Cari colleghi, il 4 agosto ho scritto alcune cose che stranamente non sono state considerate né positivamente né negativamente. Mentre sul concetto processo di tras-in-form-azione o trans-in-form-azione sì è discusso abbastanza. Forse troppo. Tra le cose già scritte il 4 agosto vi è il rapporto-equivalenza energia/informazione implicito nel meccanismo del diavoletto di Maxwell da me accennato. Perché non se ne parla? Potrebbe essere utile farlo. Saluti cordiali. Francesco Rizzo.
2014-08-21 15:59 GMT+02:00 Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>: > Dear Mark and All, > > I return belatedly to this short but key note of Mark's in which he > repeats his view, with which I agree, that Energy is a kind of > information and information is a kind of energy. > > My suggestion is that it may be useful to expand this statement by looking > at both Information and Energy (mass-energy) as emergent properties of the > universe. Since we agree they are not identical, we may then look at how > the properties differ. Perhaps we can say that Energy is an extensive > property, measured primarily by quantity, and Information is an intensive > property. The difficulty is that both Energy and Information themselves > appear to have both intensive and extensive properties, measured by vector > and scalar quantities respectively. I am encouraged to say that this > approach might yield results that are compatible with advanced theories > based on the sophisticated mathematics to which Mark refers. > > I would say then that in our world it is not the question of which is more > fundamental that is essential, but that Energy and Information share > properties which are linked dynamically. In this dialectical > interpretation, the need for a 'demon' that accomplishes some function, as > in the paper referred to in John's note, is a formal exercise. > > Thank you and best wishes, > > Joseph > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Burgin, Mark <mbur...@math.ucla.edu> > *To:* Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch> > *Sent:* Friday, August 01, 2014 9:19 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. > Quintuples? > > Dear Joseph and Colleagues, > An answer to "the perhaps badly posed question of whether information or > energy is more fundamental" is given in the book M.Burgin, Theory of > information. The answer is a little bit unexpected: > Energy is a kind of information and information is a kind of energy. > It's a pity that very few researchers read books with advanced theories > based on sophisticated mathematics. > > Sincerely, > Mark Burgin > > > > On 7/31/2014 2:40 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote: > > Dear Krassimir and Colleagues, > > I have followed this discussion with interest but not total agreement. As > I have commented to Krassimir previously, I feel that his system, based on > symbols as outlined in his paper, is too static to capture the dynamics of > complex information processes and their value (valence). It suffers from > the same problems as that of Peirce and of set-theoretic approaches, > namely, a certain arbitrariness in the selection and number of independent > elements and their grounding in nature (or rather absence of grounding). > > If you will permit a naïve but well-intentioned question, why not have a > theory whose elements are quintuples? Would this not be a 'better', more > complete theory? This opens the possibility of an infinite regress, but > that is the point I am trying to make: the form of the theory is, to a > certain extent, defining its content. > > The /development/ of any GIT should, from the beginning I think, recognize > the existence in real time, so to speak, of any new suggestions in the > context of other recent contributions of a different form, such as those of > Luhn, Hofkirchner, Marijuan, Deacon, Dodig-Crnkovic, Wu and so on. Several > of these already permit a more directed discussion of the perhaps badly > posed question of whether information or energy is more fundamental. > Otherwise, all that work will need to be done at the end. In any case, the > GIT itself, to the extent that it could be desirable and useful, would also > have to have some dynamics capable of accepting theories of different > forms. 20th Century physics sought only identities throughout nature and > the balance is now being somewhat restored. I think keeping the diversity > of theories of information in mind is the most worthwhile strategy. > > One of the values of Krassimir's approach is that it recognizes the > existence of some of these more complex questions that need to be > answered. I simply suggest that process language and a recognition of > dynamic interactions (e.g., between 'internal' and 'external') could be > part of the strategy. > > Best wishes, > > Joseph > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com> > *To:* Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> ; FIS > <fis@listas.unizar.es> ; Pridi Siregar <pridi.sire...