Re: [Fis] Info Theory
Dear Gavin, With all due respect, I would like to strongly disagree. I believe the communications format is an historical artifact that were best put aside. It unnecessarily constrains the application of information theory for many useful purposes. Most especially, the calculus that is built upon the Shannon formula has incredibly wide application. It is useful anywhere constraint enters the picture. Of course, as a thermodynamicist myself, I understand your desire for purity of definition. So if you were to insist on constraining information to communication, then something like Collier's "enformation" needs to be coined to handle the myriad of other productive ways that information theory can be of use to us. I'll warn you, however, it's going to be difficult to draw a clear line between information and enformation. :) The best, Bob - Robert E. Ulanowicz| Tel: +1-352-378-7355 Arthur R. Marshall Laboratory | FAX: +1-352-392-3704 Department of Biology | Emeritus, Chesapeake Biol. Lab Bartram Hall 110 | University of Maryland University of Florida | Email Gainesville, FL 32611-8525 USA | Web <http://www.cbl.umces.edu/~ulan> -- Quoting Gavin Ritz : > > > Hi there Stan > > SS: Info theory presumably applies to everything and anything. > > GR: It was never intended to apply to anything but communication instruments. > That is sending English language down a pipe. > > GR: In my opinion it still only does, I cant get my head around how say > information theory actually applies to direct human communication or organic > sensing systems. All our sensing systems are energy transduction > systems, once > inside the individual it 's moved via Na/K pumps aided by ADP to ATP > conversions > to the brain all electrical, chemical energy. So in the environment > it's just a > sound (phonon) or light (photon) or chemical or heat energy where > are the bits > (information theory part) or markers. They are just not there. > > > Unless this information is what underlies energy and is what makes > up the rest > of the universe including dark matter and dark energy. And is also what > underlies the theory of Geometricdynamics.(Relativity theory).?? How so I > would not know. > > Gavin > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Gavin Ritz wrote: > > Are you saying Karl that Information theory is the glue that binds energy and > entropy production? >> or the the fabric behind these two concept? >> If so what is the bridging qualitative and quantitative propositions and >> formulae for this binding? >> >> It's quite something to say this, because one of the qualitative >> foundations of >> information theory is word frequency of English from Zipfs law. John Pierce >> (Information Theory) >> Regards >> Gavin >> >> >> >> >> >> > > From: "joe.bren...@bluewin.ch" >> To: karl.javors...@gmail.com; Pedro C. Marijuan ; >> fis@listas.unizar.es >> Sent: Sat, 22 January, 2011 7:32:24 AM >> Subject: Re: [Fis] Info Theory >> >> >> Dear Karl, >> >> The assumption I would like to check that we share is that >> existence and energy >> are primitive and numbers something derived. When one moves from >> the quantum >> vacuum or singularity into the thermodynamic world, as soon as >> change occurs, >> something is no longer totally itself; there is something new along >> side of it >> in 4D space-time. The number of entities has increased, and this is the >> situation is the reality of which addition is the model. Iteration, >> which also >> occurs in reality, does the rest. If I understand you correctly, >> you feel that >> numbers, once available and manipulated in more complex ways, can model many >> other things, especially, of course, aspects of information. >> >> If a numerical perspective is convenient and even necessary for an >> understanding >> of nature, I would still like to know if it is sufficient. Are you able to >> capture, in your information theory, for example, the informational >> processes >> involved in: >> >> · emotions >> · creativity >> · anti-social behavior (rational and irrational) >> · complex political processes >> · your own theory? >> >> I think it would make for
Re: [Fis] Info Theory
At 02:05 PM 1/24/2011, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_NextPart_000_00C9_01CBBBC7.684CC9E0" Content-Language: en-us Dear colleagues, It seems to me that the relation between information and energy provides the special case that the entropy is thermodynamic entropy. The relation is S = k(B) H. H is dimensionless, but S is not because k(B) adds the dimensionality of Joule/Kelvin. H can also be considered as probabilistic entropy. S is relevant in the case that the system of reference is the chemico-physical one based on collisions among particles. This level the exchange of momenta and energy is always involved in higher-order exchange processes, but the next-order ones emerge on top of the lower-order ones. I think that joules are energy, and temperature is energy per degrees of freedom. If you cancel out the energy part you get degrees of freedom, which is dimensionless (a number), and is also a good measure for things like information in physical terms. So I don't see a problem. W For example, when specifically molecules are exchanged, life can emerge (Maturana). The self-organization may also reduce the uncertainty locally (ânegentropyâ). The system of reference, however, then is different from the chemico-physical one. The information exchange is provided with meaning. Only because it is interpreted (biosemiotics). Things change dramatically when meaning can again be communicated because then models can be entertained at a more rapid speed than the underlying (that is, modeled) systems. The redundancy generation can then prevail over the entropy generation and a knowledge-based economy, for example, maintained. The discursive models proliferate options other than the ones which occurred historically. This cultural system incurs on the historical manifestations and thus counteracts upon their following of the entropy law. The social system, for example, can be based on other premises than the lower-order ones. For example, the âsurvival of the fittestâ can be replaced by universal human rights. In other words: the specification of the system of reference provides the information exchanges with meaning. Quite. This