Re: [Fis] Heretic

[Koichiro Matsuno]

On 4 Oct 2017 at 6:01 AM, tozziart...@libero.it   
wrote: 

 

my proposal is to forget about information, and to use your otherwise very 
valuable skills and efforts in other fields.

 

   This penetrating statement reminds me of another similar one made by John 
Bell in Against Measurement (1990) as saying “On this list of bad words from 
good books, the worst of all is ‘measurement’. … In fact the word has had such 
a damaging effect on the discussion that I think it should now be banned 
altogether in quantum mechanics.” Then, an intriguing sequel to this 
declamation is that most practical physicists have seemed to be immune to such 
a charge while being committed themselves to the measurement business as usual.

 

   One sympathetic understanding towards those practical physicists comes from 
the recent development of QM distinguishing between quantum coherence and 
quantum correlation. While quantum coherence is about the superposition of the 
states in a given single system on a definite Hilbert space, quantum 
correlation is about the correlation between different systems. Measurement is 
exclusively for the correlation between the two different systems, in which one 
is called a system to be measured and another one is called a measurement 
apparatus. The deed of measurement is practiced by the apparatus absorbing the 
quantum particles such as photons, electrons, atoms and molecules emitted from 
the system in focus.  

 

   On the other hand, any theoretical enterprise may be inclined to take the 
stance making whatever closed system contrast with a theoretician external to 
the system. One exaggerated example is the dichotomy of TOE (theory of 
everything) and a committed theoretician sitting outside of the universe (then, 
where?). The externalist stance is the rule of conduct adopted for setting only 
one system, no matter how big or small it may be, against the concerned 
theoretician. No measurement is in need there.

 

There is no difference between quantum correlation and coherence to the strict 
externalist because only one system is allowed there. In contrast, the 
difference between the two would become a serious matter to the practicing 
physicists paying due attention to the act of measurement. Which stance to take 
out of the two of the externalist’s and the internalist’s would be our choice. 
Information may also follow suit.

 

   Koichiro Matsuno

 

 

 

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of 
tozziart...@libero.it
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:01 AM
To: fis 
Subject: [Fis] Heretic

 

Dear FISers,
After the provided long list of completely different definitions of the term 
"information", one conclusion is clear: there is not a scientific, unique 
definition of information.

Nobody of us is able to provide an operative framework and a single (just one!) 
empirical  testable prevision able to assess "information".  
For example, what does "semantics" and "meaning" mean, in empirical terms?
Therefore, to talk about information is meaningless, in the carnapian sense.  

Judging from your answers, the most of you are foremost scientists.  Therefore, 
my proposal is to forget about information, and to use your otherwise very 
valuable skills and efforts in other fields.
It is a waste of your  precious time to focus yourself in something that is so 
vague.  It is, retrospectively, a mistake to state that the world is 
information, if nobody knows what does it mean.  

--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android

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

Re: [Fis] Heretic

[Michel Godron]

Dear colleagues

In order to know the relations between living organisms and their 
environment, I use Brillouin's formula (and its fundamental 
thermodynamical signification) to compute the information contained in 
biological structures and the probability of events.


It is written in french, but I could prepare an english version if you 
help me.


Cordialement. M. Godron

Le 04/10/2017 à 09:16, Loet Leydesdorff a écrit :


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



Dear colleague,

One should not confuse the confusion on the list with the clarity of 
the concept information in information theory. This definition is 
operational (e.g., in bits). Your computer would not work without this 
definition (1 byte = 8 bits). The problem is that this definition of 
information as uncertainty is counter-intuitive.


The search for an intuitive definition of information has led to 
unclear definitions. In a recent book, Hidalgo (2015, at p. 165), for 
example, has defined “information” with reference “to the order 
embodied in codified sequences, such as those found in music or DNA, 
while /knowledge and knowhow /refer to the ability of a system to 
process information.” However, codified knowledge can be abstract 
and—like music—does not have to be “embodied” (e.g., Cowan, David, & 
Foray, 2000).


Beyond Hidalgo’s position, Floridi (2010, p. 21) proposed “a general 
definition of information” according to which “the well-formed data 
are /meaningful/” (italics of the author). Luhmann (1995, p. 67) 
posits that “all information has meaning.” In his opinion, information 
should therefore be considered as a selection mechanism. Kauffman et 
al. (2008, at p. 28) added to the confusion by defining information as 
“natural selection.”


