Re: [Fis] Is information physical?

[Joseph Brenner]

Dear All,



Information is physical and non-physical, simultaneously and sequentially.



Best regards,



Joseph



  _

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of
tozziart...@libero.it
Sent: jeudi, 31 mai 2018 08:34
To: fis@listas.unizar.es; Emanuel Diamant
Subject: Re: [Fis] Is information physical?



Dear Emanuel,

Hi!
I'm sorry, but the UCLA finding does not put an end to any question.
Indeed, this paper about memory transfer has been highly criticized:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2018/05/18/epic-snail-about-t
hat-injectable-memory-study/#.Ww-V81UzYps



The term "material" for the definition of information is less correct than
"physical": indeed, "pyhsical" encompasses also the quantum fields, the
solitons, the oscillations that, although not being properly "material",
nevertheless are able to tranfer "information".









Il 31 maggio 2018 alle 5.55 Emanuel Diamant  ha
scritto:

Dear FIS Colleagues,



For most of the time, I restrain myself from taking part in the FIS
discussions - we speak different languages and adhere to different
principles. My paper invited for publication in MDPI Informatics Special
Issue: Selected Papers from the ISIS Summit Vienna 2015 has been declined
for publication. (Never mind, it was published afterwards in the Research
Gate repository https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291352419 ).



In the concluding part of the paper I enumerate 8 topics in Neuroscience
research that require immediate revision taking into consideration the new
principles that follow from my definition of information. For example, that
information is a material, palpable string of letters and linguistic signs,
a piece of text, a textual description. That means that all derivatives of
semantic information (thoughts, memories, feelings, and so on) are material
entities ("Information as a thing" - once there was a fierce debate around
this subject). Or, as Mark Burgin claims: "Now assuming that information
exists, we have only one option, namely, to admit that information is
physical because only physical things exist". (I do not use the term
"physical", I distinguish Physical and Semantic Information. In place of
Burgin's "physical" I prefer to use the term "material").



I would not remind you of our old controversies but recently UCLA
researchers reported that they have transferred a memory from one marine
snail to another (Biologists 'transfer' a memory,
 Neuroscience ,
 May 14, 2018, University of
California, Los Angeles,

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-05-memory-snails.html ).



I hope that the UCLA finding will put an end to the question "Is information
material (physical, in Burgin's inquiry)?" Yes, information is material.
Other options do not exist.





Best regards, Emanuel.






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






Arturo Tozzi

AA Professor Physics, University North Texas

Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy

Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba

  http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/



---
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel 
antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis

[Stanley N Salthe]

Mark -- What Shannon referred to as 'entropy' was 'variety'. 'Information'
per se was achieved by way of a reduction or winnowing of this variety of
possibilities, leaving 'information' to survive.

STAN

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:24 PM, Burgin, Mark 
wrote:

