Dear FIS colleagues,
As usual, I would like to begin with apologies. I apologize that because of the gaps in my education I can only partially understand what is being said in most of your mails. Therefore, I will only partially respond to those segments of your posts that seem to me to be in the limits of my understanding. To Karl Javorszky: At March 24, you wrote: "I have given in my work "Natural orders - de ordinibus naturalibus" (ISBN 9783990571378) the following definition of the term "information": Information is a description of what is not the case". I do not know "what is not the case", but I salute and welcome your statement that "Information is a description." I am also using (for a quite a long time now) a similar definition: "Information is a description of structures observable in a given data set". By saying this, I do not pretend to claim for priority or credits - all credits must be directed to A. Kolmogorov who in his 1965 paper "Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information" was the first who has introduced the concept. As all the other researchers of his time, Kolmogorov has developed his information quantity measure for a linear one-dimensional communication message data set. I have expanded and extended Kolmogorov's definition to a two-dimensional data set. In a two-dimensional data set two types of structures could be distinguished: primary (basic) data structures and secondary (meaningful structures of structures) data arrangements. According to the offered definition the descriptions of the discerned structures should be called - Physical and Semantic Information. Further details on the subject could be found in my publications on the Research Gate (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emanuel_Diamant) or on my site (http://www.vidia-mant.info). To Sungchul Ji (introduced in Pedro C. Marijuan's post from March 23, 2017): >From your presentation "Planckian information: a new measure of order" I was pleased to learn something new about Planckian information - a newborn kind of information. Although you are not familiar with the notion of information as a complex two-part entity (Physical and Semantic information subdivisions), you truthfully posit Planckian information as a physical information exemplar similar to other representatives of the class such as Shannon information, Fisher, Kolmogorov, Chaitin, and other. In your words: "The Planckian information represents the degree of organization of physical (or nonphysical) systems.", "Planckian information is primarily concerned with the amount (and hence the quantitative aspect) of information. There are numerous ways that have been suggested in the literature for quantifying information bedside the well-known Hartley information, Shannon entropy, algorithmic information, etc. " (That is, Planckian information is one of them (one of the physical information manifestations), not a foe, not a competitor, not a foreigner or an outsider). It has to be mentioned that such an approach is not predominant in FIS discussions. The mainstream way of thinking looks like this: "complaining about Shannon entropy as a measure of information is completely justified because it is steam-engine physics unfortunately still widely used despite its many flaws and limitations"; and further "Shannon entropy should not even be mentioned any longer in serious discussions about information" (http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/2016-June/001039.html). And finally: "(there is an) urgent need to move away from entropy towards algorithmic information" (http://sciforum.net/conference/IS4SI-2017/isis-ICPI%202017). I hope these unfriendly winds will not make an impression on you. I wish you a speedy and a comfortable accommodation in the FIS community. Best regards, Emanuel Diamant.
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