meaning can again be communicated reflexively in the respective disciplines. The systems can be expected to gain in their capacity to process complexity insofar as these different layers become more nearly decomposable. This expansion spans the different dimensionalities and thus can be expected to enlarge the space for knowledge-based interventions. Dimensionalities add degrees of freedom, and thus information capacity. So information capacity can emerge (or even be created) by the sort of process you mention. It is all physically grounded, though. One more thing: GR: That's thermodynamically impossible. Any organic system requires to convert and transduce energy so you may think it does no work but the relationship is like Ostwald's Ripening there is always an energy cost Sorry Gavin, but you are mistaken. The entropy budget is made at the expense of information loss in these cases. Incidentally, you are posting too often. The rules say two a week. This allows people to check sources, etc. Google is good, plus archives of the fis list. Schroedinger, What is Life? (1945). The connection is via negentropy, and then to biological information in the DNA (he called it a nonperiodic crystal). The 1929 Szillard, SZILARD L., Z. Phys., 53 (1929) 840-856, paper is in German. An English translation can be found in Leff and Rex, Maxwell's Demon (1990, Princeton University Press). It is generally regarded as the first explicit connection between information and physics. John Professor John Collier, Acting HoS and Acting Deputy HoS colli...@ukzn.ac.za Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 http://collier.ukzn.ac.za/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Info Theory
Hi there Stan > >SS: Info theory presumably applies to everything and anything. > >GR: It was never intended to apply to anything but communication instruments. >That is sending English language down a pipe. Sorry, but it has already been done by people like Wheeler, Gell-Mann and Hawking. You are not going to win against them. GR: I don't recall Wheeler or Hawking relating Information theory to organic systems. Also, much broader usages have been developed over time in many other disciplines than physics. Shannon invented communications theory, which is a branch of information theory. Information was used more broadly before his work (e.g. Schroedinger, Szillard) in organic chemistry, thermodynamics and biology. GR: John show me these specific references, i have some of the original texts on Information theory there is no mention of Schroedinger or Szillard using Information theory in thermodynamics and biology or organic chemistry. Information thoery and its relation to physics was done by Johnson and Nyquest to my knowledge. GR: In my opinion it still only does, I cant get my head around how say information theory actually applies to direct human communication or organic sensing systems. All our sensing systems are energy transduction systems, once inside the individual it 's moved via Na/K pumps aided by ADP to ATP conversions to the brain all electrical, chemical energy. So in the environment it's just a sound (phonon) or light (photon) or chemical or heat energy where are the bits (information theory part) or markers. They are just not there. > >Unless this information is what underlies energy and is what makes up the rest >of the universe including dark matter and dark energy. And is also what >underlies the theory of Geometricdynamics.(Relativity theory)..?? How so I >would not know. Information has to be interpreted. It does not come with meaning, attached, though standard conventions, habits, biological predispositions and the like can obscure this. The full relation between information and energy still needs to be worked out, I believe. GR: You can say that again. However, information can be used to do work with no additional energy input (see some past posts on this topic), which suggests a very close connection. GR: That's thermodynamically impossible. Any organic system requires to convert and transduce energy so you may think it does no work but the relationship is like Ostwald's Ripening there is always an energy cost. Regards Gavin Professor John Collier, Acting HoS and Acting Deputy HoS colli...@ukzn.ac.za Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 http://collier.ukzn.ac.za/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Info Theory
At 01:41 PM 1/24/2011, Gavin Ritz wrote: Hi there Stan SS: Info theory presumably applies to everything and anything. GR: It was never intended to apply to anything but communication instruments. That is sending English language down a pipe. Sorry, but it has already been done by people like Wheeler, Gell-Mann and Hawking. You are not going to win against them. Also, much broader usages have been developed over time in many other disciplines than physics. Shannon invented communications theory, which is a branch of information theory. Information was used more broadly before his work (e.g. Schroedinger, Szillard) in organic chemistry, thermodynamics and biology. GR: In my opinion it still only does, I cant get my head around how say information theory actually applies to direct human communication or organic sensing systems. All our sensing systems are energy transduction systems, once inside the individual it 's moved via Na/K pumps aided by ADP to ATP conversions to the brain all electrical, chemical energy. So in the environment it's just a sound (phonon) or light (photon) or chemical or heat energy where are the bits (information theory part) or markers. They are just not there. Unless this information is what underlies energy and is what makes up the rest of the universe including dark matter and dark energy. And is also what underlies the theory of Geometricdynamics.(Relativity theory)..?? How so I would not know. Information has to be interpreted. It does not come with meaning, attached, though standard conventions, habits, biological predispositions and the like can obscure this. The full relation between information and energy still needs to be worked out, I believe. However, information can be used to do work with no additional energy input (see some past posts on this topic), which suggests a very close connection. Regards, John Professor John Collier, Acting HoS and Acting Deputy HoS colli...@ukzn.ac.za Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031 http://collier.ukzn.ac.za/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Info Theory