Against these attempt to bring information and meaning under a single 
denominator--and to identify variation with selection--I argue for a 
dualistic perspective (as did Prof. Zhong in a previous email). 
Information and meaning should not be confounded. Meaning is generated 
from redundancies (Bateson, 1972, p. 420; Weaver, 1949; see 
Leydesdorff /et al./, 2017).


Best,
Loet

*References:*

Bateson, G. (1972). /Steps to an Ecology of Mind/. New York: Ballantine.

Cowan, R., David, P., & Foray, D. (2000). The Explicit Economics of 
Knowledge Codification and Tacitness. /Industrial and Corporate 
Change, 9/(2), 211-253.


Floridi, L. (2010). /Information: A very short introduction/. Oxford, 
UK: Oxford University Press.


Hidalgo, C. (2015). /Why Information Grows: The Evolution of Order, 
from Atoms to Economies/. New York: Basic Books.


Kauffman, S., Logan, R. K., Este, R., Goebel, R., Hobill, D., & 
Shmulevich, I. (2008). Propagating organization: an enquiry. /Biology 
and Philosophy, 23/(1), 27-45.


Leydesdorff, L., Johnson, M., & Ivanova, I. (2017). Toward a Calculus 
of Redundancy: Signification, Codification, and Anticipation in 
Cultural Evolution. 
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3030525 .


Luhmann, N. ([1984] 1995). /Social Systems/. Stanford, CA: Stanford 
University Press.


Weaver, W. (1949). Some Recent Contributions to the Mathematical 
Theory of Communication. In C. E. Shannon & W. Weaver (Eds.), /The 
Mathematical Theory of Communication/ (pp. 93-117.). Urbana: 
University of Illinois Press.





Loet Leydesdorff

Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

l...@leydesdorff.net ; 
http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty, SPRU, University of 
Sussex;


Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. , 
Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, 
Beijing;


Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck , University of London;

http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en




___
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] Heretic

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi FISers,


If the "information periodic table" approach  to  Information Science is right, 
which was described on this list a few days ago, the following  predictions may 
be made:


(1)  Just as there are a finite number of elements in the chemical periodic 
table that account for all the meteral objects in the Universe, so there may be 
a finite number(~ 10^2 ?)  of  token informations in the information periodic 
table that serve as the ontological basis for all the informations in the 
mental Universe.


(2) Again, just as quantum physicists recognize two kinds of attributes of  
quantum objects (also called quons or wavicles), i.e., 'static' attributes and 
'dynamic' attributes, the former being constant in time and 
observer-independent, while  the latter being time- and observer-dependent [1], 
so perhaps  information scientists  may find it necessary to recognize  two  
aspects of information -- (i) 'static' information, and (ii) 'dynamic' 
information, the former being absolute and observer-independent (also called 
'objective information' ?), while the latter is relative and observer-dependent 
(also called 'subjective information' ?).


(3)  The famous 'complementarity' principle of Bohr, the Heisenberg principle, 
and the quantum wave functions do not apply to  the static attributes of quons 
but only to their dynamic attributes [1].


(4)  There are many dual aspects of information frequently discussed in the 
field of information science, e.g., "it from bit", "static vs. dynamic",  
"objective vs. subjective:, "medium vs. message", and "signifier vs. signified" 
(see Table 1).  According to the  triadic metaphysics of Peirce [2] (as I 
understand it),  all these dualities are just the prescinded (i.e., to detach 
for the convenience of thought) aspect of the ultimate reality which is 
irreudicibly triadic [3].


(5)  As you may recall, the periodic table of information was based on the 
three nodes, A, B and C, of the ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation) network.  It 
is interesting to note that the three categories appearing in the first row of 
Table 1 below are related to these nodes and in fact can be viewed as their 
tokens:


f   
 g

  Firstness  --->  Secondness  ---> Thirdness

 |  
   ^
 |  
   |
 |  
   |
 |___|

h


Figure 1. The isomorphism between the Peircean categoris and the ITR 
(Irreducible Triadic Relation) network.


   f = manifestation/reification; g = habit formation; h = 
correspondence/information flow



(6)  In conclusion, it may turn out that all these discussions on the concept 
of information that we are having on this list and elsewhere may turn out to be 
mere tips of enormous iceberg we call "information".



All the best.


