[Fis] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples?
John Collier
collierj at ukzn.ac.za
Mon Aug 25 10:40:04 CEST 2014
Nice post, Bob. I agree pretty much. Brooks and
Wiley got slammed by Morowitz for using the
*Real* energy in their book, which being about
biology is the only sensible notion of energy.
There is still a need for a clear dimensional
analysis of the relation(s) between information
and energy. I work on that periodically, but only
minimal progress so far. Perhaps I can focus on
it better now that I am retired.
John
At 02:11 AM 2014-08-22, Robert E. Ulanowicz wrote:
>Dear Joseph,
>
>Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like
>Helmholz & Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to
>information measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the
>exergy becomes RT times the mutual information among the molecules.
>
>I happen to be a radical who feels that the term "energy" is a construct
>with little ontological depth. It is a bookkeeping device (a nice one, of
>course, but bookkeeping nonetheless). It was devised to maintain the
>Platonic worldview. Messrs. Meyer & Joule simply gave us the conversion
>factors to make it look like energy is constant. *Real* energy is always
>in decline -- witness what happens to the work functions I just mentioned.
>
>Well, enough heresy for one night!
>
>Cheers,
>Bob U.
>
> > Dear Mark and All,
> >
> > I return belatedly to this short but key note of Mark's in which he
> > repeats his view, with which I agree, that Energy is a kind of
> > information and information is a kind of energy.
> >
> > My suggestion is that it may be useful to expand this statement by looking
> > at both Information and Energy (mass-energy) as emergent properties of the
> > universe. Since we agree they are not identical, we may then look at how
> > the properties differ. Perhaps we can say that Energy is an extensive
> > property, measured primarily by quantity, and Information is an intensive
> > property. The difficulty is that both Energy and Information themselves
> > appear to have both intensive and extensive properties, measured by vector
> > and scalar quantities respectively. I am encouraged to say that this
> > approach might yield results that are compatible with advanced theories
> > based on the sophisticated mathematics to which Mark refers.
> >
> > I would say then that in our world it is not the question of which is more
> > fundamental that is essential, but that Energy and Information share
> > properties which are linked dynamically. In this dialectical
> > interpretation, the need for a 'demon' that accomplishes some function, as
> > in the paper referred to in John's note, is a formal exercise.
> >
> > Thank you and best wishes,
> >
> > Joseph
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Burgin, Mark
> > To: Joseph Brenner
> > Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 9:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT. Quintuples?
> >
> >
> > Dear Joseph and Colleagues,
> > An answer to "the perhaps badly posed question of whether information or
> > energy is more fundamental" is given in the book M.Burgin, Theory of
> > information. The answer is a little bit unexpected:
> > Energy is a kind of information and information is a kind of energy.
> > It's a pity that very few researchers read books with advanced theories
> > based on sophisticated mathematics.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Mark Burgin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/31/2014 2:40 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote:
> >
> > Dear Krassimir and Colleagues,
> >
> > I have followed this discussion with interest but not total agreement.
> > As I have commented to Krassimir previously, I feel that his system,
> > based on symbols as outlined in his paper, is too static to capture the
> > dynamics of complex information processes and their value (valence). It
> > suffers from the same problems as that of Peirce and of set-theoretic
> > approaches, namely, a certain arbitrariness in the selection and number
> > of independent elements and their grounding in nature (or rather absence
> > of grounding).
> >
> > If you will permit a naïve but well-intentioned question, why not have a
> > theory whose elements are quintuples? Would this not be a 'better', more
> > complete theory? This opens the possibility of an infinite regress, but
> > that is the point I am trying to make: the form of the theory is, to a
> > certain extent, defining its content.
> >
> > The /development/ of any GIT should, from the beginning I think,
> > recognize the existence in real time, so to speak, of any new
> > suggestions in the context of other recent contributions of a different
> > form, such as those of Luhn, Hofkirchner, Marijuan, Deacon,
> > Dodig-Crnkovic, Wu and so on. Several of these already permit a more
> > directed discussion of the perhaps badly posed question of whether
> > information or energy is more fundamental. Otherwise, all that work will
> > need to be done at the end. In any case, the GIT itself, to the extent
> > that it could be desirable and useful, would also have to have some
> > dynamics capable of accepting theories of different forms. 20th Century
> > physics sought only identities throughout nature and the balance is now
> > being somewhat restored. I think keeping the diversity of theories of
> > information in mind is the most worthwhile strategy.