Hi there Loet If the information exchange is provided with meaning, then this is probably just a qualitative aspect of entropy production. However this is not Information Theory. The Relation between energy and information theory is 0.693kT (k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the temp in kelvin) Joules/bit this however is for a machine not a living organism. Knowledge transfer systems are Imperative Logic Systems hereto totally uncounted for. Regards Gavin Dear colleagues, It seems to me that the relation between information and energy provides the special case that the entropy is thermodynamic entropy. The relation is S = k(B) H. H is dimensionless, but S is not because k(B) adds the dimensionality of Joule/Kelvin. H can also be considered as probabilistic entropy. S is relevant in the case that the system of reference is the chemico-physical one based on collisions among particles. This level – the exchange of momenta and energy – is always involved in higher-order exchange processes, but the next-order ones emerge on top of the lower-order ones. For example, when specifically molecules are exchanged, life can emerge (Maturana). The self-organization may also reduce the uncertainty locally (“negentropy”). The system of reference, however, then is different from the chemico-physical one. The information exchange is provided with meaning. Things change dramatically when meaning can again be communicated because then models can be entertained at a more rapid speed than the underlying (that is, modeled) systems. The redundancy generation can then prevail over the entropy generation and a knowledge-based economy, for example, maintained. The discursive models proliferate options other than the ones which occurred historically. This cultural system incurs on the historical manifestations and thus counteracts upon their following of the entropy law. The social system, for example, can be based on other premises than the lower-order ones. For example, the “survival of the fittest” can be replaced by universal human rights. In other words: the specification of the system of reference provides the information exchanges with meaning. This meaning can again be communicated reflexively in the respective disciplines. The systems can be expected to gain in their capacity to process complexity insofar as these different layers become more nearly decomposable. This expansion spans the different dimensionalities and thus can be expected to enlarge the space for knowledge-based interventions. Best wishes, Loet LoetLeydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam AmsterdamSchoolof Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CXAmsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ From:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Gavin Ritz Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:42 PM To: Stanley N Salthe Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Info Theory Hi there Stan SS: Info theory presumably applies to everything and anything. GR: It was never intended to apply to anything but communication instruments. That is sending English language down a pipe. GR: In my opinion it still only does, I cant get my head around how say information theory actually applies to direct human communication or organic sensing systems. All our sensing systems are energy transduction systems, once inside the individual it 's moved via Na/K pumps aided by ADP to ATP conversions to the brain all electrical, chemical energy. So in the environment it's just a sound (phonon) or light (photon) or chemical or heat energy where are the bits (information theory part) or markers. They are just not there. Unless this information is what underlies energy and is what makes up the rest of the universe including dark matter and dark energy. And is also what underlies the theory of Geometricdynamics.(Relativity theory)..?? How so I would not know. Gavin On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Gavin Ritz wrote: Are you saying Karl that Information theory is the glue that binds energy and entropy production? or the the fabric behind these two concept? If so what is the bridging qualitative and quantitative propositions and formulae for this binding? It's quite something to say this, because one of the qualitative foundations of information theory is word frequency of English from Zipfs law. John Pierce (Information Theory) Regards Gavin From:"joe.bren...@bluewin.ch" To: karl.javors...@gmail.com; Pedro C. Marijuan ; fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Sat, 22 January, 2011 7:32:24 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] Info Theory Dear Karl, The assumption I would like to check that we share is that existence and energy are primitive and numbers something derived. When one moves
Re: [Fis] Info Theory
Dear colleagues, It seems to me that the relation between information and energy provides the special case that the entropy is thermodynamic entropy. The relation is S = k(B) H. H is dimensionless, but S is not because k(B) adds the dimensionality of Joule/Kelvin. H can also be considered as probabilistic entropy. S is relevant in the case that the system of reference is the chemico-physical one based on collisions among particles. This level – the exchange of momenta and energy – is always involved in higher-order exchange processes, but the next-order ones emerge on top of the lower-order ones. For example, when specifically molecules are exchanged, life can emerge (Maturana). The self-organization may also reduce the uncertainty locally (“negentropy”). The system of reference, however, then is different from the chemico-physical one. The information exchange is provided with meaning. Things change dramatically when meaning can again be communicated because then models can be entertained at a more rapid speed than the underlying (that is, modeled) systems. The redundancy generation can then prevail over the entropy generation and a knowledge-based economy, for example, maintained. The discursive models proliferate options other than the ones which occurred historically. This cultural system incurs on