Re: [Fis] Principles of Information

[Michel Godron]

The "citations from Aristotle, Plato, Ortega, Leibnitz," are a 
particular type of IF "hypothetic assumptions". They cannot be 
falsifiable as the hypothesis of gravitional waves, but they may be 
discussed rationnally as starting points for principles and definitions 
of information.


Cordialement. M. Godron

Le 06/10/2017 à 18:26, Emanuel Diamant a écrit :


Dear FISers,

I have heartily welcomed Pedro’s initiative to work out some 
principles of information definition quest. But the upsetting 
discussion unrolled around the issue pushes me to restrain my support 
for the Pedro’s proposal.  The problem (in my understanding) is that 
FIS discussants are violating the basic rule of any scientific 
discourse – the IF/THEN principle.


We usually start our discourse with a hypothetic assumption (the IF 
part of an argument) which is affirmed later by a supporting evidence 
or by a prediction that holds under the given assumptions (the THEN 
part of the statement).


The universality of this principle was vividly demonstrated by the 
recent Nobel Prize for Physics awarding –


A hundred years ago, Albert Einstein has predicted the existence of 
gravitational waves, but only the construction of the LIGO detector 
(implementing the if-then principles) made the observation of 
gravitational waves possible.


Information will become visible and palpable only when an if-then 
grounded probe (or an if-then grounded approach) will be devised and 
put in use.


Until then – long citations from Aristotle, Plato, Ortega, Leibnitz, 
alongside with extensive self-citations, will not help us to master 
the unavoidable if-then way of thinking.


Sincerely yours,

Emanuel.



___
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

Re: [Fis] Data - Reflection - Information

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Krassimir,

Thanks for the excellent summary of the diverse opinions.

Please add to my citation the following sentence :

A numeric approach uses the concept of counting in terms of consolidation
of displacements, and points out the data as a specific element of a cycle,
the information part being the communication about which cycle the element
is part of /= data about the remaining elements /.

Thanks
Karl

Am 07.10.2017 20:07 schrieb "Krassimir Markov" :

> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>
> It is time for my second post this week.
>
> Many thanks to Christophe Menant (for the profound question) and to all
> colleagues (for the very nice and useful comments)!
>
> **
>
> Christophe Menant had written:
>  “However, I'm not sure that “meaning” is enough to separate information
> from data.  A basic flow of bits can be considered as meaningless data.
> But the same flow can give a meaningful sentence once correctly
> demodulated.
> I would say that:
> 1) The meaning of a signal does not exist per se. It is agent dependent.
>  - A signal can be meaningful information created by an agent (human
> voice, ant pheromone).
>  - A signal can be meaningless (thunderstorm noise).
>  - A meaning can be generated by an agent receiving the signal
> (interpretation/meaning generation).
> 2) A given signal can generate different meanings when received by
> different agents (a thunderstorm noise generates different meanings for
> someone walking on the beach or for a person in a house).
> 3) The domain of efficiency of the meaning should be taken into account
> (human beings, ant-hill).
> Regarding your positioning of data, I'm not sure to understand your
> "reflections without meaning".
> Could you tell a bit more?“
>
> Before answering, I need to make a little analysis of posts this week
> connected to my question about data and information. For this goal, below
> I shall remember shortly main ideas presented this week.
>
> Citations:
>
> Stanley N Salthe:
>  “The simple answer to your question about data is to note the word's
> derivation from Latin Datum, which can be compared with Factum.”
>
> Y. X. Zhong:
> “It is not difficult to accept that there are two concepts of information,
> related and also different to each other. The first one is the information
> presented by the objects existed in environment before the subject's
> perceiving and the second one is the information perceived and understood
> by the subject. The first one can be termed the object information and the
> second one the perceived information. The latter is perceived by the
> subject from the former.
> The object information is just the object's "state of the object and the
> pattern with which the state varies". No meaning and no utility at the
> stage.
> The perceived information is the information, perceive by the subject from
> the object information. So, it should have the form component of the
> object (syntactic information), the meaning component of the object
> (semantic information), and the utility component of the object with
> respect to the subject's goal (pragmatic information). Only at this stage,
> the "meaning" comes out.”
>
> Karl Javorszky:
> “Data is that what we see by using the eyes. Information is that what we
> do not see by using the eyes, but we see by using the brain; because it is
> the background to that what we see by using the eyes.
> Data are the foreground, the text, which are put into a context by the
> information, which is the background. In Wittgenstein terms: Sachverhalt
> and Zusammenhang (which I translate – unofficially – as facts /data/ and
> context /relationships/)”.
>
>
> Dai Griffiths:
> “I'm curious about your use of the word 'dualistic'. Dualism usually
> suggests that there are two aspects to a single phenomenon. As I interpret
> your post, you are saying that information and meaning are separate
> concepts. Otherwise, we are led to inquire into the nature of the unity of
> which they are both aspects, which gets us back where we started.
> So I interpret 'dualistic' here to mean 'two concepts that are intertwined
> in the emergence of events'. Is this parallel to, for example, atomic
> structure and fluid dynamics (perhaps there are better examples)? If so,
> does that imply a hierarchy (i.e. you can have information without
> meaning, but not meaning without information)? This makes sense to me,
> though it is not what I usually associate with the word 'dualistic'.”
>
> Guy A Hoelzer:
> “If you start by explicitly stating that you are using the semantic notion
> of information at the start, I would agree whole heartedly with your post.
> I claim that physical information is general, while semantic information
> is merely a subset of physical information.  Semantic information is
> composed of kinds of physical contrasts to which symbolic meaning has been
> attached.  Meaningfulness cannot exist in the absence of physical
> contrast, but physical 

