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" <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"<jerry_lr_chand...@mac.com>, "Joseph >Brenner"<joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>, "Pedro C. >Marijuan"<pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> >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 success. The Shannon procedures will be recognized to >be >a special case of information theory, as were Newton's Laws recognized to be a >special case of general relativity theory. > > > > > >The session shall discuss > >* Pythagoras' concept of numbers as descriptors of Nature, >* Heraclit's assertion that change and movement are the essence of Nature, >* additions as grouping of similar objects >* sorting orders as a different kind of additions (heretofore non-numericised) >* switching the focus from individual (addition) to group processes (among >additions) >* utilising contrasting, differentiating aspects of a+b=c >* ordering the collection >* a discourse about ordering as minimizing cuts and maximizing homogeneity >* establishing the overall coefficient of disagreement (logical - numerical - >inner dissent) >* giving names to concepts observed on the collection of logical objects > >After these steps, it will become evident that very many applied sciences use >additions as a basic tool. Insofar these sciences are interested in general or >specific answers to the question "which is where?" they will be happy to learn >that the answer is indeed included in the question, after we shall have >constructed 2 Euclid spaces and shown each instance of "which" to have - as >part >of a triplet - a place in two Euclid spaces, which are connected by two planes. > >These concepts go far beyong the human brain's capacity to actually calculate. >We can make use of machines that do the calculations. The human's part in the >effort remains to conceptualise that there is an inner consistence between >"which" and "where". > > >The proposal is to construct by collaborative efforts a logical tool which can >be used to yield names and definitions. The manifold aspects of the term >"information" can receive definitions. > >The tool being a numerical table, the facts are unquestionable. Everyone is >free >to give a name to observations by deictic methods. There are plenty of >semantic >bridges available awaiting names. > >Karl > >
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