the historical manifestations and thus counteracts upon their following of the entropy law. The social system, for example, can be based on other premises than the lower-order ones. For example, the “survival of the fittest” can be replaced by universal human rights. In other words: the specification of the system of reference provides the information exchanges with meaning. This meaning can again be communicated reflexively in the respective disciplines. The systems can be expected to gain in their capacity to process complexity insofar as these different layers become more nearly decomposable. This expansion spans the different dimensionalities and thus can be expected to enlarge the space for knowledge-based interventions. Best wishes, Loet _ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Gavin Ritz Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:42 PM To: Stanley N Salthe Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Info Theory Hi there Stan SS: Info theory presumably applies to everything and anything. GR: It was never intended to apply to anything but communication instruments. That is sending English language down a pipe. GR: In my opinion it still only does, I cant get my head around how say information theory actually applies to direct human communication or organic sensing systems. All our sensing systems are energy transduction systems, once inside the individual it 's moved via Na/K pumps aided by ADP to ATP conversions to the brain all electrical, chemical energy. So in the environment it's just a sound (phonon) or light (photon) or chemical or heat energy where are the bits (information theory part) or markers. They are just not there. Unless this information is what underlies energy and is what makes up the rest of the universe including dark matter and dark energy. And is also what underlies the theory of Geometricdynamics.(Relativity theory)..?? How so I would not know. Gavin On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Gavin Ritz wrote: Are you saying Karl that Information theory is the glue that binds energy and entropy production? or the the fabric behind these two concept? If so what is the bridging qualitative and quantitative propositions and formulae for this binding? It's quite something to say this, because one of the qualitative foundations of information theory is word frequency of English from Zipfs law. John Pierce (Information Theory) Regards Gavin _ From: "joe.bren...@bluewin.ch" To: karl.javors...@gmail.com; Pedro C. Marijuan ; fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Sat, 22 January, 2011 7:32:24 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] Info Theory Dear Karl, The assumption I would like to check that we share is that existence and energy are primitive and numbers something derived. When one moves from the quantum vacuum or singularity into the thermodynamic world, as soon as change occurs, something is no longer totally itself; there is something new along side of it in 4D space-time. The number of entities has increased, and this is the situation is the reality of which addition is the model. Iteration, which also occurs in reality, does the rest. If I understand you correctly, you feel that numbers, o
Re: [Fis] Info Theory
Karl I cant fault your thinking, ( with some very important things you mention) but your comment about Shannon's view doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, fire- or not fire is just one logical connective form. Just One aspect of proposition logic connective. Imperative Logic which is actually more pervasive in organic systems is still unaccounted by your comments below. In fact Imperative Logic (fire neuron now) is how organic systems communicate with itself and others. And totally unaccounted for in most models. Shannon's communication theory is about getting data down a pipe and reading it at the other end. Not really intended to be anything else. If you say Limits of Glue then Information Theory does not underlie entropy production (or energy) or the Non-equilibrium free energy (combination of the two), and in fact may only be one qualitative aspect of entropy production. Then cannot be used to explain the Reality of Nature. Regards Gavin From: karljavorszky To: Gavin Ritz Cc: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch; fis@listas.unizar.es; pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es Sent: Mon, 24 January, 2011 1:58:28 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] Info Theory Limits of Glue Joe:...that existence and energy are primitive and numbers something derived. Yes of course. We know that Nature exists and has manifold properties. (Thomas Aquinas). We speak about our experiences with Nature. To make certain that we understand each other clearly, we use words with progressive degrees of formal meaning. The extreme of this is that we use the public language, i.e. numbers, - where no person has (should have) subjective connotations, and the denotations of the words are clear. The imagery built up by this method has the shortcomings that it is a very abstract, detached, idealised way of speaking about Nature. It has the advantages that we each know that we mean the same as we say "in this model Nature is in a constant change" as we refer to the fact that the Euclid spaces which give mass a localisation are derived from the concept that a reordering always takes place, no side of a logical argument having any innate, intrinsic claim of being more true than other aspects. It is a continuous reordering which brings forth the convoys of objects moving together (“strings”) and one of the readings yields coordinates in two perfectly rectangular spaces. So the basic principle is that it moves, as Heraclit said it should. What I say in normal, subjectively colored language is that space is actually two spaces which are merged into each other. The fabric of space is made up of the undecided logical (sub-)questions of the relevance of aspects. If it is more descriptive of a+b=c that 2a-3b is in such and such way more related to b-2a than to 2b-3a (just to mention an example), then space either constricts or expands or the strings going thru the truth points of this debate have to carry more fillings or less. The stuff must be somewhere. The 4D space you ask about is perfectly