[Fis] Data - Reflection - Information

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear FIS Colleagues,

It is time for my second post this week.

Many thanks to Christophe Menant (for the profound question) and to all
colleagues (for the very nice and useful comments)!

**

Christophe Menant had written:
 “However, I'm not sure that “meaning” is enough to separate information
from data.  A basic flow of bits can be considered as meaningless data.
But the same flow can give a meaningful sentence once correctly
demodulated.
I would say that:
1) The meaning of a signal does not exist per se. It is agent dependent.
 - A signal can be meaningful information created by an agent (human
voice, ant pheromone).
 - A signal can be meaningless (thunderstorm noise).
 - A meaning can be generated by an agent receiving the signal
(interpretation/meaning generation).
2) A given signal can generate different meanings when received by
different agents (a thunderstorm noise generates different meanings for
someone walking on the beach or for a person in a house).
3) The domain of efficiency of the meaning should be taken into account
(human beings, ant-hill).
Regarding your positioning of data, I'm not sure to understand your
"reflections without meaning".
Could you tell a bit more?“

Before answering, I need to make a little analysis of posts this week
connected to my question about data and information. For this goal, below
I shall remember shortly main ideas presented this week.

Citations:

Stanley N Salthe:
 “The simple answer to your question about data is to note the word's
derivation from Latin Datum, which can be compared with Factum.”

Y. X. Zhong:
“It is not difficult to accept that there are two concepts of information,
related and also different to each other. The first one is the information
presented by the objects existed in environment before the subject's
perceiving and the second one is the information perceived and understood
by the subject. The first one can be termed the object information and the
second one the perceived information. The latter is perceived by the
subject from the former.
The object information is just the object's "state of the object and the
pattern with which the state varies". No meaning and no utility at the
stage.
The perceived information is the information, perceive by the subject from
the object information. So, it should have the form component of the
object (syntactic information), the meaning component of the object
(semantic information), and the utility component of the object with
respect to the subject's goal (pragmatic information). Only at this stage,
the "meaning" comes out.”