Sung





Table 1.  The postulate that Peirce’s metaphysics [2] is a theory of 
everything.  Red = Type;  Green = Tokens

Peirce’s metaphysics

Firstness

Secondness

Thirdness

1.  Quantum mechanics

Static information

Measurement/Data

Dynamic information
(Quantum mechanical information ?)

2.  Wheeler’s theory

Ultimate Reality (?)

It

Bit

3.  Cognitive science

Objective information (?)

Sign (?)

Subjective information (?)

4.  McLuhan

Ontology

Medium/Sign

Message

5.  Saussure’ semiology

Signified

Signfier

 ?

6.  Peirce’s semiotics

Object

Sign

Interpretant

7.  Periodic  table theory of information

Time-invariant information


Data/Sign (?)

Time-dependent  information





References:

[1] Herbert, N. (1987). Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics and 
Excursion into  Metaphysics . . . . Anchor Books, New York.  pp. 46, 99-100, 
102, 168, 193.
[2]  Categories (Peirce).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_(Peirce)
[3] Ji, S. (2017).  The Cell Language  Theory: Connecting Mind and Matter.  
World Scientific, New Jersey.  Section 10.20.


From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Bob Logan 
<lo...@physics.utoronto.ca>
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2017 12:39 PM
To: Arturo Tozzi
Cc: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Heretic

Dear Arturo - I enjoyed your expression of your opinion  because of its 
directness and honesty even though I do not quite agree with everything you 
said. I enjoyed it because it provoked the following thoughts.

Yes you are right there seems to be a variety of opinions as to just what 
information is. All of them are correc

Re: [Fis] Heretic

[Stanley N Salthe]

Bob -- Your classification of information-related concepts:

• Data are the pure and simple facts without any particular structure or
organization, the basic atoms of information,

• Information is structured data, which adds meaning to the data and gives
it context and significance,

• Knowledge is the ability to use information strategically to achieve
one's objectives, and

 • Wisdom is the capacity to choose objectives consistent with one's values
and within a larger social context

slightly reworked, can be understood as a development using a subsumptive
hierarchy:

{facts {data -->information {knowledge {understanding}

with {lower {higher}}

STAN

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Bob Logan 
wrote:

> Dear Arturo - I enjoyed your expression of your opinion  because of its
> directness and honesty even though I do not quite agree with everything you
> said. I enjoyed it because it provoked the following thoughts.
>
> Yes you are right there seems to be a variety of opinions as to just what
> information is. All of them are correct and all of them are wrong including
> mine which I will share with you in a moment. They are right in that they
> describe some aspect of the notion of information and they are all wrong
> because they are attempting to be precise and that is not possible. All
> words including the word ‘information’ are metaphors and a metaphor cannot
> be right or wrong - it can only be illuminating if inspired or irrelevant
> if too narrow. I am afraid caro Arturo that there cannot be a scientific
> definition of ‘information’ because definitions cannot be falsified and as
> Karl Popper once suggested for a proposition to be scientific it has to be
> falsifiable. Of course this is Popper’s definition of science so some may
> disagree. So I am with you so far. But where I have to disagree is when you
> call the activity of trying to define information a useless activity. I
> think it is useful if only for us to see the various dimensions of this
> notion.
>
> Now as promised my thoughts re: what is information? In fact I have
> written a whole book on the subject which I invite all FISers to read free
> of charge as it is available in an open access format at
> demopublishing.com
> The availability of the book for free is part of an experiment in which I
> wanted to explore if a book could be a two-way form of communication
> between an author and his or her readers. So FISers please help yourself to
> my book and if you do please honour me with a comment or two as the Web
> site you access the book at also has provisions for you feedback. PS - The
> book is also available in hard copy from Amazon.
>
> So now for my definition of information as can be found in the book.
>
> • Data are the pure and simple facts without any particular structure or
> organization, the basic atoms of information,
>
> • Information is structured data, which adds meaning to the data and gives
> it context and significance,
>
> • Knowledge is the ability to use information strategically to achieve
> one's objectives, and
>
>  • Wisdom is the capacity to choose objectives consistent with one's
> values and within a larger social context
>
> In the book I also quote T. S. Eliot whose lines of poetry provide another
> perspective on wisdom, knowledge and information
>
> Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
> Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? ­– TS Eliot
>
> My definition of information as well as that of TS Eliot does not
> encompass the notion of physicists who talk about information in terms of
> Wheeler’s "it from bit” idea.
> For me inanimate objects have no information because they have no choice.
> They slavishly follow the laws of physics. Only biological, living
> organisms have information because they have choice and information is that
> which allows them to make their choices. And information is that which they
> perceive through their senses from the simplest bacteria to us humans that
> ee cummings described as "fine specimen(s) of hypermagical
> ultraomnipotence”   So this is my second notion of what is ‘information’.
>
> Even a book is not a form of information. It is the record of information 
> created by its author and it is a medium that allows its readers to recreate 
> that original information of its author. From a McLuhan perspective we could
>
> also ask is information the medium or the message. McLuhan would say they are 
> the same since he said 'the medium is the message'. And he would also agree 
> that it is the reader that recreates information when the book
>
> is read since he also said “the user is the content”.
>
> Since composing this response a post from Lars-Göran Johansson appeared with 
> which I am in agreement
>
> Best wishes to all - Bob Logan
>
>
>
> __
>
> Robert K. Logan
> Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto
> Fellow University of St. Michael's College
> Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD
> 

