Dear Howard, Thank you for leading a very interesting discussion! Beyond my earlier comments, I just wanted to add what I believe is a minority opinion among the FIS group.
I believe that information possesses both epistemic and ontic features. Many opinions have been expressed concerning the former, and they are all well-considered. I, however, wish to put in a word concerning the latter: >From an epistemic viewpoint, information can be considered in abstraction from any particular material manifestation. It is possible, however, to regard information as inhering in any physical structure or configuration of processes *without* any reference to communication theory, e.g., sender, receiver, coding, alphabet, etc. For example, the structure of a network of processes possesses a *measurable* degree of *self-referenced* information <http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/files/INFOECOL.pdf>, which can be calculated without any connections to communication. The mutual information inhering in such a configuration is a measure of the constraints extant in the structure (Stan Salthe) and has been termed "enformation" by John Collier <http://www.academia.edu/704550/Information._Causation_and_Computation>. That having been said, Bob Logan is correct, any measurement of said information/enformation is perforce relative according to the whims of the one performing the measurement. This is actually a complementary consequence of the Third Law of thermodynamics. <http://people.clas.ufl.edu/ulan/files/FISPAP.pdf> Most look upon enformation as an adumbrated form of what they see as the full concept of information, but it has proved a rather useful tool in evaluating structures. Again, thanks for the Ooomph you have imparted to us! :) The best, Bob U. > > > First, a few responses. I agree with Hans von Baeyer. Pedroâs kindness > is > magic. > I agree with Gyorgy Darvas that quarks communicate. > I also agree with Jerry Chandler. Brute force is not the major mover of > history. Values and virtues count. A lot. In fact, a culture organizes > itself by calling one way of doing things evilâbrute forceâand > another way > of doing things a value and a virtue. Our way is the value and the > virtue. The ways of others are brute force and evil. We see > cooperation and > warmth among us. But only enmity and destruction among them. > The brute force is not within groups, where values, virtues, and > compassion prevail. Itâs between groups. Itâs in the pecking order > battles > between groups. > Which means, in answer to Marcus Abundis, yes, groups struggle for > position in inter-group hierarchies like chickens in a barnyard. For > example, > America and China are vying right now for top position in the barnyard of > nations. Russiaâs in that battle, too. On a lower level, so are > Saudi > Arabia and Iran, whose proxy war in Syria for pecking order dominance has > cost a > quarter of a million lives. Thatâs brute force. Between groups whose > citizens are often lovely and loving to each other. Whose citizens are > proud > of their values and virtues. > Now for a final statement. > Information exists in a context. Thatâs not at all surprising. > Information is all about context. As the writings of Guenther Witzany > hint. And > as Ludwig Wittgenstein also suggested. Information is relational. > Information does not exist in a vacuum. It connects participants. And it > makes > things happen. When itâs not connecting participants, itâs not > information > FIS gets fired up to a high energy level when discussing the definition > of > information and its relationship to Shannonâs entropic information > equation. Alas, these discussions tend to remove the context. And > context is > what gives information its indispensable ingredient, meaning. > There are two basic approaches in science: > · the abstract mathematical; > · and the observational empirical. > Mathematical abstractionists dwell on definitions and equations. > Empirical observers gather facts. Darwin was an observational empiricist. > Iâd like > to see more of Darwinâs kind of science in the world of information > theory. > One of Darwinâs most important contributions was not the concept of > natural selection. It was an approach that Darwin got from Kant and from > his > grandfather Erasmus. That approach? Lay out the history of the cosmos > on a > timeline and piece together its story. In chronological order. Piece > together the saga of how this cosmos has created itself. Including the > self-motivated, self-creation of life. > Communication plays a vital role in this story. It appears in the first > 10(-32) of a second of the cosmosâ existence, when quarks communicated > using attraction and repulsion cues. OK, itâs not quite right to call > the cues > attraction and repulsion cues. When two quarks sized each other up, > they > interpreted the signals of the strong force differently. If you were a > quark, another quark might size you up and promptly speed away. But a > quark of > a different variety might detect the same signals, find them wildly > attractive, and speed in your direction. One quarkâs meat was > anotherâs poison, > even in