Hi Arturo,

(1)  I don't understand where you got (or how you can justify) S = 1 J/K in 
your statement,


"With the same probability mass function, you can see that H = S/(ln(2)*kB), so 
setting S = 1J/K gives a Shannon entropy of 1.045×1023 bits."


(2) I can see how one can get H = S/(ln(2)*k_B mathematically, but what does 
this equality mean physically ?

(3) This reminds me of what Schroedinger did when he came up with the 
conclusion that "negative entropy" is equivalent to "order", which led to 
Brillouin's so-called the "negentropy Principle of Information (NPI)" [1, 2].


Simply by multiplying the both sides of the Boltzmann equation with negative 
one, Schroedinger obtained the following formula:


 - S = - k lnW = k ln (1/W)


and then equating W with disorder, D, led him to


- S = k ln (1/D).


Since (1/D) can be interpreted as the opposite of "disorder", namely, "order", 
he concluded that


"negative entropy = order".


As you can see, the above derivation is mathematically sound but the result 
violates the Third Law of Thermodynamics, according to which thermodynamic 
entropy cannot be less than zero.


Thus, in 2012 I was led to formulate what I called the "Schroedinger paradox" 
as follows [3]


"Schroedinger's paradox refers to the mathematical equations, concepts, or 
general statements that are formally true but physically meaningless."


(4) If my argument in (3) is valid, this may provide an example of what may be 
called


the "Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of Mathematics"


which, together with Wigner's "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics", may 
constitute an Yin-Yang pair of mathematics.


All the best.


Sung











References:
   [1]  Brillouin, L. (1953).  Negentropy Principle of Information, J. Applied 
Phys. 24(9), 1152-1163.
   [2]  Brillouin, L. (1956). Science and Information Theory, Academic Press, 
Inc., New York, pp. 152-156.

   [3] Ji, S. (2012).  The Third Law of 
Thermodynamics<http://www.conformon.net/publications/book-chapters/#> and 
“Schroedinger’s Paradox”<http://www.conformon.net/?attachment_id=1033>.  
In:Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts, Molecular Mechanisms, and 
Biomedical Applications.  Springer, New York.  pp. 12-15.  PDF at 
http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Schroedinger_paradox.pdf








________________________________
From: tozziart...@libero.it <tozziart...@libero.it>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 4:43 AM
To: Sungchul Ji; fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: R: Re: [Fis] A PROPOSAL ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF INFORMATION

Dear Sung,
One J/K corresponds to 1.045×1023 bits.

Indeed,
The Gibbs entropy formula states that thermodynamic entropy S equals 
kB*sum[pi*ln(1/pi)], with units of J/K, where kB is the Boltzmann constant and 
pi is the probability of microstate i. On the other hand, the Shannon entropy 
is defined as H = sum[pi*log2(1/pi)], with units of bits. With the same 
probability mass function, you can see that H = S/(ln(2)*kB), so setting S = 
1J/K gives a Shannon entropy of 1.045×1023 bits.

On the other side, The 
energy<http://7769domain.com/Ad/GoIEx2/?token=SVpHR1pPRjQ5cjMwK1E1b3NhUVdYZWNCcGxiZlJjUGhlbEFPemROVE1xYU1VTHJoZWF5T2p0d0Z5YXNDWmt2NDBGdk1jb3Eybm5JNDRoTytMVEUxUE9WaUV0bC9qMTdaZWI3UUJhQSt4S2xjaHlhcFdTUi8rWm52WVMvdndnaTZIakl3Y2JyejFqazFGM1hpb2RxWjY4UmtzQ3FuTWtlQzAzQ0FrNDFQS2Z3PQ2>
 consumption per bit of data on the Internet is around 75 μJ at low access 
rates and decreases to around 2-4 μJ at an access rate of 100 Mb/s.
see:
http://www.ing.unitn.it/~fontana/GreenInternet/Recent%20Papers%20and%20p2p/Baliga_Ayre_Hinton_Sorin_Tucker_JLT0.pdf<http://7769domain.com/Ad/GoIEx2/?token=WCtDQW94L0I0Q0FJMVpZakdtU3NsdWxYcmFCTUF1dVg4b3lSRDFFY3FGTEZrZTZldmVIMW9ZMHgvVDFrWHZzQTZCUjNnOS8rZm11VWhiZFVDVE5IbzgyakdBV25oVDdPMVJDNHFTZEJtUXpLbUYySy9LbHlvK1Z4RHMyVGt3YmowNmdFcWhva0RuQzdiMWJ4SE1CVXlUMUxkZWJxcGloT1l3bFlQN0hyOStVPQ2>

