Dear Sung, I'm sorry, but the "Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics" still holds true. Forget philosophical concepts like Yin and Yang, because, in some cases and contexts , entropy is negative. Just to make an example, "Since the entropy H(S|O) can now become negative, erasing a system can result in a net gain of work (and a corresponding cooling of the environment)." https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7349/full/nature10123.html -- Inviato da Libero Mail per Android venerdì, 13 ottobre 2017, 10:11PM +02:00 da Sungchul Ji s...@pharmacy.rutgers.edu :
>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)*k B ), > so setting S = 1J/K gives a Shannon entropy of 1.045×10 23 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 and “Schroedinger’s > Paradox” . 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_pa > radox.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 1.045×10 23 bits. > >Indeed, >The Gibbs entropy formula states that thermodynamic entropy S equals k B >*sum[p i *ln(1/p i )], > with units of J/K, where k B is > the Boltzmann constant and p i is > the probability of microstate i. On the other hand, the Shannon entropy is > defined as H = sum[p i *log 2 (1/p i )], > with units of bits. With the same probability mass function, you can see that > H = S/(ln(2)*k B ), > so setting S = 1J/K gives a Shannon entropy of 1.045×10 23 bits. > >On the other side, The energy 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 > >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/ > > >>----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 > : >>>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 . >>> October 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2017.10.002 >>> >>>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 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/ >>>> >>>> >>>>>----Messaggio originale---- >>>>>Da: "Christophe Menant" <christophe.men...@hotmail.fr> >>>>>Data: 10/10/2017 11.01 >>>>>A: "dea...@berkeley.edu" <dea...@berkeley.edu> >>>>>Cc: "fis@listas.unizar.es" <fis@listas.unizar.es> >>>>>Ogg: [Fis] TR: Data - Reflection - Information >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>T hanks 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 ). >>>>>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> de la part de Terrence W. DEACON >>>>><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 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 >>>>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >>>> >>> >>>-- >>>------------------------------------------------- >>>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 (& 6818) >>>pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es >>>http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ >>>------------------------------------------------- >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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
