itself.  I generally see information as the inverse of 
entropy, so the existence of information goes hand-in-hand with the existence 
of entropy.  Whether information/entropy exist or are just heuristic concepts 
is an issue for others to debate.  I do think, though, that it IS related to 
baryonic matter.

I hope this helps to make more sense of my previous post.

Regards,

Guy


On 2/4/11 4:22 PM, "Gavin Ritz"  wrote:

Hi there Guy

I'm at a loss still about information you mention below.

If one talks about waves, light, sound these are all energy (frequency) 
concepts. Chemistry and physics are really only about energy, entropy and 
transduction's and conversions of energy in one form or the other of matter.

Any flows of available energy are more than likely entropy production or free 
energy. (Gibbs type free energy)

The only codes, and notations are the ones we give it, it is of our own making, 
if information does have an existence then its more than likely related to non 
baryonic matter.

After all we are making assumptions about a universe with only a less than 4% 
understanding of its contents.

Regards
Gavin


Greetings All,

I want to second Joseph’s claim that something may be transferred as 
information, even if Stan’s “stuff” itself is not transferred.  Waves, for 
example, can often pass from one medium into another without a concomitant 
transfer of stuff, and the form of the wave may be changed when it enters the 
new medium.  The energy of the wave, which can generally be measured by its 
physical manifestations (e.g., particle densities, free energy concentrations, 
local gradients and potentials...) may be sustained in a temporally and 
spatially coherent way as it flows.  I personally like to think about 
information as contrast, such as with local gradients, and in this sense we 
might say that it it the information itself that flows into a recipient.  
Interpretation, then, involves the change in form that can occur in the new 
medium.  Of course, information, like waves, are not always able to penetrate 
any new medium or system.  It can be damped out in some transitions, and 
amplified through resonance in others.

I think this perspective bridges some of the seemingly disparate views that 
have been voiced over the last week.

Regards,

Guy


On 1/31/11 9:29 AM, "joe.bren...@bluewin.ch"  wrote:

Dear All,

In coming to Krassimir's defense, I do not wish to abrogate the science of the 
last 100-150 years, but to suggest only that the "appeal to authority", here as 
elsewhere, should not block criticism. The standard meaning of information is 
also "restricted" in some senses.

The dimension that Krassimir and his source are pointing to is not "just" 
poetic, but describes real interactions between sender and receiver. However, I 
would criticize absolute statements such as "nothing is transferred". In my 
approach to logic (which I hope John includes in his "various" logics), it is 
not necessary to make an absolute distinction between the concept of 
information and its causal and material properties. They are dialectically 
linked.

On the other hand, I think it is important to emphasize, as Krassimir does, 
that there are properties of information that cannot be measured. This point, 
and the others above, will not constitute an entire, monolithic Information 
Theory, nor its entire essence. But they should be taken into account as part 
of the "common" meanings of various theories which I, /pace/ John :-) find most 
interesting.

Best

Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Info Theory]--From John Collier

[Gavin Ritz]

Hi there Guy

I'm at a loss still about information you mention below. 

If one talks about waves, light, sound these are all energy (frequency) 
concepts. Chemistry and physics are really only about energy, entropy and 
transduction's and conversions of energy in one form or the other of matter.

Any flows of available energy are more than likely entropy production or free 
energy. (Gibbs type free energy)

The only codes, and notations are the ones we give it, it is of our own making, 
if information does have an existence then its more than likely related to non 
baryonic matter.

After all we are making assumptions about a universe with only a less than 4% 
understanding of its contents.