> Dear Loet,
> Only one remark. There is no Shannon-type information but there is
> Shannon's measure of information, which is called entropy.
>
> Sincerely,
> Mark
>
>
>
> On 5/23/2018 10:44 PM, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:
>
> Dear Mark, Soren, and colleagues,
>
> The easiest distinction is perhaps Descartes' one between* res cogitans*
>  and* res extensa* as two different realities. Our knowledge in each case
> that things could have been different is not out there in the world as
> something seizable such as piece of wood.
>
> Similarly, uncertainty in the case of a distribution is not seizable, but
> it can be expressed in bits of information (as one measure among others).
> The grandiose step of Shannon was, in my opinion, to enable us to
> operationalize Descartes'* cogitans* and make it amenable to the
> measurement as information.
>
> Shannon-type information is dimensionless. It is provided with meaning by
> a system of reference (e.g., an observer or a discourse). Some of us prefer
> to call only thus-meaningful information real information because it is
> embedded. One can also distinguish it from Shannon-type information as
> Bateson-type information. The latter can be debated as physical.
>
> In the ideal case of an elastic collision of "billard balls", the physical
> entropy (S= kB * H) goes to zero. However, if two particles have a
> distribution of momenta of 3:7 before a head-on collision, this
> distribution will change in the ideal case into 7:3. Consequently, the
> probabilistic entropy is .7 log2 (.7/.3) + .3 log2 (.3/.7) =  .86 – .37 =
> .49 bits of information. One thus can prove that this information is not
> physical.
>
> Best,
> Loet
>
> --
>
> Loet Leydesdorff
>
> Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
>
> l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
> Associate Faculty, SPRU, University of
> Sussex;
>
> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. ,
> Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,
> Beijing;
>
> Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck , University of London;
> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ&hl=en
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Burgin, Mark" 
> To: "Søren Brier" ; "Krassimir Markov" ;
> "fis@listas.unizar.es"  
> Sent: 5/24/2018 4:23:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis
>
> Dear Søren,
> You response perfectly supports my analysis. Indeed, for you only the
> Physical World is real. So, information has to by physical if it is real,
> or it cannot be real if it is not physical.
> Acceptance of a more advanced model of the World, which includes other
> realities, as it was demonstrated in my book “Structural Reality,” allows
> understand information as real but not physical.
>
>Sincerely,
>Mark
>
> On 5/17/2018 3:29 AM, Søren Brier wrote:
>
> Dear Mark
>
>
>
> Using ’physical’ this way it just tends to mean ’real’, but that raises
> the problem of how to define real. Is chance real? I Gödel’s theorem or
> mathematics and logic in general (the world of form)? Is subjectivity and
> self-awareness, qualia? I do believe you are a conscious subject with
> feelings, but I cannot feel it, see it, measure it. Is it physical then?? I
> only see what you write and your behavior. And are the meaning of your
> sentences physical? So here we touch phenomenology (the experiential) and
> hermeneutics (meaning and interpretation) and more generally semiotics (the
> meaning of signs in cognition and communication). We have problems
> encompassing these aspects in the natural, the quantitative and the
> technical sciences that makes up the foundation of most conceptions of
> information science.
>
>
>
>   Best
>
>   Søren
>
>
>
> *Fra:* Fis   *På
> vegne af *Krassimir Markov
> *Sendt:* 17. maj 2018 11:33
> *Til:* fis@listas.unizar.es; Burgin, Mark 
> 
> *Emne:* Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis
>
>
>
> Dear Mark and FIS Colleagues,
>
>
>
> First of all. I support the idea of Mark to write a paper and to publish
> it in IJ ITA.
>
> It will be nice to continue our common work this way.
>
>
>
> At the second place, I want to point that till now the discussion on
>
> *Is information physical?*
>
> was more-less chaotic – we had no thesis and antithesis to discuss and to
> come to some conclusions.
>
>
>
> I think now, the Mark’s letter may be used as the needed thesis.
>
>
>
> What about the ant-thesis? Well, I will try to write something below.
>
>
>
>
>
> For me, physical, structural and mental  are one and the same.
>
>
>
> Mental m

Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis

[Joseph Brenner]

Stan,



Good, but things can also run in the opposite direction. How about variety
(plus more energy) generating more variety, more possibilities and allowing
new ‘information’ to emerge? Standard logical analysis is inadequate because
it cannot handle this picture.



Joseph



  _

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Stanley N
Salthe
Sent: jeudi, 31 mai 2018 16:21
To: Burgin, Mark; fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis



Mark -- What Shannon referred to as 'entropy' was 'variety'. 'Information'
per se was achieved by way of a reduction or winnowing of this variety of
possibilities, leaving 'information' to survive.



STAN



On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 10:24 PM, Burgin, Mark 
wrote:

Dear Loet,
Only one remark. There is no Shannon-type information but there is Shannon's
measure of information, which is called entropy.