Re: [Fis] Heretic

[Bob Logan]

Dear Arturo - I enjoyed your expression of your opinion  because of its 
directness and honesty even though I do not quite agree with everything you 
said. I enjoyed it because it provoked the following thoughts.

Yes you are right there seems to be a variety of opinions as to just what 
information is. All of them are correct and all of them are wrong including 
mine which I will share with you in a moment. They are right in that they 
describe some aspect of the notion of information and they are all wrong 
because they are attempting to be precise and that is not possible. All words 
including the word ‘information’ are metaphors and a metaphor cannot be right 
or wrong - it can only be illuminating if inspired or irrelevant if too narrow. 
I am afraid caro Arturo that there cannot be a scientific definition of 
‘information’ because definitions cannot be falsified and as Karl Popper once 
suggested for a proposition to be scientific it has to be falsifiable. Of 
course this is Popper’s definition of science so some may disagree. So I am 
with you so far. But where I have to disagree is when you call the activity of 
trying to define information a useless activity. I think it is useful if only 
for us to see the various dimensions of this notion.

Now as promised my thoughts re: what is information? In fact I have written a 
whole book on the subject which I invite all FISers to read free of charge as 
it is available in an open access format at demopublishing.com
The availability of the book for free is part of an experiment in which I 
wanted to explore if a book could be a two-way form of communication between an 
author and his or her readers. So FISers please help yourself to my book and if 
you do please honour me with a comment or two as the Web site you access the 
book at also has provisions for you feedback. PS - The book is also available 
in hard copy from Amazon.

So now for my definition of information as can be found in the book.
• Data are the pure and simple facts without any particular structure or 
organization, the basic atoms of information, 

• Information is structured data, which adds meaning to the data and gives it 
context and significance,

• Knowledge is the ability to use information strategically to achieve one's 
objectives, and

 • Wisdom is the capacity to choose objectives consistent with one's values and 
within a larger social context 


In the book I also quote T. S. Eliot whose lines of poetry provide another 
perspective on wisdom, knowledge and information

Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? ­– TS Eliot

My definition of information as well as that of TS Eliot does not encompass the 
notion of physicists who talk about information in terms of Wheeler’s "it from 
bit” idea. 
For me inanimate objects have no information because they have no choice. They 
slavishly follow the laws of physics. Only biological, living organisms have 
information because they have choice and information is that which allows them 
to make their choices. And information is that which they perceive through 
their senses from the simplest bacteria to us humans that ee cummings described 
as "fine specimen(s) of hypermagical ultraomnipotence”   So this is my second 
notion of what is ‘information’.
Even a book is not a form of information. It is the record of information 
created by its author and it is a medium that allows its readers to recreate 
that original information of its author. From a McLuhan perspective we could 
also ask is information the medium or the message. McLuhan would say they are 
the same since he said 'the medium is the message'. And he would also agree 
that it is the reader that recreates information when the book 
is read since he also said “the user is the content”. 
Since composing this response a post from Lars-Göran Johansson appeared with 
which I am in agreement
Best wishes to all - Bob Logan


__

Robert K. Logan
Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto 
Fellow University of St. Michael's College
Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD
http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan
www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications
https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/people/homepages/logan/












On Oct 4, 2017, at 1:49 PM, tozziart...@libero.it wrote:

 Messaggio inoltrato  Da: tozziart...@libero.it 
 A: Alex Hankey alexhan...@gmail.com 
 Data: mercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 07:37PM +02:00 
Oggetto: Re[2]: [Fis] Heretic

Dear Prof. Hankey,
I come from a free country, where everybody can say his own opinion, in 
particular if his opinion is not totally stupid.  
The times of Giordano Bruno and Inquisition are gone.  


