Hi Stan I couldnt have said it better sounds like one of my arguments. But, the issue is this:
When I say modelling Im using the scientific energetic concept, Ie conservation (1st), growth (2nd) and work (3rd) energy laws that have more or less been proven to be a truth. The same cannot be said for Information theory constructs relating to a living organism. We all know the machine analogy with information theory and the energetic relationships. So here there is no need to point it out. We may use the bits equally for example the speed limit of reading is 16 bits/second. But an individual does not read in bits because eyes dont process bits they process and transduce electromagnetic energy to electrical energy. Bits are the machine analogy. So in reality it's more like a frequency of 0.1Hz. You can use bits as long as we accept that eyes do not process bits. Here's the problem it seems that there is an acceptance that living organisms transduces bits. Above is the difference between a truth and a false. Regards Gavin Replying to Gavin -- I think you make the 'error of misplaced concreteness'. Information theory -- and all theories and laws are modelling tools, not actual phenomena. So, it is also true that when an apple falls it is not being pulled by gravitation. Gravitation is our way of understanding the falling. We all know these things, so it seems to me that there is no need to point this out. STAN On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Gavin Ritz <garr...@xtra.co.nz> wrote: Ted Thank you Mark. This promises to be interesting. My view may best be introduced by stating that I believe we are in the business of creating a new science that will depend on new abstractions. These abstractions will extend from the notion of "information" as a first class citizen, as opposed to our default, the "particle." The latter has qualities that can be measured and in fact the very idea of metrics is bound to this notion of thingness. GR: I just can't see the evidence that information has anything to do with living organisms. Much of the dialog here works with the problem of naming what that it is. GR: They look more like logical operators, such as Imperative logic, declarative logic and interrogative logic. Having said that... > 1. Is it necessary/useful/reasonable to make a strict distinction between information as a phenomenon and information measures as quantitative or qualitative characteristics of information? I am rather certain that there is a very real distinction, because of how we define the problem. After all, we are not asking how do information and information metrics fit within the confines of rather limited abstractions. At least I am not. But the distinction does not allow for full orthogonality from set theory (the formalism of things), because we want to be able to model and engineer observable phenomenon in a cleaner way. This should be the test of any serious proposal, in my view. This requirement is why discussion on these matters often moves into category theory, GR: It moves into Category theory and Topos my guess is because it's the very basic framework of logic. > 2. Are there types or kinds of information that are not encompassed by the general theory of information (GTI)? GR: for one no living organism uses Information theory constructs to communicate with each other. ie direct languaging. GR: Information theory is a construct used by our society to control machines. > 3. Is it necessary/useful/reasonable to make a distinction between information and an information carrier? GR: Only if we can find direct scientific evidence that organisms use information theory constructs to communicate directly. So far none has been found. Clearly there is a system-level conveyance of information GR: It's not so clear. If I can be pointed to one experiment that proves there is such a thing as information theory constructs within living organism I will be very excited. that "carries" an organizational imperative. GR: More like DNA is an Imperative logical operator. I am intrigued by the notion introduced here recently that suggests "intelligence" as inhabiting this new, non-parametrizable space. GR: oops. Regards Gavin _______________________________________________ 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