there, with strings attached, twice. Yes, physiology is a science of accounting and maintaining very strict limits. This is even more true of neurology. That we humans have funny ideas is built into the mechanism and can be seen e.g. on wolves, bears, apes as they play and chase imaginary prey (which is strictly speaking a hallucination). The translation sequenced-commutative is what we see in the DNA and in the functions of the brain. The electrical discharges which we call thoughts are sequenced and come from specific places, but are otherwise uniform. The cells fire or fire not. They have two logical states. This is the Shannon way of doing things. Then, interdependent with this, we have multiform material which is displaced. The fluids are only generally somewhere in the region, they can lose their place, and quite importantly they are of several varieties. The anti-Shannon idea is that there are more forms in Nature (which we can speak about in a formalized fashion) than this one and not this one. The model presented is not an explanation for everything and all. It is a tool to play with. We have 16 kinds of building blocks in two sets, black and white. We pair the blocks and order them. Then we reorder them again. We then discuss which pair goes with which other pairs together in a convoy. This appears at first sight very complicated but is extremely logical. The glue in question connecting and partly fusing concepts in our brain and between sciences and societies and among particles and galaxies is well pictured in the formal language by the strings that show the (possibly irrelevant) spatial coordinates of the convoys. It is not the accountant’s job to give names to amounts systematically under way and partly misplaced. It is the scientists’ prerogative to decide what they call a string, a field, a force, a molecule. Accounting processes connect points in Euclid spaces with extents. We present acc
Re: [Fis] Info Theory
Hi there Stan SS: Info theory presumably applies to everything and anything. GR: It was never intended to apply to anything but communication instruments. That is sending English language down a pipe. GR: In my opinion it still only does, I cant get my head around how say information theory actually applies to direct human communication or organic sensing systems. All our sensing systems are energy transduction systems, once inside the individual it 's moved via Na/K pumps aided by ADP to ATP conversions to the brain all electrical, chemical energy. So in the environment it's just a sound (phonon) or light (photon) or chemical or heat energy where are the bits (information theory part) or markers. They are just not there. Unless this information is what underlies energy and is what makes up the rest of the universe including dark matter and dark energy. And is also what underlies the theory of Geometricdynamics.(Relativity theory).?? How so I would not know. Gavin On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Gavin Ritz wrote: Are you saying Karl that Information theory is the glue that binds energy and entropy production? >or the the fabric behind these two concept? >If so what is the bridging qualitative and quantitative propositions and >formulae for this binding? > >It's quite something to say this, because one of the qualitative foundations >of >information theory is word frequency of English from Zipfs law. John Pierce >(Information Theory) >Regards >Gavin > > > > > > From: "joe.bren...@bluewin.ch" >To: karl.javors...@gmail.com; Pedro C. Marijuan ; >fis@listas.unizar.es >Sent: Sat, 22 January, 2011 7:32:24 AM >Subject: Re: [Fis] Info Theory > > >Dear Karl, > >The assumption I would like to check that we share is that existence and >energy >are primitive and numbers something derived. When one moves from the quantum >vacuum or singularity into the thermodynamic world, as soon as change occurs, >something is no longer totally itself; there is something new along side of it >in 4D space-time. The number of entities has increased, and this is the >situation is the reality of which addition is the model. Iteration, which also >occurs in reality, does the rest. If I understand you correctly, you feel that >numbers, once available and manipulated in more complex ways, can model many >other things, especially, of course, aspects of information. > >If a numerical perspective is convenient and even necessary for an >understanding >of nature, I would still like to know if it is sufficient. Are you able to >capture, in your information theory, for example, the informational processes >involved in: > >· emotions >· creativity >· anti-social behavior (rational and irrational) >· complex political processes >· your own theory? > >I think it would make for a more interesting and productive discussion if you >were to tell us where your theory does NOT apply, rather than let us raise >naïve >objections to which you already have clear answers. I would like to know, for >example, which of several possible approaches to the definition of a "logical >object" are involved; at what point the limitations of machines become >determining; and under what conditions one should seek to maximize (because >valuable) heterogeneity as opposed to homogeneity. Very interesting >discussions >can then be envisaged at the “boundaries” between different approaches. > >Thank you and best wishes, > >Joseph > >Ursprüngliche Nachricht >>Von: karl.javors...@gmail.com >>Datum: 20.01.2011 21:03 >>An: "Jerry Chandler", "Joseph >>Brenner", "Pedro C. >>Marijuan" >>Betreff: Info Theory >> >>Hope that the FIS server will eventuially accept this, too.. For you, >>individually: >> >> >>Information Theory: >>Let me answer the points raised so far: >>Joe Brenner: >>My hope is that this discussion will have a good deal to do with qualitative >>as >>well as quantitative aspects of information. Perhaps people should state >>clearly >>what the primary interests and objectives are of their remarks. >> >> >> >> >> >>Jerry Chandler: >>The unspoken premise of many discussants appears to me to be a view of >>information theory as a universal glue, a universal predicate, a universal >>code. >>The assertion is outspoken, explicit and apodictically declaratory: >>information >>theory IS a universal glue, a universal predicate, a universal code >> >>Yet, any eff
