Dear Brian, Arturo, Karl, Alex, Lars-Goran, Gyuri, and FIS colleagues,
Thank you for your remarks!
What is important is that every theory has its own understanding of the
concepts it uses.
For “foreigners”, theirs meaning may be strange or unknown.
Some times, concepts of one theory contradict to corresponded concepts from
other theory.
For years, I have met many different definitions of concept “information” and
many more kinds of its use.
>From materialistic up to weird point of view...
To clear my own understanding, I shall give you a simple example:
CAN THE CAN DRINK BEER ?
CAN THE CAN EXCHANGE BEER WITH THE GLASS ?
The can is used by humans for some goals, for instance to store some beer for a
given period.
But the can itself “could not understand” its own functions and what the can
can do with beer it contains.
All its functionality is a human’s consciousness model.
Can cannot exchange beer with the glass if there are no human activity or
activity of additional devices invented by humans to support this.
Further:
CAN THE ARTIFICIAL LEG WALK ?
You know the answer ... Human with an artificial leg can walk ...
All functionality of artificial leg is a result from human’s consciousness
modeling and invention.
In addition:
IS THE “PHYSICAL INFORMATION” INFORMATION ?
If it is, the first question is how to measure the quantity and quality of such
“information” and who can do this?
I prefer the answer “NO” – “physical information” is a concept which means
something else but not “information” as it is in my understanding.
>From my point of view, “physical information” is a kind of reflection (see
>“Theory of reflections” of T.Pavlov).
Every reflection may be assumed as information iff (if and only if) there exist
a subjective information expectation to be resolved by given reflection.
For physical information this low is not satisfied. Because of this, I prefer
to call this phenomenon simply “a reflection”.
And so on ...
Finally:
Human been invented too much kinds of prostheses including ones for our
intellectual functionalities, i.e. many different kinds of electronic devices
which, in particular, can generate some electrical, light, etc. impulses, which
we assume as “information”; usually a combination of impulses we assume as s
structure to be recognized by us as “information”.
A special kind of prostheses are Robots. They have some autonomous
functionalities but are still very far from living consciousness. The level of
complexity of robot’s consciousness is far of human’s one. Someone may say that
robots understand and exchange “information”, but still they only react on
incoming signals following the instructions given by humans. Theirs functioning
is similar to human ones but only similar. They may recognize some structures
of signals and exchange such ones with other robots or living creatures. Maybe
someone wants to call this “information exchange”, but, after Shannon, I call
this “sending and/or receiving signals”. And automatic reaction to signals.
One may say, the Robot (Computer) memory contains information but really it
does not contain anything – it has its own structure which can be changed
temporally of permanently by external electrical impulses.
Is the human memory the same – a structure which can be changed temporally of
permanently by external or internal signals? I think – yes, It is!
What is the difference? Why we may say that the living creatures process
information but not living couldn’t?
The answer is: because the living creatures may create and resolve the
“information expectation” with very high level of complexity.
Maybe in the future robots will can do it ...
Such robot I call “INFOS”. It will be artificial living creature. Possibly with
some biological elements.
It will be very interesting and amazing to see how the can can drink beer :-)
And very dangerous – where the beer will be kept if the can can drink it?
I hope, now it is clear why I assert that (now!) non-living objects COULD NOT
“exchange information”.
Friendly regards
Krassimir
From: Karl Javorszky
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 8:24 PM
To: Alex Hankey
Cc: Krassimir Markov ; Arturo Tozzi ; FIS Webinar
Subject: Re: [Fis] non-living objects COULD NOT “exchange information”
1) Let me second to the point Alex raises:
machines, computers, do exchange information. It would be against cultural
conventions to say that the notification that the refrigerator sends to your
phone's app "to-do-list" of the content "milk only 0.5 liter available" is not
an information.
The signals my car's pressure sensor sends to my dashboard, saying "tire
pressure front right wheel is critically low" is a clear case of information,
whether I read it or not.
