Dear Krassimir et al., I like your view very much with one exception. I think it confounds information with meaning, which I think can lead to problems. For example, I could give two people the same message written on your identical pieces of paper. It is written in English, but only one of the readers understands English. My message might be meaningful to one reader, but it cannot be meaningful to the other. I would argue that both pieces of paper contain the same information. In other words, for me it is important to recognize information as existing in the absence of its appreciation or interpretation. Perception and interpretation are generated by an agent, so they are not direct representations of the information and (perhaps universally?) add some error or distortion in the process. I would suggest a revision to what you wrote as follows:
Energy AND INFORMATION are objective phenomena. PERCEPTION AND MEANING are subjective phenomena. Can anybody see a problem with this form of the statement? Regards, Guy Hoelzer On Aug 25, 2014, at 11:51 AM, Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com<mailto:mar...@foibg.com>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, Thank you for comments and remarks. Many thanks to Mark for his interesting post. Really, the correspondence between energy and information is fundamental and needs to be clearly explained. I want to present my point of view because it is different from other ones. It is clear, the energy is needed to create a reflection. Without energy no internal changes (reflections) in the entities may be realized. This means that energy is needed to realize reflection which may become information for given subject. Without energy information is impossible. But the opposite correspondence does not exist. Energy does not depend on information. It exists in reality without subjects’ “decisions”. Energy is objective phenomenon , Information is subjective phenomenon. Let see a simple example. Let we have two equal pieces of paper. They contain some energy, let assume that its quantities are equal in both pieces. In other words, for instance, if we burn these pieces they will release practically the same quantities of energy. If I have such piece of paper and you have another such one, we may exchange them as equivalent without any additional conditions. Let now the pieces of paper are painted with some colors. The paint will add some additional energy to pieces. Let assume that again it is in equal quantities in both pieces. Again, we may exchange pieces as equivalent without any additional conditions. At the end, let pieces of paper are painted as follow: - the first piece is painted as USD 100 (one hundred dollars) - the second one is pained as RUB 100 (one hundred rubles) i.e. let have two real banknotes. Now, we will not agree to exchange these pieces of paper without additional conditions. As it is shown by Bloomberg, on 08/25/2014, 12.59:59, (http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USDRUB:CUR) US DOLLAR-RUSSIAN RUBLE Exchange Rate is: Price of 1 USD in RUB is 36.1646, i.e now the first piece of paper is equivalent to more than 36 pieces of second one. Because of information for the subjects, the pieces became different notwithstanding that the energy quantities are equal in both pieces. The subjective decisions have important role in this case. In conclusion, the energy and information are different phenomena – objective and subjective, respectively. Energy may be explained by triple (see Mark’s nice explanations about triples!) : (source, recipient, transition) => (x, y, f) => y=f(x) . Information has to be explained by quadruple (source, recipient, evidence, subject). Here, it is important to remember Mark’s “Infological System” as Subject. The triples are object of study by Mathematics, quadruples – by Informatics. Friendly regards Krassimir From: Stanley N Salthe<mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu> Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 4:51 PM To: fis<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es> Subject: Re: [Fis] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples? Bob wrote: 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 S: So, the more organized, the more potential available energy. I happen to be a radical who feels that the term "energy" is a construct with little ontological depth. S: I believe it has instead ontological breadth! 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. S: It IS constant in the adiabatic boxes used to measure it. *Real* energy is always in decline -- witness what happens to the work functions I just mentioned. S: In decline in the actual material world that we inhabit. That is, the local world -- the world of input and dissipation. I think the information problem may be advanced if we try to explain why the energy efficiency of any work is so poor, and gets worse the harder we work. This is the key local phenomenon that needs to be understood. STAN On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:40 AM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za<mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za>> wrote: Nice post, Bob. I agree pretty much. Brooks and Wiley got slammed by Morowitz for using the *Real* energy in their book, which being about biology is the only sensible notion of energy. There is still a need for a clear dimensional analysis of the relation(s) between information and energy. I work on that periodically, but only minimal progress so far. Perhaps I can focus on it better now that I am retired. John At 02:11 AM 2014-08-22, Robert E. Ulanowicz wrote: 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<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > ---------- Professor John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za<mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za> Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa T: +27 (31) 260 3248<tel:%2B27%20%2831%29%20260%203248> / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031<tel:%2B27%20%2831%29%20260%203031> Http://web.ncf.ca/collier<http://web.ncf.ca/collier> _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto: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