Re: [Fis] Info Theory
It is interesting that you raise the power law in connection with information. Info theory presumably applies to everything and anything. So do power laws like Zipf's, WHEN data are examined as ranking by size or importance. How can this be? Or, rather, 'what is this?' The power law is 'information' about EVERYTHING, when anything is so viewed. The only 'discovery' is the value of the slope of the log/log relation, which does differ between kinds of data (although, not in Zipf's case). That is, the procedure of examining data in this way ALWAYS results in a power law. Put otherwise, does anyone know of data about natural things that would not deliver a power law? If not, then power laws must be a projection of the observer. That is, they are a 'social construction, and the slope values they deliver upon analysis are data 'relative to the observer only'. I would guess that we would not find a single power law if we ranked sizes of entities from the scale of cities down to that of fermions, because there necessarily must be breaks of about order of magnitude here and there that reflect hierarchical structure, which seems to be another fact about the world. But, within any scale level, I would suppose power laws would emerge from our analysis. STAN On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Gavin Ritz wrote: > Are you saying Karl that Information theory is the glue that binds energy > and entropy production? > or the the fabric behind these two concept? > If so what is the bridging qualitative and quantitative propositions and > formulae for this binding? > > It's quite something to say this, because one of the qualitative > foundations of information theory is word frequency of English from Zipfs > law. John Pierce (Information Theory) > Regards > Gavin > > > -- > *From:* "joe.bren...@bluewin.ch" > *To:* karl.javors...@gmail.com; Pedro C. Marijuan < > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>; fis@listas.unizar.es > *Sent:* Sat, 22 January, 2011 7:32:24 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Info Theory > > Dear Karl, > > > > The assumption I would like to check that we share is that existence and > energy are primitive and numbers something derived. When one moves from the > quantum vacuum or singularity into the thermodynamic world, as soon as > change occurs, something is no longer totally itself; there is something new > along side of it in 4D space-time. The number of entities has increased, and > this is the situation is the reality of which addition is the model. > Iteration, which also occurs in reality, does the rest. If I understand you > correctly, you feel that numbers, once available and manipulated in more > complex ways, can model many other things, especially, of course, aspects of > information. > > > > If a numerical perspective is convenient and even necessary for an > understanding of nature, I would still like to know if it is sufficient. Are > you able to capture, in your information theory, for example, the > informational processes involved in: > > > > · emotions > > · creativity > > · anti-social behavior (rational and irrational) > > · complex political processes > > · your own theory? > > > > I think it would make for a more interesting and productive discussion if > you were to tell us where your theory does NOT apply, rather than let us > raise naïve objections to which you already have clear answers. I would like > to know, for example, which of several possible approaches to the definition > of a "logical object" are involved; at what point the limitations of > machines become determining; and under what conditions one should seek to > maximize (because valuable) heterogeneity as opposed to homogeneity. Very > interesting discussions can then be envisaged at the “boundaries” between > different approaches. > > > > Thank you and best wishes, > > > > Joseph > > Ursprüngliche Nachricht > Von: karl.javors...@gmail.com > Datum: 20.01.2011 21:03 > An: "Jerry Chandler", "Joseph Brenner"< > joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>, "Pedro C. Marijuan" > Betreff: Info Theory > > Hope that the FIS server will eventuially accept this, too.. For you, > individually: > > Information Theory: > > Let me answer the points raised so far: > > Joe Brenner: > > My hope is that this discussion will have a good deal to do with > qualitative as well as quantitative aspects of information. Perhaps people > should state clearly what the primary interests and objectives are of their > remarks. > > > > Jerry Chandler: > > The unspoken premise of man
Re: [Fis] Info Theory
Limits of Glue Joe:...that existence and energy are primitive and numbers something derived. Yes of course. We know that Nature exists and has manifold properties. (Thomas Aquinas). We speak about our experiences with Nature. To make certain that we understand each other clearly, we use words with progressive degrees of formal meaning. The extreme of this is that we use the public language, i.e. numbers, - where no person has (should have) subjective connotations, and the denotations of the words are clear. The imagery built up by this method has the shortcomings that it is a very abstract, detached, idealised way of speaking about Nature. It has the advantages that we each know that we mean the same as we say "in this model Nature is in a constant change" as we refer to the fact that the Euclid spaces which give mass a localisation are derived from the concept that a reordering always takes place, no side of a logical argument having any innate, intrinsic claim of being more true than other aspects. It is a continuous reordering which brings forth the convoys of objects moving together (“strings”) and one of the readings yields coordinates in two perfectly rectangular spaces. So the basic principle is that it moves, as Heraclit said it should. What I say in normal, subjectively colored language is that space is actually two spaces which are merged into each other. The fabric of space is made up of the undecided logical (sub-)questions of the relevance of aspects. If it is more descriptive of a+b=c that 2a-3b is in such and such way more related to b-2a than to 2b-3a (just to mention an example), then space either constricts or expands or the strings going thru the truth points of this debate