Futher, according to Landauer's theory, a minimum amount of heat – roughly 
10–21 J per erased bit – must be dissipated when information is destroyed.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/mar/12/wiping-data-will-cost-you-energy


In other words, summarizing, if you use the free energy to assess the 
information, it works the same, giving a quantifiable value.



Arturo Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Farturotozzi.webnode.it%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cf8b6d51eca454497b53708d512168698%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636434810329439532&sdata=t%2BaKyHxgUMMDD5KBr5zpPigvg%2BM4GacNv%2FnAosp4pnI%3D&reserved=0>


----Messaggio originale----
Da: "Sungchul Ji" <s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu>
Data: 12/10/2017 22.08
A: "Francesco Rizzo"<13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>, "Pedro C. 
Marijuan"<pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
Cc: "fis@listas.unizar.es >> fis@listas.unizar.es"<fis@listas.unizar.es>
Ogg: Re: [Fis] A PROPOSAL ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF INFORMATION


Hi FISers,


The following statement cannot be true.

"a proposal: information might stand for free energy."
Fore one thing, the unit of information is bits and that of energy is cal or 
erg.

The proper relation between information and energy (including free energy) may 
be complementarity, just as is the relation between wave and particle.   
According to the ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation) model of of signs and 
communication, information and energy are entangled in the sense that both are 
irreplaceably implicated in the process of communication. Both information and 
energy are  needed for communication, the minimum energy cost of transmitting 
one bit of information being ~ 0.6 Kcal/mole, according to Shannon.

All the best.

Sung




________________________________
From: Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Francesco Rizzo 
<13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 3:00 AM
To: Pedro C. Marijuan
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es >> fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] A PROPOSAL ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF INFORMATION

Caro Pedro e cari tutti,
gli ingressi e le uscite delle cellule viventi con l'ambiente, non sono altro 
che materia, energia e informazione che entrano (INPUT) ed escono (OUTPUT)  
dando luogo al processo di TRAS-IN-FORM-AZIONE che ho elaborato nella Nuova 
Economia a proposito dei sistemi produttivi entropici (energia degradata o 
dis-informazione) e neg-entropici (energia libera o informazione) che hanno un 
carattere generale. Tanto è vero che circa 20 anni fa ho applicato e riferito 
alla cellula che stabilisce con l'ambiente (biologico-naturale) un rapporto 
simile a quello che l'intrapresa (azienda) stabilisce con l'ambiente 
(sociale-economico). In fondo la bio-chimica e l'economia risultano 
complementari nella vita degli uomini la cui esistenza e conoscenza possono ben 
comprendersi secondo la onto-logica empirica o concreta, altrimenti detta LIR, 
che la generosità di Joseph Brenner ha intravisto anche nella mia analisi 
scientifica. Purtroppo  questa problematica, ben espressa e sintetizzata dal 
processo di TRAS-IN-FORM-AZIONE e più volte oggetto di confronto e discussione 
nel dibattito Fis, è poco conosciuta perchè si ritrova esposta in una ventina 
dei miei libri scritti in italiano.
Comunque il TEMPO è (sempre galantuomo e fornisce) l'INFORMAZIONE giusta 
svolgendo la funzione della LINGUA delle LINGUE che tutti possono com-prendere, 
prima o poi. Grazie, per l'opportunità che mi date a partire da Pedro che ha il 
grande merito dell'iniziazione-mediazione in tal senso.
Un abbraccio, Francesco Rizzo.