Karl Javorszky:
“Data is that what we see by using the eyes. Information is that what we
do not see by using the eyes, but we see by using the brain; because it is
the background to that what we see by using the eyes.
Data are the foreground, the text, which are put into a context by the
information, which is the background. In Wittgenstein terms: Sachverhalt
and Zusammenhang (which I translate – unofficially – as facts /data/ and
context /relationships/)”.


Dai Griffiths:
“I'm curious about your use of the word 'dualistic'. Dualism usually
suggests that there are two aspects to a single phenomenon. As I interpret
your post, you are saying that information and meaning are separate
concepts. Otherwise, we are led to inquire into the nature of the unity of
which they are both aspects, which gets us back where we started.
So I interpret 'dualistic' here to mean 'two concepts that are intertwined
in the emergence of events'. Is this parallel to, for example, atomic
structure and fluid dynamics (perhaps there are better examples)? If so,
does that imply a hierarchy (i.e. you can have information without
meaning, but not meaning without information)? This makes sense to me,
though it is not what I usually associate with the word 'dualistic'.”

Guy A Hoelzer:
“If you start by explicitly stating that you are using the semantic notion
of information at the start, I would agree whole heartedly with your post.
I claim that physical information is general, while semantic information
is merely a subset of physical information.  Semantic information is
composed of kinds of physical contrasts to which symbolic meaning has been
attached.  Meaningfulness cannot exist in the absence of physical
contrast, but physical information can exist independently of sensation,
perception, cognition, and contextual theory.”

Jose Javier Blanco Rivero:
“What is information at some stage of the process becomes data on other.”

Loet Leydesdorff:
"Data" is "given" or "revealed" by God.
The search for an intuitive definition of information has led to unclear
definitions. In a recent book, Hidalgo (2015, at p. 165), for example, has
defined “information” with reference “to the order embodied in codified
sequences, such as those found in music or DNA, while knowledge and
knowhow refer to the ability of a system to process information.” However,
codified knowledge can be 

Re: [Fis] If "data = information", why we need both concepts?

[Robert E. Ulanowicz]

Dear Michel,

I spent my career doing much the same thing with mutual information, which
in this case quantifies the degree of constraint among the species.

Encouraged by the suggestions of E.P. Odum, I hypothesized that ecosystems
would naturally increase in the product of their gross activities times
the mutual information among the network of interactions -- a product
(fashioned after the Gibbs/Helmholz free energies) that I called system
"ascendency".

After about two decades of measuring the ascendencies of diverse
ecosystems, the data were telling me that my hypothesis was wrong.
Ecosystems do not continually progress in increasing ascendency, but
rather achieve a balance between ascendency (a surrogate for efficiency)
and its complement, the system overhead (which mirrors reliability).
Furthermore, the quantitative nature of the balance is notably insensitive
to the type of ecosystem under study, averaging about 40% efficiency and
60% redundancy. (See Figure 7 on p1890 of
.)

Now, you might argue that constraint is not information and so these
results are not germane to our discussion, but I (and I think Stan) would
propose that constraint is actually the most generalized form of
information, and the Bayesian forms of the Shannon measure beautifully
parse the division between efficiency and reliability.

While I didn't set out to falsify my initial hypothesis, that is indeed
what eventually happened. Notice that it was accomplished in quantitative
fashion and without any recourse whatsoever to system dynamics. The
decades-long exercise demonstrates, I think, a phenomenological approach
to the science of life pursued in abstraction of (but not contradiction
to) the underlying physics and chemistry.

Je lis un peu francais et voudrais bien lire de votre travail sur
l'information mutuelle.

Cordialement,
Bob

> Dear colleagues
>
> Loet thinks that "Nobody of us provide an operative framework and a
> single (just one!) empirical  testable prevision able to assess
> "information"
>
> In my ecological work, I try  to know the relations between living
> organisms and their environment, and I use Brillouin's formula (and
> non-inferential statistics) to compute the "mutual information" between
> each species of plant or animal and  and each constraint of the
> environment. The testable prevision is, for example, the potential area
> of a species.
>
> The book where that method is explained is written in french, but I
> could translate this example in english if you think that it could be
> published.
>
> Cordialement. M. Godron
>
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Fis] If "data = information", why we need both concepts?