have to carry more fillings or less. The stuff must be somewhere. The 4D space you ask about is perfectly there, with strings attached, twice. Yes, physiology is a science of accounting and maintaining very strict limits. This is even more true of neurology. That we humans have funny ideas is built into the mechanism and can be seen e.g. on wolves, bears, apes as they play and chase imaginary prey (which is strictly speaking a hallucination). The translation sequenced-commutative is what we see in the DNA and in the functions of the brain. The electrical discharges which we call thoughts are sequenced and come from specific places, but are otherwise uniform. The cells fire or fire not. They have two logical states. This is the Shannon way of doing things. Then, interdependent with this, we have multiform material which is displaced. The fluids are only generally somewhere in the region, they can lose their place, and quite importantly they are of several varieties. The anti-Shannon idea is that there are more forms in Nature (which we can speak about in a formalized fashion) than this one and not this one. The model presented is not an explanation for everything and all. It is a tool to play with. We have 16 kinds of building blocks in two sets, black and white. We pair the blocks and order them. Then we reorder them again. We then discuss which pair goes with which other pairs together in a convoy. This appears at first sight very complicated but is extremely logical. The glue in question connecting and partly fusing concepts in our brain and between sciences and societies and among particles and galaxies is well pictured in the formal language by the strings that show the (possibly irrelevant) spatial coordinates of the convoys. It is not the accountant’s job to give names to amounts systematically under way and partly misplaced. It is the scientists’ prerogative to decide what they call a string, a field, a force, a molecule. Accounting processes connect points in Euclid spaces with extents. We present accounting transformation of “where” into “how much” and the other way around. The model will not yield useful results if the concepts are not clear enough. So it can not be used to explain the revigorisation on figuring out a solution, catching an idea nor the birth of supernovae out of pressure of space, although something appears similar. The present usefulness could be somewhere between chemistry and physiology. 2011/1/23, Gavin Ritz : > Are you saying Karl that Information theory is the glue that binds energy > and > entropy production? > or the the fabric behind these two concept? > If so what is the bridging qualitative and quantitative propositions and > formulae for this binding? > > It's quite something to say this, because one of the qualitative foundations > of > information theory is word frequency of English from Zipfs law. John Pierce > (Information Theory) > Regards > Gavin > > > > > > > From: "joe.bren...@bluewin.ch" > To: karl.javors...@gmail.com; Pedro C. Marijuan ; > fis@listas.unizar.es > Sent: Sat, 22 January, 2011 7:32:24 AM > Subject: Re: [Fis] Info The
Re: [Fis] Info Theory
Are you saying Karl that Information theory is the glue that binds energy and entropy production? or the the fabric behind these two concept? If so what is the bridging qualitative and quantitative propositions and formulae for this binding? It's quite something to say this, because one of the qualitative foundations of information theory is word frequency of English from Zipfs law. John Pierce (Information Theory) Regards Gavin From: "joe.bren...@bluewin.ch" To: karl.javors...@gmail.com; Pedro C. Marijuan ; fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Sat, 22 January, 2011 7:32:24 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] Info Theory Dear Karl, The assumption I would like to check that we share is that existence and energy are primitive and numbers something derived. When one moves from the quantum vacuum or singularity into the thermodynamic world, as soon as change occurs, something is no longer totally itself; there is something new along side of it in 4D space-time. The number of entities has increased, and this is the situation is the reality of which addition is the model. Iteration, which also occurs in reality, does the rest. If I understand you correctly, you feel that numbers, once available and manipulated in more complex ways, can model many other things, especially, of course, aspects of information. If a numerical perspective is convenient and even necessary for an understanding of nature, I would still like to know if it is sufficient. Are you able to capture, in your information theory, for example, the informational processes involved in: · emotions · creativity · anti-social behavior (rational and irrational) · complex political processes · your own theory? I think it would make for a more interesting and productive discussion if you were to tell us where your theory does NOT apply, rather than let us raise naïve objections to which you already have clear answers. I would like to know, for example, which of several possible approaches to the definition of a "logical object" are involved; at what point the limitations of machines become determining; and under what conditions one should seek to maximize (because valuable) heterogeneity as opposed to homogeneity. Very interesting discussions can then be envisaged at the “boundaries” between different approaches. Thank you and best wishes, Joseph Ursprüngliche Nachricht >Von: karl.javors...