2017-10-11 14:30 GMT+02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan 
<pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es<mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>>:
Dear Arturo and colleagues,

I think that relating information to free energy can be a good idea. I am not 
sure whether the expressions derived from Gibbs free energy (below) have 
sufficient generality; at least they work very well for chemical reactions. And 
it is in the biomolecular (chemical) realm where the big divide between 
"animate information" and "inanimate information" occurs. In that sense, I 
include herein the scheme we have just published of prokaryotic cells in their 
management of the "information flow". In a next message I will make suggestions 
on how the mapping of biological information may conduce to a more general 
approach that includes the other varieties of information (anthropocentric, 
physical, chemical, cosmological, etc). Biological information is the most 
fundamental and radical track to unite the different approaches!

Best--Pedro

Pedro C. Marijuán, Jorge Navarro, Raquel del Moral.
How prokaryotes ‘encode’ their environment: Systemic tools for organizing the 
information flow.
Biosystems<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fscience%2Fjournal%2F03032647&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cb77eb4e083e14afe3fd408d5113f296e%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636433885376777542&sdata=hgAUJohUnGSCDMsHGjpui7TyWls2JAj8TNyO0l1oldM%3D&reserved=0>.
 October  2017. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2017.10.002<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1016%2Fj.biosystems.2017.10.002&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cb77eb4e083e14afe3fd408d5113f296e%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636433885376777542&sdata=dks6yfnRbSgyq95ZtIqnanis1l8YpGOkG7bYGIIc%2BhQ%3D&reserved=0>

Abstract
An important issue related to code biology concerns the cell’s informational 
relationships with the environment. As an open self-producing system, a great 
variety of inputs and outputs are necessary for the living cell, not only 
consisting of matter and energy but also involving information flows. The 
analysis here of the simplest cells will involve two basic aspects. On the one 
side, the molecular apparatuses of the prokaryotic signaling system, with all 
its variety of environmental signals and component pathways (which have been 
called 1–2-3 Component Systems), including the role of a few second messengers 
which have been pointed out in bacteria too. And in the other side, the gene 
transcription system as depending not only on signaling inputs but also on a 
diversity of factors. Amidst the continuum of energy, matter, and information 
flows, there seems to be evidence for signaling codes, mostly established 
around the arrangement of life-cycle stages, in large metabolic changes, or in 
the relationships with conspecifics (quorum sensing) and within microbial 
ecosystems. Additionally, and considering the complexity growth of signaling 
systems from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, four avenues or “roots” for the 
advancement of such complexity would come out. A comparative will be 
established in between the signaling strategies and organization of both kinds 
of cellular systems. Finally, a new characterization of “informational 
architectures” will be proposed in order to explain the coding spectrum of both 
prokaryotic and eukaryotic signaling systems. Among other evolutionary aspects, 
cellular strategies for the construction of novel functional codes via the 
intermixing of informational architectures could be related to the persistence 
of retro-elements with obvious viral ancestry.
-------------------------------------------


El 10/10/2017 a las 11:14, tozziart...@libero.it<mailto:tozziart...@libero.it> 
escribió:
Dear FISers,
a proposal: information might stand for free energy.

Indeed, we know that, for an engine:
enthalpy = free energy + entropy x temperature.

At a fixed temperature,
enthalpy = free energy +entropy

The information detected (from an environmental object) by an observer is not 
the total possible one (the enthalpy encompassed in the object), but just a 
part, i.e., the part that it is not uncertain for him (the free energy).  
Hence, every observer, depending on his peculiar features, detects a different 
amont of free energy and does not detect the uncertain part (the entropy).