@ibiocomputing.com> > *Sent:* Saturday, July 26, 2014 10:42 AM > *Subject:* [Fis] Information quadruple > > Dear Jerry, Pridi, and Colleagues, > > Thank you for the nice comments! > > To answer to questions I have to present next step from the GIT (General > Information Theory) we are developing. > > Let remember in words (below “Infos” is abbreviation from “Information > Subject”, it is an intelligent natural or artificial agent (system)): > > Information is quadruple (Source, Recipient, Evidence, Infos) or formally *i > = (s, r, e, I)* > > The nest step is to define elements of the quadruple: > > *s and r are structured sets;* > *e is a mapping from s in r which preserves (all or partial) structure of > s and resolves any information expectation of I* > > I expect new questions: > - what is an “intelligent agent” > - what is “information expectation” > - ... > > If it is interesting, answers to these questions may be given in further > letters. > > *** > > Now I want to make some comments to letters received (their full texts are > given below my answers). > > Pridi: “information cannot be viewed in any absolute sense but as internal > representations of "external patterns"” > Kr.: Yes, the “reflection” is a property of Matter, “information” is a > reflection for which the information quadruple exists. But information is > not “internal representations of "external patterns" ”. It is result from > resolving the* subjective information expectation* which is process of > comparing of internal and external patterns. I know, this will cause new > questions [image: Smile] > > Pridi: In this framework then, it seems that "information" cannot be > conceptualized without reference to the both "something out there" and the > "internal structures" of the receptor/cognitive system. > Kr.: Yes. > > Pridi: How can we really quantify meaningful (semantic) information ... ? > Kr.: By distance between "external patterns" and “information expectation” > (sorry to be not clear but it is long text for further letters). > > Pridi: All "objective" measures (entropy, negentropy,...) are actually > totally dependant of I1 and I2 and can never be considered as "absolute". > Kr.: Yes, but the world humanity is an Infos and its information > expectations we assume as "absolute". > > Pridi: ... some researchers that posit that "information" may be more > fundamental than the fundamental physical (mass, time, space, amps). > Kr.: Yes, there are other paradigms which are useful in some cases, but in > our paradigm “information” is not fundamental but “reflection” is the > fundamental. > > Pridi: ... no "absolute truth" (whatever this means) is really gained. > "Only" a richer more complete (subjective but coherent) world-view . > Kr.: Yes. > > Jerry: ... assertion of a quadruple of symbols is rather close to the > philosophy of C S Peirce (hereafter "CSP") > Kr.: Our paradigm is nor opposite to what science has explored till now. > All already investigated information theories (Shannon,Peirce, etc) have > to be a part or intersection of a new GIT. > > Jerry: ... moves these 'definitions' of individual symbols into the > subjective realm. (CSP's notion of "interpretation?) > Different researchers have the freedom to interpret the evidence as they > choose, including the relationships to engineering terms such as > "bandwidth". > Kr.: Yes. But not only researches, everybody has such freedom. Because of > this there exist advertising processes ... but for this we have to talk in > further letters. > > Jerry: Pridi's post appropriately recognizes the tension between objective > scientific theories and subjective judgments about evidence by different > individuals with different professional backgrounds and different symbolic > processing powers. > Kr.: Yes, there will be tension if we assume world as plane structure. But > it is hierarchical one and what is assumed as “subjective” at one level is > assumed as “objective” for the low levels. > > Jerry: ... to show that these definitions of symbols motivate a coherent > symbol system that can be used to transfer information contained in the > signal from symbolic representations of entities. It may work for > engineering purposes, but is it extendable to life? > Kr.: The goal of work on GIT is to create a coherent symbol system which > is equal valid for life creatures and artificial agents. > > Jerry: ... this requires the use of multiple symbol systems and multiple > forms of logic in order to gain the functionality of transfer of "in-form" > between individuals or machines. > Kr.: Yes, at least on three levels – Information, Infos, Inforaction > (Information interaction) > > Jerry: Anybody have any suggestions on how this quadruple of symbols can > be formalized into a quantitative coherent form of communication? > Kr.: A step toward this I give above in the beginning of this letter but > it is very long journey ... > > Thank you for creative discussion! > Friendly regards > Krassimir > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jerry LR Chandler > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:57 PM > To: FIS > Cc: Krassimir Markov ; Pridi Siregar > Subject: Re: [Fis] Re to Pridi: infinite bandwith and finite > informationcontent CS Peirce and Chemical Nomenclature > > Pridi, Krassimir, List: > > (In order to place this comment in context, and for reference, I have > copied Krassimir's "definition" of information below. My comments follow > the excellent post of Pridi.) > > > In physical world there exist only reflections but not information. > > > > Information “ i " is the quadruple: > > i = (s, r, e, I) > > where > > s is a source entity, which is reflected in r > > r is the entity in which reflection of s exists > > e is an evidence for the subject I which proofs for him and only for him > that the reflection in r reflects just s , i.e. the evidence proofs for the > subject what the reflection reflects . > > I is information subject who has possibility to make decisions in > accordance with some goals – human, animal, bacteria, artificial > intelligent system, etc. > > > > In other words, information is a reflection, but not every reflection is > information – only reflections for which the quadruple above exist are > assumed as information by the corresponded subjects. > > > > For different I , information may be different because of subjects’ > finite memory and reflection possibilities. > > Because of this, a physical event with an infinite bandwidth may have > finite information content (for concrete information subject) . > On Jul 23, 2014, at 6:45 AM, Pridi Siregar wrote: > > > Dear Krassimir, > > > > Thank you for your explanation. It does give me a better