Regards
Gavin




Greetings All,

I want to second Joseph’s claim that something may be transferred as 
information, even if Stan’s “stuff” itself is not transferred.  Waves, for 
example, can often pass from one medium into another without a concomitant 
transfer of stuff, and the form of the wave may be changed when it enters the 
new medium.  The energy of the wave, which can generally be measured by its 
physical manifestations (e.g., particle densities, free energy concentrations, 
local gradients and potentials...) may be sustained in a temporally and 
spatially coherent way as it flows.  I personally like to think about 
information as contrast, such as with local gradients, and in this sense we 
might say that it it the information itself that flows into a recipient.  
Interpretation, then, involves the change in form that can occur in the new 
medium.  Of course, information, like waves, are not always able to penetrate 
any new medium or system.  It can be damped out in some transitions, and 
amplified through resonance in others.

I think this perspective bridges some of the seemingly disparate views that 
have 
been voiced over the last week.

Regards,

Guy


On 1/31/11 9:29 AM, "joe.bren...@bluewin.ch"  wrote:

Dear All,

In coming to Krassimir'sdefense, I do not wish to abrogate the science of the 
last 100-150 years, but to suggest only that the "appeal to authority", here as 
elsewhere, should not block criticism. The standard meaning of information is 
also "restricted" in some senses.

The dimension that Krassimir and his source are pointing to is not "just" 
poetic, but describes real interactions between sender and receiver.. However, 
I 
would criticize absolute statements such as "nothing is transferred". In my 
approach to logic (which I hope John includes in his "various" logics), it is 
not necessary to make an absolute distinction between the concept of 
information 
and its causal and material properties. They are dialectically linked.

On the other hand, I think it is important to emphasize, as Krassimir does, 
that 
there are properties of information that cannot be measured. This point, and 
the 
others above, will not constitute an entire, monolithic Information Theory, nor 
its entire essence. But they should be taken into account as part of the 
"common" meanings of various theories which I, /pace/ John :-) find most 
interesting..

Best,

Joseph

UrsprünglicheNachricht
Von: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
Datum: 31.01.2011 17:35
An: 
Betreff: [Fis] [Fwd: Re:  [Fwd:  Info Theory]--From John Collier

(Msg. from John Collier)

Unfortunately for your position, Krassimir, there is a well established usage 
of 
information in physics going back to Szillard's discussion of Maxwell's Demon 
in 
1929, well before the dawn of communication theory. This usage is firmly 
entrenched in physics, used by such notables as Gell Mann, Wheeler and Hawking. 
So as far as usage of the word "information" is concerned, you were trumped 
long 
ago. I suggest that you, when using the word "information" make clear that you 
are using a specific restricted meaning rather than the general term. In fact I 
think that everyone on the list should practice similar hygiene.

The word "information" has a range of meanings that are related much like 
Wittgenstein's family resemblances. It is perhaps a paradigmatic case of this. 
Anything in common is pretty basic, and not very interesting, to my mind, but 
worth working out in any case.

There are connections of information theory to various logics, including the 
logic of distinctions and its extensionally equivalent propositional logic, 
predicate logic, and various other logics of a more restricted realm. These are 
all worth working out.

However I think it is pointless, or nearly so, to try to find the one true 
meaning of 'information' (I use the philosopher's convention for single and 
double quotes in this post). I wish people would just let it go, and learn to 
be 
more flexible and open to different approaches that they don't find intuitively 
or experientially appealing.

John



At 01:22 PM 1/31/2011, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:

From: Krassimir Markov 
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 2:13 AM
To:fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis]

Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Info Theory]--From John Collier

[Guy A Hoelzer]

Greetings All,

I want to second Joseph’s claim that something may be transferred as 
information, even if Stan’s “stuff” itself is not transferred.  Waves, for 
example, can often pass from one medium into another without a concomitant 
transfer of stuff, and the form of the wave may be changed when it enters the 
new medium.  The energy of the wave, which can generally be measured by its 
physical manifestations (e.g., particle densities, free energy concentrations, 
local gradients and potentials...) may be sustained in a temporally and 
spatially coherent way as it flows.  I personally like to think about 
information as contrast, such as with local gradients, and in this sense we 
might say that it it the information itself that flows into a recipient.  
Interpretation, then, involves the change in form that can occur in the new 
medium.  Of course, information, like waves, are not always able to penetrate 
any new medium or system.  It can be damped out in some transitions, and 
amplified through resonance in others.