Arturo Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Farturotozzi.webnode.it%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cb77eb4e083e14afe3fd408d5113f296e%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636433885376777542&sdata=ogDNynoTvgEYS9nWhADhKo%2FTo892Dku5zfask%2FngSLY%3D&reserved=0>


----Messaggio originale----
Da: "Christophe Menant" 
<christophe.men...@hotmail.fr><mailto:christophe.men...@hotmail.fr>
Data: 10/10/2017 11.01
A: 
"dea...@berkeley.edu"<mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu><dea...@berkeley.edu><mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu>
Cc: 
"fis@listas.unizar.es"<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es><fis@listas.unizar.es><mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>
Ogg: [Fis] TR: Data - Reflection - Information



Thanks for these comments Terry.

We should indeed be careful not to focus too much on language because 'meaning' 
is not limited to human communication. And also because starting at basic life 
level allows to address 'meaning' without the burden of complex performances 
like self-consciousness or free will. (The existing bias on language may come 
from analytic philosophy initially dealing with human performances).
Interestingly, a quite similar comment may apply to continental philosophy 
where the 'aboutness' of a mental state was invented for human consciousness. 
And this is of some importance for us because 'intentionality' is close to 
'meaning'. Happily enough 'bio-intentionality' is slowly becoming an acceptable 
entity 
(https://philpapers.org/rec/MENBAM-2<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fphilpapers.org%2Frec%2FMENBAM-2&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cb77eb4e083e14afe3fd408d5113f296e%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636433885376777542&sdata=Xe9y93pS8mRR%2FFXeir1xgl7TqyRQL2iIs3zxwegkmIw%3D&reserved=0>).
Regarding Peirce,  I'm a bit careful about using the triadic approach in FIS 
because non human life was not a key subject for him and also because the 
Interpreter which creates the meaning of the sign (the Interpretant) does not 
seem that much explicited or detailed.
The divisions you propose look interesting  (intrinsic, referential, 
normative). Would it be possible to read more on that (sorry if I have missed 
some of your posts)?
Best
Christophe

________________________________
De : Fis <fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es><mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es> de 
la part de Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu><mailto:dea...@berkeley.edu>
Envoyé : lundi 9 octobre 2017 02:30
À : Sungchul Ji
Cc : foundationofinformationscience
Objet : Re: [Fis] Data - Reflection - Information

Against "meaning"

I think that there is a danger of allowing our anthropocentrism to bias the 
discussion. I worry that the term 'meaning' carries too much of a linguistic 
bias.
By this I mean that it is too attractive to use language as our archtypical 
model when we talk about information.
Language is rather the special case, the most unusual communicative adaptation 
to ever have evolved, and one that grows out of and depends on 
informationa/semiotic capacities shared with other species and with biology in 
general.
So I am happy to see efforts to bring in topics like music or natural signs 
like thunderstorms and would also want to cast the net well beyond humans to 
include animal calls, scent trails, and molecular signaling by hormones. And it 
is why I am more attracted to Peirce and worried about the use of Saussurean 
concepts.
Words and sentences can indeed provide meanings (as in Frege's Sinn - "sense" - 
"intension") and may also provide reference (Frege's Bedeutung - "reference" - 
"extension"), but I think that it is important to recognize that not all signs 
fit this model. Moreover,

A sneeze is often interpreted as evidence about someone's state of health, and 
a clap of thunder may indicate an approaching storm.
These can also be interpreted differently by my dog, but it is still 
information about something, even though I would not say that they mean 
something to that interpreter. Both of these phenomena can be said to provide 
reference to something other than that sound itself, but when we use such 
phrases as "it means you have a cold" or "that means that a storm is 
approaching" we are using the term "means" somewhat metaphorically (most often 
in place of the more accurate term "indicates").