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Cher Michel,

Loet thinks that "Nobody of us provide an operative framework and a 
single (just one!) empirical  testable prevision able to assess 
"information"

I did not say this, but reacted to one of our colleagues saying this.

Best,
Loet


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

Re: [Fis] If "data = information", why we need both concepts?

[Michel Godron]

Dear colleagues

Loet thinks that "Nobody of us provide an operative framework and a 
single (just one!) empirical  testable prevision able to assess 
"information"


In my ecological work, I try  to know the relations between living 
organisms and their environment, and I use Brillouin's formula (and 
non-inferential statistics) to compute the "mutual information" between 
each species of plant or animal and  and each constraint of the 
environment. The testable prevision is, for example, the potential area 
of a species.


The book where that method is explained is written in french, but I 
could translate this example in english if you think that it could be 
published.


Cordialement. M. Godron


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

Re: [Fis] Heretic

[Koichiro Matsuno]

On 4 Oct 2017 at 6:01 AM, tozziart...@libero.it   
wrote: 

 

my proposal is to forget about information, and to use your otherwise very 
valuable skills and efforts in other fields.

 

   This penetrating statement reminds me of another similar one made by John 
Bell in Against Measurement (1990) as saying “On this list of bad words from 
good books, the worst of all is ‘measurement’. … In fact the word has had such 
a damaging effect on the discussion that I think it should now be banned 
altogether in quantum mechanics.” Then, an intriguing sequel to this 
declamation is that most practical physicists have seemed to be immune to such 
a charge while being committed themselves to the measurement business as usual.

 

   One sympathetic understanding towards those practical physicists comes from 
the recent development of QM distinguishing between quantum coherence and 
quantum correlation. While quantum coherence is about the superposition of the 
states in a given single system on a definite Hilbert space, quantum 
correlation is about the correlation between different systems. Measurement is 
exclusively for the correlation between the two different systems, in which one 
is called a system to be measured and another one is called a measurement 
apparatus. The deed of measurement is practiced by the apparatus absorbing the 
quantum particles such as photons, electrons, atoms and molecules emitted from 
the system in focus.  

 

   On the other hand, any theoretical enterprise may be inclined to take the 
stance making whatever closed system contrast with a theoretician external to 
the system. One exaggerated example is the dichotomy of TOE (theory of 
everything) and a committed theoretician sitting outside of the universe (then, 
where?). The externalist stance is the rule of conduct adopted for setting only 
one system, no matter how big or small it may be, against the concerned 
theoretician. No measurement is in need there.

 

There is no difference between quantum correlation and coherence to the strict 
externalist because only one system is allowed there. In contrast, the 
difference between the two would become a serious matter to the practicing 
physicists paying due attention to the act of measurement. Which stance to take 
out of the two of the externalist’s and the internalist’s would be our choice. 
Information may also follow suit.

 

   Koichiro Matsuno

 

 

 

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of 
tozziart...@libero.it
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 6:01 AM
To: fis 
Subject: [Fis] Heretic

 

Dear FISers,
After the provided long list of completely different definitions of the term 
"information", one conclusion is clear: there is not a scientific, unique 
definition of information.

Nobody of us is able to provide an operative framework and a single (just one!) 
empirical  testable prevision able to assess "information".  
For example, what does "semantics" and "meaning" mean, in empirical terms?
Therefore, to talk about information is meaningless, in the carnapian sense.  

Judging from your answers, the most of you are foremost scientists.  Therefore, 
my proposal is to forget about information, and to use your otherwise very 
valuable skills and efforts in other fields.
It is a waste of your  precious time to focus yourself in something that is so 
vague.  It is, retrospectively, a mistake to state that the world is 
information, if nobody knows what does it mean.  

--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android

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