I think this perspective bridges some of the seemingly disparate views that 
have been voiced over the last week.

Regards,

Guy


On 1/31/11 9:29 AM, "joe.bren...@bluewin.ch"  wrote:

Dear All,

In coming to Krassimir's defense, I do not wish to abrogate the science of the 
last 100-150 years, but to suggest only that the "appeal to authority", here as 
elsewhere, should not block criticism. The standard meaning of information is 
also "restricted" in some senses.

The dimension that Krassimir and his source are pointing to is not "just" 
poetic, but describes real interactions between sender and receiver. However, I 
would criticize absolute statements such as "nothing is transferred". In my 
approach to logic (which I hope John includes in his "various" logics), it is 
not necessary to make an absolute distinction between the concept of 
information and its causal and material properties. They are dialectically 
linked.

On the other hand, I think it is important to emphasize, as Krassimir does, 
that there are properties of information that cannot be measured. This point, 
and the others above, will not constitute an entire, monolithic Information 
Theory, nor its entire essence. But they should be taken into account as part 
of the "common" meanings of various theories which I, /pace/ John :-) find most 
interesting.

Best,

Joseph

Ursprüngliche Nachricht
Von: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
Datum: 31.01.2011 17:35
An: 
Betreff: [Fis] [Fwd: Re:  [Fwd:  Info Theory]--From John Collier

(Msg. from John Collier)

Unfortunately for your position, Krassimir, there is a well established usage 
of information in physics going back to Szillard's discussion of Maxwell's 
Demon in 1929, well before the dawn of communication theory. This usage is 
firmly entrenched in physics, used by such notables as Gell Mann, Wheeler and 
Hawking. So as far as usage of the word "information" is concerned, you were 
trumped long ago. I suggest that you, when using the word "information" make 
clear that you are using a specific restricted meaning rather than the general 
term. In fact I think that everyone on the list should practice similar hygiene.

The word "information" has a range of meanings that are related much like 
Wittgenstein's family resemblances. It is perhaps a paradigmatic case of this. 
Anything in common is pretty basic, and not very interesting, to my mind, but 
worth working out in any case.

There are connections of information theory to various logics, including the 
logic of distinctions and its extensionally equivalent propositional logic, 
predicate logic, and various other logics of a more restricted realm. These are 
all worth working out.

However I think it is pointless, or nearly so, to try to find the one true 
meaning of 'information' (I use the philosopher's convention for single and 
double quotes in this post). I wish people would just let it go, and learn to 
be more flexible and open to different approaches that they don't find 
intuitively or experientially appealing.

John



At 01:22 PM 1/31/2011, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:

From: Krassimir Markov 
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 2:13 AM
To:fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Info Theory
Â
Dear Colleagues,
Â
In the beginning of the XX-th century (approximately 100 years ago!) the great 
Bulgarian poet Pencho Slaveikov wrote:
Â
"The speaker doesn't deliver his thought to the listener,
but his sounds and performances provoke the thought of the listener.
Â
Between them performs a process like lighting the candle,
where the flame of the first candle is not transmitted to another flame,
Â
but only cause it."
Â
Â
From my point of view, this is the essence of the Info Theory and, especially, 
of the Communication Theory.
Â
Really, nothing is transferred but everything CAUSE our mind to “light”.
Â
“Information” is a human concept.
Please ask your dog or cat, or the birds around, what is th

Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Info Theory]--From John Collier

[joe.bren...@bluewin.ch]

Dear All, 

In coming to Krassimir's defense, I do not wish to abrogate the science of the 
last 100-150 years, but to suggest only that the "appeal to authority", here as 
elsewhere, should not block criticism. The standard meaning of information is 
also "restricted" in some senses. 