> >
> > One of the values of Krassimir's approach is that it recognizes the
> > existence of some of these more complex questions that need to be
> > answered. I simply suggest that process language and a recognition of
> > dynamic interactions (e.g., between 'internal' and 'external') could be
> > part of the strategy.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Joseph
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Krassimir Markov
> > To: Jerry LR Chandler ; FIS ; Pridi Siregar
> > Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 10:42 AM
> > Subject: [Fis] Information quadruple
> >
> >
> > Dear Jerry, Pridi, and Colleagues,
> >
> > Thank you for the nice comments!
> >
> > To answer to questions I have to present next step from the GIT
> > (General Information Theory) we are developing.
> >
> > Let remember in words (below "Infos" is abbreviation from "Information
> > Subject", it is an intelligent natural or artificial agent (system)):
> >
> > Information is quadruple (Source, Recipient, Evidence, Infos) or
> > formally i = (s, r, e, I)
> >
> > The nest step is to define elements of the quadruple:
> >
> > s and r are structured sets;
> > e is a mapping from s in r which preserves (all or partial) structure
> > of s and resolves any information expectation of I
> >
> > I expect new questions:
> > - what is an "intelligent agent"
> > - what is "information expectation"
> > - ...
> >
> > If it is interesting, answers to these questions may be given in
> > further letters.
> >
> > ***
> >
> > Now I want to make some comments to letters received (their full texts
> > are given below my answers).
> >
> > Pridi: "information cannot be viewed in any absolute sense but as
> > internal representations of "external patterns""
> > Kr.: Yes, the "reflection" is a property of Matter, "information" is
> > a reflection for which the information quadruple exists. But
> > information is not "internal representations of "external patterns" ".
> > It is result from resolving the subjective information expectation
> > which is process of comparing of internal and external patterns. I
> > know, this will cause new questions
> >
> > Pridi: In this framework then, it seems that "information" cannot be
> > conceptualized without reference to the both "something out there" and
> > the "internal structures" of the receptor/cognitive system.
> > Kr.: Yes.
> >
> > Pridi: How can we really quantify meaningful (semantic) information
> > ... ?
> > Kr.: By distance between "external patterns" and "information
> > expectation" (sorry to be not clear but it is long text for further
> > letters).
> >
> > Pridi: All "objective" measures (entropy, negentropy,...) are actually
> > totally dependant of I1 and I2 and can never be considered as
> > "absolute".
> > Kr.: Yes, but the world humanity is an Infos and its information
> > expectations we assume as "absolute".
> >
> > Pridi: ... some researchers that posit that "information" may be more
> > fundamental than the fundamental physical (mass, time, space, amps).
> > Kr.: Yes, there are other paradigms which are useful in some cases,
> > but in our paradigm "information" is not fundamental but "reflection"
> > is the fundamental.
> >
> > Pridi: ... no "absolute truth" (whatever this means) is really gained.
> > "Only" a richer more complete (subjective but coherent) world-view .
> > Kr.: Yes.
> >
> > Jerry: ... assertion of a quadruple of symbols is rather close to the
> > philosophy of C S Peirce (hereafter "CSP")
> > Kr.: Our paradigm is nor opposite to what science has explored till
> > now. All already investigated information theories (Shannon,Peirce,
> > etc) have to be a part or intersection of a new GIT.
> >
> > Jerry: ... moves these 'definitions' of individual symbols into the
> > subjective realm. (CSP's notion of "interpretation?)
> > Different researchers have the freedom to interpret the evidence as
> > they choose, including the relationships to engineering terms such as
> > "bandwidth".
> > Kr.: Yes. But not only researches, everybody has such freedom. Because
> > of this there exist advertising processes ... but for this we have to
> > talk in further letters.
> >
> > Jerry: Pridi's post appropriately recognizes the tension between
> > objective scientific theories and subjective judgments about evidence
> > by different individuals with different professional backgrounds and
> > different symbolic processing powers.
> > Kr.: Yes, there will be tension if we assume world as plane structure.
> > But it is hierarchical one and what is assumed as "subjective" at one
> > level is assumed as "objective" for the low levels.
