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 <garr...@xtra.co.nz> 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" <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
>----UrsprünglicheNachricht----
>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 SummaTheologiae)
>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
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