The dimension that Krassimir and his source are pointing to is not "just" 
poetic, but describes real interactions between sender and receiver. However, I 
would criticize absolute statements such as "nothing is transferred". In my 
approach to logic (which I hope John includes in his "various" logics), it is 
not necessary to make an absolute distinction between the concept of 
information and its causal and material properties. They are dialectically 
linked.

On the other hand, I think it is important to emphasize, as Krassimir does, 
that there are properties of information that cannot be measured. This point, 
and the others above, will not constitute an entire, monolithic Information 
Theory, nor its entire essence. But they should be taken into account as part 
of the "common" meanings of various theories which I, /pace/ John :-) find most 
interesting.

Best,

Joseph 

Ursprüngliche Nachricht

Von: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es

Datum: 31.01.2011 17:35

An: 

Betreff: [Fis] [Fwd: Re:  [Fwd:  Info Theory]--From John Collier




(Msg. from John Collier)



Unfortunately for your position, Krassimir, there is a well established
usage of information in physics going back to Szillard's discussion of
Maxwell's Demon in 1929, well before the dawn of communication theory.
This usage is firmly entrenched in physics, used by such notables as
Gell
Mann, Wheeler and Hawking. So as far as usage of the word
"information" is concerned, you were trumped long ago. I
suggest that you, when using the word "information" make clear
that you are using a specific restricted meaning rather than the
general
term. In fact I think that everyone on the list should practice similar
hygiene. 



The word "information" has a range of meanings that are related
much like Wittgenstein's family resemblances. It is perhaps a
paradigmatic case of this. Anything in common is pretty basic, and not
very interesting, to my mind, but worth working out in any case.



There are connections of information theory to various logics,
including
the logic of distinctions and its extensionally equivalent
propositional
logic, predicate logic, and various other logics of a more restricted
realm. These are all worth working out. 



However I think it is pointless, or nearly so, to try to find the one
true meaning of 'information' (I use the philosopher's convention for
single and double quotes in this post). I wish people would just let it
go, and learn to be more flexible and open to different approaches that
they don't find intuitively or experientially appealing.



John







At 01:22 PM 1/31/2011, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:



From:
Krassimir Markov

Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 2:13 AM

To:fis@listas.unizar.es


Subject: Re: [Fis] Info Theory

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

In the beginning of the XX-th century (approximately 100 years ago!)
the
great Bulgarian poet Pencho Slaveikov wrote: 

 

"The speaker doesn't deliver his thought to the listener, 

but his sounds and performances provoke the thought of the listener.


 

Between them performs a process like lighting the candle, 

where the flame of the first candle is not transmitted to another
flame,


 

but only cause it."

 

 

>From my point of view, this is the essence of the Info Theory and,
especially, of the Communication Theory.

 

Really, nothing is transferred but everything CAUSE our mind to
“light”.

 

“Information” is a human concept. 

Please ask your dog or cat, or the birds around, what is the
information?


No answer. 

But they really “think” as us.

 

Every live creature reacts to the external influences and this cause
internal activity in the brain, in the cells of our body, etc.

 

Internal activity cause both new internal and external activity of our
organism. 

 

Our external activity cause reactions in the live creatures around, and
so on ...

 

Not only. 

Our organism is variety of sub-systems, live sub-systems, and they act
the same way, etc. .

 

At the end, what is the information? 

 

A kind of reflection (result of the influence), which cause our
internal
activity. 

 

In the same time, such kind of reflection may exists at the lower
layers
of our organism.

This way, we may say, there is information at these layers.

More, by analogy, we may say there is information in every living
creature.

 

But only humans call it “information” and try to measure it. 

Of course, in such case we will measure everything, but not the
“information” itself.

 

Because the internal activity closely depends of individuals and
internal
structure of the brain and configuration of neurons.

The same we may say for the internal structure of the