--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android

mercoledì, 04 ottobre 2017, 06:20PM +02:00 da Alex Hankey alexhan...@gmail.com 
:

Dear Professor Tozzi, 

Might I suggest 

Re: [Fis] Heretic

[Alex Hankey]

Dear Professor Tozzi,

Might I suggest that you graciously retire from the list,
as you evidently do not wish to participate in what
the rest of us find fascinating topics of discussion.

As a physicist, I have no difficulty in relating to the concept of
'information',
and I am aware of no less than five conceptually totally different
mathematical structures, all of which merit the name, 'information'.

With all good wishes,

Alex Hankey


On 4 October 2017 at 02:30,  wrote:

> Dear FISers,
> After the provided long list of completely different definitions of the
> term "information", one conclusion is clear: there is not a scientific,
> unique definition of information.
>
> Nobody of us is able to provide an operative framework and a single (just
> one!) empirical  testable prevision able to assess "information".
> For example, what does "semantics" and "meaning" mean, in empirical terms?
> Therefore, to talk about information is meaningless, in the carnapian
> sense.
>
> Judging from your answers, the most of you are foremost scientists.
> Therefore, my proposal is to forget about information, and to use your
> otherwise very valuable skills and efforts in other fields.
> It is a waste of your  precious time to focus yourself in something that
> is so vague.  It is, retrospectively, a mistake to state that the world is
> information, if nobody knows what does it mean.
>
> --
> Inviato da Libero Mail per Android
>
> ___
> 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.)
Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India
Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195
Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789


2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics
and Phenomenological Philosophy

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

Re: [Fis] Heretic

[Dai Griffiths]

Thanks Loet, for a very clear and concise exposition of an approach that 
I agree with.


I'm curious about your use of the word 'dualistic'. Dualism usually 
suggests that there are two aspects to a single phenomenon. As I 
interpret your post, you are saying that information and meaning are 
separate concepts. Otherwise, we are led to inquire into the nature of 
the unity of which they are both aspects, which gets us back where we 
started.


So I interpret 'dualistic' here to mean 'two concepts that are 
intertwined in the emergence of events'. Is this parallel to, for 
example, atomic structure and fluid dynamics (perhaps there are better 
examples)? If so, does that imply a hierarchy (i.e. you can have 
information without meaning, but not meaning without information)? This 
makes sense to me, though it is not what I usually associate with the 
word 'dualistic'.


Dai


On 04/10/17 08:16, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:


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



Dear colleague,

One should not confuse the confusion on the list with the clarity of 
the concept information in information theory. This definition is 
operational (e.g., in bits). Your computer would not work without this 
definition (1 byte = 8 bits). The problem is that this definition of 
information as uncertainty is counter-intuitive.


The search for an intuitive definition of information has led to 
unclear definitions. In a recent book, Hidalgo (2015, at p. 165), for 
example, has defined “information” with reference “to the order 
embodied in codified sequences, such as those found in music or DNA, 
while /knowledge and knowhow /refer to the ability of a system to 
process information.” However, codified knowledge can be abstract 
and—like music—does not have to be “embodied” (e.g., Cowan, David, & 
Foray, 2000).


Beyond Hidalgo’s position, Floridi (2010, p. 21) proposed “a general 
definition of information” according to which “the well-formed data 
are /meaningful/” (italics of the author). Luhmann (1995, p. 67) 
posits that “all information has meaning.” In his opinion, information 
should therefore be considered as a selection mechanism. Kauffman et 
al. (2008, at p. 28) added to the confusion by defining information as 
“natural selection.”


Against these attempt to bring information and meaning under a single 
denominator--and to identify variation with selection--I argue for a 
dualistic perspective (as did Prof. Zhong in a previous email). 
Information and meaning should not be confounded. Meaning is generated 
from redundancies (Bateson, 1972, p. 420; Weaver, 1949; see 
Leydesdorff /et al./, 2017).


Best,
Loet

*References:*

Bateson, G. (1972). /Steps to an Ecology of Mind/. New York: Ballantine.