Sincerely,
Mark




On 5/23/2018 10:44 PM, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:

Dear Mark, Soren, and colleagues,



The easiest distinction is perhaps Descartes' one between res cogitans and
res extensa as two different realities. Our knowledge in each case that
things could have been different is not out there in the world as something
seizable such as piece of wood.



Similarly, uncertainty in the case of a distribution is not seizable, but it
can be expressed in bits of information (as one measure among others). The
grandiose step of Shannon was, in my opinion, to enable us to operationalize
Descartes' cogitans and make it amenable to the measurement as information.



Shannon-type information is dimensionless. It is provided with meaning by a
system of reference (e.g., an observer or a discourse). Some of us prefer to
call only thus-meaningful information real information because it is
embedded. One can also distinguish it from Shannon-type information as
Bateson-type information. The latter can be debated as physical.



In the ideal case of an elastic collision of "billard balls", the physical
entropy (S= kB * H) goes to zero. However, if two particles have a
distribution of momenta of 3:7 before a head-on collision, this distribution
will change in the ideal case into 7:3. Consequently, the probabilistic
entropy is .7 log2 (.7/.3) + .3 log2 (.3/.7) =  .86 – .37 = .49 bits of
information. One thus can prove that this information is not physical.



Best,

Loet




  _


Loet Leydesdorff

Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

  l...@leydesdorff.net ;
 http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty,   SPRU, University of
Sussex;

Guest Professor   Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou;
Visiting Professor,   ISTIC,
Beijing;

Visiting Fellow,   Birkbeck, University of London;

http://scholar.google.com/

citations?user=ych9gNYJ&hl=en





-- Original Message --

From: "Burgin, Mark" 

To: "Søren Brier" ; "Krassimir Markov" ;
 "fis@listas.unizar.es" 

Sent: 5/24/2018 4:23:53 AM

Subject: Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis



Dear Søren,
You response perfectly supports my analysis. Indeed, for you only the
Physical World is real. So, information has to by physical if it is real, or
it cannot be real if it is not physical.
Acceptance of a more advanced model of the World, which includes other
realities, as it was demonstrated in my book “Structural Reality,” allows
understand information as real but not physical.

   Sincerely,
   Mark

On 5/17/2018 3:29 AM, Søren Brier wrote:

Dear Mark



Using ’physical’ this way it just tends to mean ’real’, but that raises the
problem of how to define real. Is chance real? I Gödel’s theorem or
mathematics and logic in general (the world of form)? Is subjectivity and
self-awareness, qualia? I do believe you are a conscious subject with
feelings, but I cannot feel it, see it, measure it. Is it physical then?? I
only see what you write and your behavior. And are the meaning of your
sentences physical? So here we touch phenomenology (the experiential) and
hermeneutics (meaning and interpretation) and more generally semiotics (the
meaning of signs in cognition and communication). We have problems
encompassing these aspects in the natural, the quantitative and the
technical sciences that makes up the foundation of most conceptions of
information science.



  Best

  Søren



Fra: Fis  
 På vegne af Krassimir Markov
Sendt: 17. maj 2018 11:33
Til: fis@listas.unizar.es; Burgin, Mark  

Emne: Re: [Fis] Is information physical? A logical analysis



Dear Mark and FIS Colleagues,



First of all. I support the idea of Mark to write a paper and to publish it
in IJ ITA.

It will be

[Fis] Sound-induced Faraday waves in water droplets: The Effects of System Sizes

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi FISers,

About 6 months ago, John Stuart Reid [1] of the Sonic Age Lab in Cumbria, 
England, published on-line a fascinating video strip showing the sound 
vibration-induced formation of standing waves in individual water droplets of 
50 to 100 microns in size [1], almost comparable to living cells, which is 
reproduced below (click the picture to activate the video).

https://youtu.be/Z0St42jfgMU
[https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z0St42jfgMU/hqdefault.jpg]

Sessile drop experiment
youtu.be
In this short video we see a field of sessile drops, many of them in the 50 to 
100 micron range, mimicking the mass of many types of human cell. The sound 
us...

