Evgenii, I am not sure if it is your text, or Russell's": *"**In general, I do not understand what does it mean that information at zero Kelvin is zero. Let us take a coin and cool it down. Do you mean that the text on the coin will disappear? Or you mean that no one device can read this text at zero Kelvin?"* ** I doubt that the "text" embossed on a coin is "its" *information*. It is part of the "physical" structure as e.g. the roundness. size, or material(?) characteristics - all, what nobody can imagine how to change for the condition of 0-Kelvin. The abs. zero temp. conditions are extrapolated the best way we could muster. A matter of (sci.) faith. Maybe the so called 'interstitial' spaces also collapse? I am not for a 'physicalistic' worldview - rather an agnostic about 'explanations' of diverse epochs based on then recent 'findings' (mostly mathematically justified??? - realizing that we may be up to lots of novelties we have no idea about today, not even of the directions they may shove our views into. I say that in comparison to our 'conventional scientific' - even everyday's - views of the world in the past, before and after fundamental knowledge-domains were added to our inventory. I do not condone evidences "that must be, because THERE IS NO OTHER WAY" - in our existing ignorance of course. Atoms? well, if there *is* 'matter'? (MASS??) even my (macro)molecules I invented are suspect. So 'entropy' is a nice term in (classical?) thermodynamics what I coined in 1942 as *"the science that tells us how things would proceed wouldn't they proceed as they do indeed"* thinking of Carnot and the isotherm/reversible equilibria, etc. - way before the irreversible kind was taught in college courses. Information is another rather difficult term, I like to use 'relation' and leave it open what so far unknown relations may affect our processes we assign to 'causes' known within the model of the world we think we are in. The rest (including our misunderstood model - domain) is what I may call an 'infinite complexity' of which we are part - mostly ignorant about the 'beyond model' everything.
We 'fabricate' our context, try to explain by the portion we know of - as if it was the totality - and live in our happy conventional scientific terms. Human ingenuity constructed a miraculous science and technology that is ALMOST good (some mistakes notwithstanding occurring), then comes M. Curie, Watson-Crick, Fleming, Copernicus, Volta, etc. and we re-write the schoolbooks. John M ** On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote: > On 29.01.2012 22:49 Russell Standish said the following: > >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 04:23:12PM +0100, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: >> >>> On 28.01.2012 23:26 meekerdb said the following: >>> >>>> On 1/27/2012 11:47 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: >>>> >>> >>> A good suggestion. It well might be that I express my thoughts >>> unclear, sorry for that. Yet, I think that my examples show that >>> >>> 1) There is information >>> >> and entropy >> >> that engineers employ. >>> >> > Some engineers employ information, some the thermodynamic entropy. I have > not seen though an engineering paper where both information and the > thermodynamic entropy have been used as synonyms. > > 2) There is the thermodynamic entropy. >>> >> >> + thermodynamic information >> >> >>> 3) Numerical values in 1) and 2) are not related to each other. >>> >>> >> Fixed that for you. Why should you expect the different types of >> information that come from different contexts to have the same >> numerical value? The whole point of "On complexity and emergence" is >> that notions of information and entropy are complete context >> sensitive (that is not to say their subjective as such - people >> agreeing on the context will agree on the numerical values). >> > > > First the thermodynamic entropy is not context depended. This must mean > that if it is the same as information, then the latter must not be context > dependent as well. Could you please give me an example of a physical > property that is context dependent? > > Second, when I have different numerical values, this could mean that the > units are different. Yet, if this is not the case, then in my view we are > talking about two different entities. > > Could you please explain then what is common between 1) and 2)? > > Evgenii > > >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to > everything-list@googlegroups.**com<everything-list@googlegroups.com> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ > **googlegroups.com <everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** > group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en> > . > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