Cowan, R., David, P., & Foray, D. (2000). The Explicit Economics of 
Knowledge Codification and Tacitness. /Industrial and Corporate 
Change, 9/(2), 211-253.


Floridi, L. (2010). /Information: A very short introduction/. Oxford, 
UK: Oxford University Press.


Hidalgo, C. (2015). /Why Information Grows: The Evolution of Order, 
from Atoms to Economies/. New York: Basic Books.


Kauffman, S., Logan, R. K., Este, R., Goebel, R., Hobill, D., & 
Shmulevich, I. (2008). Propagating organization: an enquiry. /Biology 
and Philosophy, 23/(1), 27-45.


Leydesdorff, L., Johnson, M., & Ivanova, I. (2017). Toward a Calculus 
of Redundancy: Signification, Codification, and Anticipation in 
Cultural Evolution. 
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3030525 .


Luhmann, N. ([1984] 1995). /Social Systems/. Stanford, CA: Stanford 
University Press.


Weaver, W. (1949). Some Recent Contributions to the Mathematical 
Theory of Communication. In C. E. Shannon & W. Weaver (Eds.), /The 
Mathematical Theory of Communication/ (pp. 93-117.). Urbana: 
University of Illinois Press.





Loet Leydesdorff

Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

l...@leydesdorff.net ; 
http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty, SPRU, University of 
Sussex;


Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. , 
Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, 
Beijing;


Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck , University of London;

http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en




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


--
-

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 

Re: [Fis] Heretic

[Loet Leydesdorff]

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



Dear colleague,

One should not confuse the confusion on the list with the clarity of the 
concept information in information theory. This definition is 
operational (e.g., in bits). Your computer would not work without this 
definition (1 byte = 8 bits). The problem is that this definition of 
information as uncertainty is counter-intuitive.


The search for an intuitive definition of information has led to unclear 
definitions. In a recent book, Hidalgo (2015, at p. 165), for example, 
has defined “information” with reference “to the order embodied in 
codified sequences, such as those found in music or DNA, while knowledge 
and knowhow refer to the ability of a system to process information.” 
However, codified knowledge can be abstract and—like music—does not have 
to be “embodied” (e.g., Cowan, David, & Foray, 2000).


Beyond Hidalgo’s position, Floridi (2010, p. 21) proposed “a general 
definition of information” according to which “the well-formed data are 
meaningful” (italics of the author). Luhmann (1995, p. 67) posits that 
“all information has meaning.” In his opinion, information should 
therefore be considered as a selection mechanism. Kauffman et al. (2008, 
at p. 28) added to the confusion by defining information as “natural 
selection.”


Against these attempt to bring information and meaning under a single 
denominator--and to identify variation with selection--I argue for a 
dualistic perspective (as did Prof. Zhong in a previous email). 
Information and meaning should not be confounded. Meaning is generated 
from redundancies (Bateson, 1972, p. 420; Weaver, 1949; see Leydesdorff 
et al., 2017).


Best,
Loet

References:



Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine.

Cowan, R., David, P., & Foray, D. (2000). The Explicit Economics of 
Knowledge Codification and Tacitness. Industrial and Corporate Change, 
9(2), 211-253.


Floridi, L. (2010). Information: A very short introduction. Oxford, UK: 
Oxford University Press.


Hidalgo, C. (2015). Why Information Grows: The Evolution of Order, from 
Atoms to Economies. New York: Basic Books.


Kauffman, S., Logan, R. K., Este, R., Goebel, R., Hobill, D., & 
Shmulevich, I. (2008). Propagating organization: an enquiry. Biology and 
Philosophy, 23(1), 27-45.


Leydesdorff, L., Johnson, M., & Ivanova, I. (2017). Toward a Calculus of 
Redundancy: Signification, Codification, and Anticipation in Cultural 
Evolution. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3030525.


Luhmann, N. ([1984] 1995). Social Systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford 
University Press.


Weaver, W. (1949). Some Recent Contributions to the Mathematical Theory 
of Communication. In C. E. Shannon & W. Weaver (Eds.), The Mathematical 
Theory of Communication (pp. 93-117.). Urbana: University of Illinois 
Press.





Loet Leydesdorff

Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

l...@leydesdorff.net ; 
http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty, SPRU, University of 
Sussex;


Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. , 
Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, 
Beijing;


Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck , University of London;

http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en


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