understanding > of how information (beyond Shannon) can be formalized! However, a closer > look at the formalism and its semantic does raise new questions: > > > > From the definition you have given, it appears that information cannot > be viewed in any absolute sense but as internal representations of > "external patterns" whose meaning depends on the subject > capturing/interpreting/storing the said patterns. In this framework then, > it seems that "information" cannot be conceptualized without reference to > the both "something out there" and the "internal structures" of the > receptor/cognitive system. > > > > In other words the concept of "information" lies within some > "subjective" (albeit rational) realm. I'm sure that I'm stating the obvious > for most of FIS members but a question arised upon reading your formalism: > How can we really quantify meaningful (semantic) information beyond Shannon > (that disregards semantics) and his purely statistical framework? Or beyond > Boltzmann's entropy/Information based on micro-macro states ratios? > > > > When we formalize i = (s, r, e, I) there is a "meta-level" > formalisation that is only apparent since even (s,r) reflect our own > (human) subjective world-view. We could actually write (I1(s), I1(r), e, > I2) where I1 and I2 are two distinct cognitive systems and both of which > lie at the OBJECT level of the formalizing agent which is NEITHER I1 or I2. > All "objective" measures (entropy, negentropy,...) are actually totally > dependant of I1 and I2 and can never be considered as "absolute". > > > > > > This leads me to a second question (sorry for the lengthy message): > there are some researchers that posit that "information" may be more > fundamental than the fundamental physical (mass, time, space, amps). This > appears (and perhaps only appears) to be at the opposite end of the > above-mentioned view. Indeed, in this framework some kind of "universal" or > "absolute" notions must be accepted as true. > > > > One apparent way out would be to demonstrate that information somehow > logically entails the fundemantal physical entities while accepting that we > are still within a human-centered world view. And thus no "absolute truth" > (whatever this means) is really gained. "Only" a richer more complete > (subjective but coherent) world-view . > > > > Am I making anys sense? Any thoughts? > > > > Best > > > > Pridi > > > > Pridi's comment concur with many of my views wrt the concept of > information. > > Krassimir's assertion of a quadruple of symbols is rather close to the > philosophy of C S Peirce (hereafter "CSP") in one context. > > S as symbol represents an external source of signal, that which is > independent of the individual mind and being. This is analogous to CSP's > term "sinsign". > > R is a thing itself. That is, R generates S. > > E as evidence is a vague term which infers an observer (2nd Order > Cybernetics?) that both receives and evaluates the signal (S) from the > thing (R). CSP categorizes evidence as icon, index or symbol with respect > to the entity of observation. > > I as Krassimirian information is a personal judgment about the evidence. > (Correspondence with CSP's notion of "argument" is conceivable.) > > Krassimir's assertion that: > > For different I , information may be different because of subjects’ > finite memory and reflection possibilities. > > Because of this, a physical event with an infinite bandwidth may have > finite information content (for concrete information subject) . > > > moves these 'definitions' of individual symbols into the subjective realm. > (CSP's notion of "interpretation?) > Different researchers have the freedom to interpret the evidence as they > choose, including the relationships to engineering terms such as > "bandwidth". > > > Pridi's post appropriately recognizes the tension between objective > scientific theories and subjective judgments about evidence by different > individuals with different professional backgrounds and different symbolic > processing powers. > > The challenge for Krassimirian information, it appears to me, is to show > that these definitions of symbols motivate a coherent symbol system that > can be used to transfer information contained in the signal from symbolic > representations of entities. It may work for engineering purposes, but is > it extendable to life? > > (For me, of course, this requires the use of multiple symbol systems and > multiple forms of logic in order to gain the functionality of transfer of > "in-form" between individuals or machines.) > > Pridi writes: > > How can we really quantify meaningful (semantic) information beyond > Shannon (that disregards semantics) and his purely statistical framework? > > One aspect of this conundrum was solved by chemists over the past to two > centuries by developing a unique symbol system that is restricted by > physical constraints, yet functions as an exact mode of communication. > > Chemical notation, as symbol system, along with mathematics and data, > achieves this end purpose (entelechy) of communication, for some entities, > such as the meaning of an "atomic number" as a relational term and hence > the meaning of a particular integer as both quantity and quality. > > This requires a dyadic mathematics and synductive logic for sublations. > > > Pridi writes: > > > It does give me a better understanding of how information (beyond > Shannon) can be formalized! > > Can you communicate how this "better understanding... ... foramlized" > works? > > It is not readily apparent to me how Krassimirian information can be > formalized. > > Anybody have any suggestions on how this quadruple of symbols can be > formalized into a quantitative coherent form of communication? > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing > listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