@gmail.com >Datum: 20.01.2011 21:03 >An: "Jerry Chandler", "Joseph >Brenner", "Pedro C. >Marijuan" >Betreff: Info Theory > >Hope that the FIS server will eventuially accept this, too. For you, >individually: > > >Information Theory: >Let me answer the points raised so far: >Joe Brenner: >My hope is that this discussion will have a good deal to do with qualitative >as >well as quantitative aspects of information. Perhaps people should state >clearly >what the primary interests and objectives are of their remarks. > > > > > >Jerry Chandler: >The unspoken premise of many discussants appears to me to be a view of >information theory as a universal glue, a universal predicate, a universal >code. >The assertion is outspoken, explicit and apodictically declaratory: >information >theory IS a universal glue, a universal predicate, a universal code > >Yet, any effort to use quantum logic to describe inheritance requires the >construction of semantic bridges between messages before the encoding occurs. >The existence of such semantic links or connections is intrinsic to the >logical >premise or assertion lies in the encoding process, not the experimental >science >that generates the information. >The concepts and procedures underlying quantum logic and inheritance root BOTH >in a common concept of rationality. Rationality as understood and codified >heretofore roots in traditional concepts of additions. Once the next >techniques >of addition will have been mastered, both quantum logic and inheritance will >be >understood to agree to the same unified underlying theory of information. > > > >"Why did the sciences develop separate and distinct encoding systems for >expressing the natural behaviors of nature?" >There is an epistemological and a neurological-traditional explanation for >this >phenomenon. Thinking can discover (as Thomas said ca 1260 in Summa Theologiae) >that an order exists behind the orders. This is in fact so. So a discursive >distinction between concepts observed as appearances of the minor orders and >concepts deducted as being principles of the maior order is reasonable. The >neurological-traditional teaching orients itself on requirements and >limitations >of the
Re: [Fis] Info Theory
Dear Karl, The assumption I would like to check that we share is that existence and energy are primitive and numbers something derived. When one moves from the quantum vacuum or singularity into the thermodynamic world, as soon as change occurs, something is no longer totally itself; there is something new along side of it in 4D space-time. The number of entities has increased, and this is the situation is the reality of which addition is the model. Iteration, which also occurs in reality, does the rest. If I understand you correctly, you feel that numbers, once available and manipulated in more complex ways, can model many other things, especially, of course, aspects of information. If a numerical perspective is convenient and even necessary for an understanding of nature, I would still like to know if it is sufficient. Are you able to capture, in your information theory, for example, the informational processes involved in: · emotions · creativity · anti-social behavior (rational and irrational) · complex political processes · your own theory? I think it would make for a more interesting and productive discussion if you were to tell us where your theory does NOT apply, rather than let us raise naïve objections to which you already have clear answers. I would like to know, for example, which of several possible approaches to the definition of a "logical object" are involved; at what point the limitations of machines become determining; and under what conditions one should seek to maximize (because valuable) heterogeneity as opposed to homogeneity. Very interesting discussions can then be envisaged at the “boundaries” between different approaches. Thank you and best wishes, Joseph Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: karl.javors...@gmail.com Datum: 20.01.2011 21:03 An: "Jerry Chandler", "Joseph Brenner", "Pedro C. Marijuan" Betreff: Info Theory Hope that the FIS server will eventuially accept this, too. For you, individually: Information Theory: Let me answer the points raised so far: Joe Brenner: My hope is that this discussion will have a good deal to do with qualitative as well as quantitative aspects of information. Perhaps people should state clearly what the primary interests and objectives are of their remarks. Jerry Chandler: The unspoken premise of many discussants appears to me to be a view of information theory as a universal glue, a universal predicate, a universal code. The assertion is outspoken, explicit and apodictically declaratory: information theory IS a universal glue, a universal predicate, a universal code Yet, any effort to use quantum logic to describe inheritance requires the construction of semantic bridges between messages before the encoding occurs. The existence of such semantic links or connections is intrinsic to the logical premise or assertion lies in the encoding process, not the experimental science that generates the information. The concepts and procedures underlying quantum logic and inheritance root BOTH in a common concept of rationality. Rationality as understood and codified heretofore roots in traditional concepts of additions. Once the next techniques of addition will have been mastered, both quantum logic and inheritance will be understood to agree to the same unified underlying theory of information. "Why did the sciences develop separate and distinct encoding systems for expressing the natural behaviors of nature?"There is an epistemological and a neurological-traditional explanation for this phenomenon. Thinking can discover (as Thomas said ca 1260 in Summa Theologiae) that an order exists behind the orders. This is in fact so. So a discursive distinction between concepts observed as appearances of the minor orders and concepts deducted as being principles of the maior order is reasonable. The neurological-traditional teaching orients itself on requirements and limitations of the human neurology. The complexity of understanding the advanced techniques of additions places it far outside the capacity of human brains to conceive yet alone understand and utilize. The unsolved - in fact, without the help of machines: unsolvable - task of mastering the additions has forced human scientists and philosophers to assign processes that can only be understood by advanced additions to the realm of "irrational"; reasonable again. (The task to observe patterns on 136x9x72 integers is outside human capacity unaided by machines. Ours is the first generation to have pattern-recognising machines at its disposal at leisure.) (The theory will..) inform us of the natural foundations of Shannon information theory and give the logical reasons for its spectacular practical and economic success. The theory will inform us of the natural foundations of the FIS information theory and give the logical reasons of its - yet to be reaped - spectacular practical and economic