2) Let me add to the point Alex states, namely that the "form of information
that I presented to FiS a year ago offers the only scientifically
based,mathematical physics form of 'information' that I have personally seen in
the scientific literature", (Alex, will you please restate in the present
context, for the present discussion, your formulation) the following:
I have given in my work "Natural orders - de ordinibus naturalibus" (ISBN
9783990571378) the following definition of the term "information":
8.3.3.3 Information is a description of what is not the case. [Let
x = ak. This is a statement, no information contained. Let x = ak and k <symbol
for is_included_in> {1,2,...,k,...,n}. This statement contains the information
k <symbol for is_not_included_in>{1,2,...,k-1,k+1,...,n}.]
(Sorry for the included & not-included symbols not making it thru the
simplified text editor in use here.)
Karl
2017-03-24 18:51 GMT+01:00 Alex Hankey <alexhan...@gmail.com>:
BUT, in common parlance, computers and mobile phones 'exchange information'
(in the abstract, digital sense) all the time. Including this email.
If you wish to cleanly restrict yourself to semantic content, the the form of
information that I presented to FiS a year ago offers the only scientifically
based,mathematical physics form of 'information' that I have personally seen in
the scientific literature.
Best wishes,
Alex Hankey
On 24 March 2017 at 15:25, Krassimir Markov <mar...@foibg.com> wrote:
Dear Arturo and FIS Colleagues,
Let me remember that:
The basic misunderstanding that non-living objects could “exchange
information” leads to many principal theoretical as well as psychological
faults.
For instance, photon could exchange only energy and/or reflections !
Sorry for this n-th my remark ...
Friendly greetings
Krassimir
From: tozziart...@libero.it
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 4:52 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] I: Re: Is information truly important?
Dear Lars-Göran,
I prefer to use asap my second FIS bullet, therefore it will be my last
FIS mail for the next days.
First of all, in special relativity, an observer is NOT by definition a
material object that can receive and store incoming energy from other objects.
In special relativity, an observer is a frame of reference from which a
set of objects or events are being measured. Speaking of an observer is not
specifically hypothesizing an individual person who is experiencing events, but
rather it is a particular mathematical context which objects and events are to
be evaluated from. The effects of special relativity occur whether or not there
is a "material object that can recieve and store incoming energy from other
objects" within the inertial reference frame to witness them.
Furthermore, take a photon (traveling at speed light) that crosses a
cosmic zone close to the sun. The photon "detects" (and therefore can interact
with) a huge sun surface (because of its high speed), while we humans on the
Earth "detect" (and can interact with) a much smaller sun surface.
Therefore, the photon may exchange more information with the sun than the
humans on the Earth: both the photon and the humans interact with the same sun,
but they "detect" different surfaces, and therefore they may exchange with the
sun a different information content.
If we also take into account that the photon detects an almost infinite,
fixed time, this means once again that it can exchange much more information
with the sun than we humans can.
In sum, once again, information does not seem to be a physical quantity,
rather just a very subjective measure, depending on the speed and of the time
of the "observer".
Arturo Tozzi
AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
----Messaggio originale----
Da: "Lars-Göran Johansson" <lars-goran.johans...@filosofi.uu.se>
Data: 24/03/2017 14.50
A: "tozziart...@libero.it"<tozziart...@libero.it>
Ogg: Re: [Fis] Is information truly important?
24 mars 2017 kl. 13:15 skrev tozziart...@libero.it:
Dear Fisers,
a big doubt...
We know that the information of a 3D black hole is proportional to
its 2D horizon, according to the Bekenstein-Hawking equations.
However, an hypotetical observer traveling at light speed (who
watches a black hole at rest) detects a very large black hole horizon, due to
Einstein's equations.
Therefore, he detects more information from the black hole than an
observer at rest, who sees a smaller horizon…
An observer is by definition a material object that can recieve and
store incoming energy from other objects. Since it requires infinite energy to
accelerate even a slighest object to the velocity of light, no observer can
travel at the speed of light. That means that your thought experiment is based
in inconsistent assumptions and no vaild conclusions from them can be drawn.
Lars-Göran Johansson
In sum, information does not seem to be a physical quantity, rather
just a very subjective measure...
Arturo Tozzi
AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Lars-Göran Johansson
lars-goran.johans...@filosofi.uu.se
0701-679178
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
--
Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India
Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195
Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789
____________________________________________________________
2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics
and Phenomenological Philosophy
_______________________________________________
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