that first form of communication in the cosmos. > Information is not a stand-alone. Again, itâs contextual. Itâs > ruled > by what Guenther Witzany calls syntax, semantics, and, most important of > all, pragmatics. Its meaning comes from where it fits in a bigger > picture. > Were the signals quarks exchanged information? Not according to many of > the definitions in FIS. Some of those definitions say that to be > regarded > as information, a sender must deliberately signify something > symbolically. > She must, for example, want to warn you about a poisoned apple. She must > put that message in symbols, like the words âpoisoned apple,â then > convey > that signal to a receiver. If she doesnât want to see you poisoned, > she > might text you, âwatch out for poisoned apples.â Iâm not sure > whether the > definitions extant in FIS demand that you look at her text or not. Much > less > whether you act on it. > In my latest book, The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates, I > propose a different definition of information. Information is anything a > receiver > can decode, anything he can decipher. How do you know a receiver has > decoded a message? Through the decoderâs actions. If you are a quark > and you > detect my strong force, you either scoot away or you rush over and join > me. > You act. If you are a neurosurgeon looking at an mri, you make internal > decisions, mental decisions. You donât move physically. Not at first. > But > you move mentally. You imagine your scalpel poised over a different spot > than you might have picked before seeing the mri. > Information is anything a receiver can decode. So starlight reaching > planet earth 4.5 billion years ago, nearly half a billion years before > the > appearance of the first life, was not information. There was no one or no > thing that interpreted it, translated it, or acted on it. But starlight > in the > age of the Babylonians 2,600 years ago was highly informational. Entire > teams of scribes and priests spent their lives observing it and > interpreting > it. Many of their interpretations were detailed bullet points of > political and personal advice to the ruler. Was there motion in response > to > starlight? You bet. Starlight literally moved the troops and policies > of > empires. > And today, when there are tens of thousands of professional astronomers > and millions of amateurs with telescopes, all churning out data and > emails > to each other, the amount of information in starlight has skyrocketed. > But, > in fact, the actual starlight has not increased. Not a bit. Itâs the > number of interpreters thatâs shot up. And with the interpreters, > something > else has mushroomed: the information, the interpretation, and the > theories > along with their supporting or opposing âfacts.â > The timeline of communication from quarks to empires is crucial. Itâs > the > natural history we need to see the evolution of information. No matter > what we define information to be. The timeline of the cosmos is context > on > the biggest scale. It can make new meaning of facts we scarcely see. It > can make more phenomena we experience every day but do not see into, > guess > what? Information. > Thatâs a timeline Iâm working on. > Thanks for having me in your group. And thanks for giving me a chance > to > share thoughts with you. > howard > ____________ > Howard Bloom > Author of: The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces > of History ("mesmerizing"-The Washington Post), > Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st > Century ("reassuring and sobering"-The New Yorker), > The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism ("A > tremendously enjoyable book." James Fallows, National Correspondent, The > Atlantic), > The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates ("Bloom's argument will > rock > your world." Barbara Ehrenreich), > How I Accidentally Started the Sixties ("Wow! Whew! Wild! > Wonderful!" Timothy Leary), and > The Mohammed Code ("A terrifying bookâ¦the best book I've read on > Islam." > David Swindle, PJ Media). > www.howardbloom.net > Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting > Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University. > Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; Founder, Space > Development > Steering Committee; Founder: The Group Selection Squad; Founding Board > Member: Epic of Evolution Society; Founding Board Member, The Darwin > Project; > Founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of > Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American > Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and > Evolution > Society, International Society for Human Ethology, Scientific Advisory > Board > Member, Lifeboat Foundation; Editorial Board Member, Journal of Space > Philosophy; Board member and member of Board of Governors, National Space > Society. > > > In a message dated 2/1/2016 8:46:55 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es writes: > > Thanks Howard. Please, at your convenience send the concluding comments > to > the fis list. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
