Re: [Fis] On Stan's reply to Gavin

[Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic]

Dear Robert,

> For example, information is continually being created and destroyed in 
> ecological systems.

Exactly! Even in simple physical artifacts such as computers, we delete/erase 
information regularly and generate information (as program outputs).

> ... to understand what the physicists are claiming.
It seems to me, given spatiotemporal distance big enough, one does not see such 
phenomena which generate/destroy information. Physics builds on laws of 
conservation.

Best,
Gordana



Dr Dr Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, 
Associate Professor 
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
Mälardalen University
School of Innovation, Design and Engineering
Box 883, SE-721 23 Västerås, Sweden




-Original Message-
From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
Behalf Of Robert Ulanowicz
Sent: den 1 februari 2011 01:10
To: ro...@robinfaichney.org
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] On Stan's reply to Gavin

> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Robin Faichney  
> wrote:

>>  "Conservation  of information" can be translated as
>> meaning   that   physical   laws  do  not break down, and the state of
>> affairs  at  one  time  can  be  considered  "encoded" in the state of
>> affairs at another time. For instance, events within the event horizon
>> of  a  black hole (or, on the holographic principle, on the surface of
>> the  event  horizon) could, in principle, be determined by examination
>> of the Hawking radiation that escapes as the hole diminishes.

Dear Robin,

I have always wondered what physicists meant when they talked about  
"conservation of information", because Shannon-like measures are  
definitely not state variables, and hence not conserved. For example,  
information is continually being created and destroyed in ecological  
systems.

Even if the laws of nature do not break down, there simply are not  
enough of them to encode complex situations. While the laws themselves  
are all conservative, the implicit boundary value problem is  
*necessarily* contingent. This accounts for the reality and ubiquity  
of indeterminacy in complex systems.

I find it difficult to imagine how stochastic events such as occur  
within a black hole could possibly be "determined" by Hawking  
radiation, or even by anything more reliable.

Could you possibly guide me to some reference where I could attempt  
again to understand what the physicists are claiming.

Thanks,
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>
--


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



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

Re: [Fis] On Stan's reply to Gavin

[Robert Ulanowicz]

> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Robin Faichney  
> wrote:

>>  "Conservation  of information" can be translated as
>> meaning   that   physical   laws  do  not break down, and the state of
>> affairs  at  one  time  can  be  considered  "encoded" in the state of
>> affairs at another time. For instance, events within the event horizon
>> of  a  black hole (or, on the holographic principle, on the surface of
>> the  event  horizon) could, in principle, be determined by examination
>> of the Hawking radiation that escapes as the hole diminishes.

Dear Robin,

I have always wondered what physicists meant when they talked about  
"conservation of information", because Shannon-like measures are  
definitely not state variables, and hence not conserved. For example,  
information is continually being created and destroyed in ecological  
systems.

Even if the laws of nature do not break down, there simply are not  
enough of them to encode complex situations. While the laws themselves  
are all conservative, the implicit boundary value problem is  
*necessarily* contingent. This accounts for the reality and ubiquity  
of indeterminacy in complex systems.

I find it difficult to imagine how stochastic events such as occur  
within a black hole could possibly be "determined" by Hawking  
radiation, or even by anything more reliable.

Could you possibly guide me to some reference where I could attempt  
again to understand what the physicists are claiming.

Thanks,
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 
--


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

Re: [Fis] On Stan's reply to Gavin

[Stanley N Salthe]

Robin --

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Robin Faichney wrote:

> Saturday, January 29, 2011, 9:39:09 PM, Stanley wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Gavin Ritz  wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> > S: Since it was abstracted from human communication systems, it has
> > taken on a 'life of its own', as any abstraction has a right to do.
>
> I   agree   with   this.  I'm no mathematician, but I believe that the
> broader  significance  of  Shannon's  work was a method of quantifying
> "pure  pattern".  This  was  then  adopted  by physicists who saw that
> material  form  can  be treated as pure patterns, and thus we get such
> concepts as the conservation of "information" in quantum mechanics and
> in  black  holes.


Are 'pure patterns' three dimensional?


>  "Conservation  of information" can be translated as
> meaning   that   physical   laws  do  not break down, and the state of
> affairs  at  one  time  can  be  considered  "encoded" in the state of
> affairs at another time. For instance, events within the event horizon
> of  a  black hole (or, on the holographic principle, on the surface of
> the  event  horizon) could, in principle, be determined by examination
> of the Hawking radiation that escapes as the hole diminishes.
>

Nice, clearly put!  Thanks.  Of course, this is a (necessary!) assumption.

>
> > I think
> > the crux of the matter is being examined right now -- is information
> > ('bit') primal or is stuff ('it') primal?  In my view there needs to
> > be stuff in order for there to be a perspective, and there needs to
> > be a perspective before there is anything to communicate.
>
> I  share  your  focus  on  perspective (and also context), but I'm not
> clear why perspective requires "stuff" -- but see below.
>

Because a perspective would require stability of locale.  I think that a
world of boson<->fermion transitions could have no specific locales.

>
> > Information is an abstraction related closely to form, which it is
> > supposed always could be translated to instructions in a computer,
> > creating 'bits' from inspection of 'its'.  Then the supposition is
> > that The World also reckons with information, leading to" 'its from
> > 'bits' ".  This, to me, is implausible.
>
> I tend to feel the same way about "it from bit", but I think it should
> perhaps  be  taken as implying that the idea of substance derives from
> form,  which to me is highly plausible.


So, "form" here is potentiality.  But where could this come from without
some constraints?


> We can take the view that form
> is  what  we encounter -- at all levels, personally and scientifically
> --  and  substance  a  theoretical entity or set of such. This view is
> related  to  philosophical  idealism,  and  is,  like that, I believe,
> strictly irrefutable. By the same token, being unverifiable, it has no
> practical  consequences. Which is more real, or which came first, form
> or substance? These questions are, strictly speaking, meaningless.
>

In a 'logical' sense, yes.  But metaphysics transcends logic, and treats of
its preconditions as well.  On 'verifiability', I'm afraid I have been
influenced by the Duhem-Quine thesis.



>
> Etymologically,  "information" is extremely closely related to "form",
>

Strongly agree. Its function then is to constrain entropy production.


> and  the  concept  of  information  used in physics simply IS material
> form,  where  that is generalised from shape to encompass all material
> properties.  Just as past and future states of affairs are encoded in
> the  present,


I suppose this takes into account historicity?  Via statistics?


>  so  genetic  information  is encoded in DNA. Biological
> information  is  just a subset of physical information. DNA molecules,
> like  all  physical  entities,  encode  the  outcomes  of all of their
> potential  interactions,  but  in  the  case  of  DNA the outcomes are
> constrained by the cellular context.
>

But we now know that there is a good deal of material manipulation and
modification in between DNA code and protein complexes.  You could say that
the DNA information is generic, while what emerges from metabolism is
particular.

>
> I'm  currently  working  on  a paper in which I argue that intentional
> information   --   using   "intentional"   in  Brentano's  sense,  and
> encompassing  meaning  and  all  mental  content -- is best considered
> encoded  in  physical/biological  information,  being  decoded in use.
>

But the DNA stuff is generic, use is particular.


> Perspective is obviously highly relevant here, but it seems to me that
> it  can  probably  be  explained  in  (literally)  formal  terms, that
> substance  as such need not enter the picture, but perhaps I'm missing
> something?
>

As I said above, I don't see how there can