Dear Joseph,
Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like
Helmholz & Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to
information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the
exergy becomes RT times the mutual information among the molecules.
I happen to be a radical who feels that the term "energy" is a construct
with little ontological depth. It is a bookkeeping device (a nice one, of
course, but bookkeeping nonetheless). It was devised to maintain the
Platonic worldview. Messrs. Meyer & Joule simply gave us the conversion
factors to make it look like energy is constant. *Real* energy is always
in decline -- witness what happens to the work functions I just mentioned.
Well, enough heresy for one night!
Cheers,
Bob U.
> 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
> To: Joseph Brenner
> 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
> To: Jerry LR Chandler ; FIS ; Pridi Siregar
> 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
>
> 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 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
>