And it is even more of a stretch to use this term with respect to pictures or 
diagrams.
So no one would say the a specific feature like the ears in a caricatured face 
mean something.
Though if the drawing is employed in a political cartoon e.g. with exaggerated 
ears and the whole cartoon is assigned a meaning then perhaps the exaggeration 
of this feature may become meaningful. And yet we would probably agree that 
every line of the drawing provides information contributing to that meaning.

So basically, I am advocating an effort to broaden our discussions and 
recognize that the term information applies in diverse ways to many different 
contexts. And because of this it is important to indicate the framing, whether 
physical, formal, biological, phenomenological, linguistic, etc.
For this reason, as I have suggested before, I would love to have a 
conversation in which we try to agree about which different uses of the 
information concept are appropriate for which contexts. The classic 
syntax-semantics-pragmatics distinction introduced by Charles Morris has often 
been cited in this respect, though it too is in my opinion too limited to the 
linguistic paradigm, and may be misleading when applied more broadly. I have 
suggested a parallel, less linguistic (and nested in Stan's subsumption sense) 
way of making the division: i.e. into intrinsic, referential, and normative 
analyses/properties of information.

Thus you can analyze intrinsic 
properties<http://7769domain.com/Ad/GoIEx2/?token=SVpHR1pPRjQ5cjMwK1E1b3NhUVdYZWNCcGxiZlJjUGhlbEFPemROVE1xWnBTaVFOZHBLMURFYk4xRnJ2bW04RVJhYXVNQmp2akwxdDNYSDJrRG12QzdRYXY3SEZ5bWlROW81M1dwRXNhejdJS3FVbjlUNkZ5bzFLR3FwbXNQWWllTGhBR3pCM3RLVExaUnl4V2JIak1lV1lRek50UE9BQkhGanNJcnh0eC9kclFpNHYxdmRSdFV0aUFWcEowdGJJ0>
 of an informing medium [e.g. Shannon etc etc] irrespective of these other 
properties, but can't make sense of referential properties [e.g. what something 
is about, conveys] without considering intrinsic sign vehicle properties, and 
can't deal with normative properties [e.g. use value, contribution to function, 
significance, accuracy, truth] without also considering referential properties 
[e.g. what it is about].

In this respect, I am also in agreement with those who have pointed out that 
whenever we consider referential and normative properties we must also 
recognize that these are not intrinsic and are interpretation-relative. 
Nevertheless, these are legitimate and not merely subjective or nonscientific 
properties, just not physically intrinsic. I am sympathetic with those among us 
who want to restrict analysis to intrinsic properties alone, and who defend the 
unimpeachable value that we have derived from the formal foundations that 
Shannon's original analysis initiated, but this should not be used to deny the 
legitimacy of attempting to develop a more general theory of information that 
also attempts to discover formal principles underlying these higher level 
properties implicit in the concept.

I take this to be the intent behind Pedro's list. And I think it would be worth 
asking for each of his points: Which information paradigm within this 
hoierarchy does it assume?

— Terry






_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cb77eb4e083e14afe3fd408d5113f296e%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636433885376777542&sdata=R31e6aa9420iFSvDF%2FHZYLvWrfKg%2BFwLwUQvYcB%2F9nM%3D&reserved=0>




--
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526<tel:+34%20976%2071%2035%2026> (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es<mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fsite%2Fpedrocmarijuan%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cb77eb4e083e14afe3fd408d5113f296e%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636433885376777542&sdata=uy9GIBg9QtX6jyO3rsG%2FgaLGlVB2eUoDlMwZRkUFp6o%3D&reserved=0>
-------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flistas.unizar.es%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ffis&data=02%7C01%7Csji%40pharmacy.rutgers.edu%7Cb77eb4e083e14afe3fd408d5113f296e%7Cb92d2b234d35447093ff69aca6632ffe%7C1%7C0%7C636433885376777542&sdata=R31e6aa9420iFSvDF%2FHZYLvWrfKg%2BFwLwUQvYcB%2F9nM%3D&reserved=0>




_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Reply via email to