The standing waves formed within these small water droplets are the examples of 
the Faraday waves first reported in 1831 [2]. In the following explanation, 
John invokes the resonance mechanism to account for the differential effects of 
the same sound input on the wave patterns exhibited by differently sized sessle 
droplets, which I think is valid:
"In this short video we see a field of sessile drops, many of them in the 50 to 
100 micron range, mimicking the mass of many types of human cell. The sound 
used to excite the drops is code 133 of Cyma Technologies AMI 1000 sound 
therapy device. The entire field is around 4 mm in width yet the uptake of 
acoustic energy is significantly different between the various sizes of 
microscopic sessile drops, and at the point of Faraday Instability only two 
droplets reach full expression, while in others there is a very reduced 
acoustic uptake. This suggests that resonance may play a major role in the 
ability of cells to absorb acoustic energy."
The reason I am interested in the Faraday waves in sessile droplets is because 
I saw the link between these waves and the waves that I postulated to be 
induced by energy input in all the material systems in the Universe, from atoms 
to enzymes, cells, brains, human societies, and to the Universe Itself, 
depending on the pattern of which the functions of a given system is thought to 
be determined [3, 4].  This idea is schematically represented in Figure 1 
reproduced from [3, 4]:

[cid:3ba4a188-c858-4818-ab73-4e0a020409e5]
Figure 1.  One possibility to account for the universality of the Planckian 
distribution in nature is to postulate that the wave-particle duality first 
discovered in atomic physics operates at all scales of material systems, from 
atoms to the Universe. Reproduced from [2, 3].

Figure 1 can readily accommodate the sound-induced Faraday waves in sessile 
water droplets captured by the CymaScope simply by adding a 10^th arrow 
directed to "10. Faraday waves in sessile droplets".

According to this interpretation, the sound-induced Faraday waves formed in 
sessile water droplets as visualized  the CymaScope obey and embody the 
principle of wave-particle duality (PWPD) and hence I predict that the digital 
CymaScopic images of these droplets should fit PDE, the Planckian Distribution 
Equation, y = (A/(x + B)^5/(Exp (C/(x + B)) - 1), where x is the signal 
intensity of the CymaScopic image pixels, and y is their frequency.  If this 
prediction proves to be validated, the phenomenon of the sound-induced Faraday 
waves in sessile water droplets visualized by the CymaScope may be considered 
as one of the simplest mesoscopic material system in which PWPD is proven to 
operate, thus opening up the possibility that PWPD may also operate in living 
cells and their component biopolymers as I suggested in the abstract to the 
2017 Biophysical Society Annual Meeting [6] which is reproduced below:

"261-Pos Board B26
Protein Folding as a Resonance Phenomenon, with Folding Free Energies 
Determined by Protein-Hydration Shell Interactions   Sungchul Ji. Pharmacology 
and Toxicology, Rutgers University, Kendall Park, NJ, USA.

The single-molecule enzyme-turnover-time histogram of cholesterol oxidase [1] 
resembles the blackbody radiation spectrum at 4000 
K. This observation 
motivated the author to generalize the Planck radiation equation (PRE), Sl = 
(8phc/l5 )/(ehc/lkT 1), by replacing the universal constants and temperature by 
free parameters, resulting in the Planckian Distribution Equation (PDE), y = 
(A/(x þ B)5 )/(eC/(x þ B) 1) [2]. Since the first factor in PRE reflects the 
number of standing waves generated in the blackbody and the second factor the 
average energy of the standing waves [3], it was postulated that any material 
system that generates data fitting PDE can be interpreted as implicating 
standing waves with associated average energies [2]. PDE has been found to fit 
the long-tailed histogram of the folding free-energy changes measured from 
4,300 proteins isolated from E. coli [4]. One possible interpretation of this 
finding is (i) that proteins (P) and their hydration shells (HS) are organized 
systems of oscillators with unique sets of natural frequencies, (ii) Ps assume 
their conform