> >
> > Jerry: ... to show that these definitions of symbols motivate a
> > coherent symbol system that can be used to transfer information
> > contained in the signal from symbolic representations of entities. It
> > may work for engineering purposes, but is it extendable to life?
> > Kr.: The goal of work on GIT is to create a coherent symbol system
> > which is equal valid for life creatures and artificial agents.
> >
> > Jerry: ... this requires the use of multiple symbol systems and
> > multiple forms of logic in order to gain the functionality of transfer
> > of "in-form" between individuals or machines.
> > Kr.: Yes, at least on three levels - Information, Infos, Inforaction
> > (Information interaction)
> >
> > Jerry: Anybody have any suggestions on how this quadruple of symbols
> > can be formalized into a quantitative coherent form of communication?
> > Kr.: A step toward this I give above in the beginning of this letter
> > but it is very long journey ...
> >
> > Thank you for creative discussion!
> > Friendly regards
> > Krassimir
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jerry LR Chandler
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:57 PM
> > To: FIS
> > Cc: Krassimir Markov ; Pridi Siregar
> > Subject: Re: [Fis] Re to Pridi: infinite bandwith and finite
> > informationcontent CS Peirce and Chemical Nomenclature
> >
> > Pridi, Krassimir, List:
> >
> > (In order to place this comment in context, and for reference, I have
> > copied Krassimir's "definition" of information below. My comments
> > follow the excellent post of Pridi.)
> >
> > > In physical world there exist only reflections but not information.
> > >
> > > Information " i " is the quadruple:
> > > i = (s, r, e, I)
> > > where
> > > s is a source entity, which is reflected in r
> > > r is the entity in which reflection of s exists
> > > e is an evidence for the subject I which proofs for him and only for
> > him that the reflection in r reflects just s , i.e. the evidence
> > proofs for the subject what the reflection reflects .
> > > I is information subject who has possibility to make decisions in
> > accordance with some goals - human, animal, bacteria, artificial
> > intelligent system, etc.
> > >
> > > In other words, information is a reflection, but not every
> > reflection is information - only reflections for which the quadruple
> > above exist are assumed as information by the corresponded subjects.
> > >
> > > For different I , information may be different because of subjects'
> > finite memory and reflection possibilities.
> > > Because of this, a physical event with an infinite bandwidth may
> > have finite information content (for concrete information subject) .
> > On Jul 23, 2014, at 6:45 AM, Pridi Siregar wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Krassimir,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your explanation. It does give me a better
> > understanding of how information (beyond Shannon) can be formalized!
> > However, a closer look at the formalism and its semantic does raise
> > new questions:
> > >
> > > From the definition you have given, it appears that information
> > cannot be viewed in any absolute sense but as internal
> > representations of "external patterns" whose meaning depends on the
> > subject capturing/interpreting/storing the said patterns. In this
> > framework then, it seems that "information" cannot be conceptualized
> > without reference to the both "something out there" and the
> > "internal structures" of the receptor/cognitive system.
> > >
> > > In other words the concept of "information" lies within some
> > "subjective" (albeit rational) realm. I'm sure that I'm stating the
> > obvious for most of FIS members but a question arised upon reading
> > your formalism: How can we really quantify meaningful (semantic)
> > information beyond Shannon (that disregards semantics) and his
> > purely statistical framework? Or beyond Boltzmann's
> > entropy/Information based on micro-macro states ratios?
> > >
> > > When we formalize i = (s, r, e, I) there is a "meta-level"
> > formalisation that is only apparent since even (s,r) reflect our own
> > (human) subjective world-view. We could actually write (I1(s),
> > I1(r), e, I2) where I1 and I2 are two distinct cognitive systems and
> > both of which lie at the OBJECT level of the formalizing agent which
> > is NEITHER I1 or I2. All "objective" measures (entropy,
> > negentropy,...) are actually totally dependant of I1 and I2 and can
> > never be considered as "absolute".
> > >
> > >
> > > This leads me to a second question (sorry for the lengthy message):
> > there are some researchers that posit that "information" may be more
> > fundamental than the fundamental physical (mass, time, space, amps).
> > This appears (and perhaps only appears) to be at the opposite end of
> > the above-mentioned view. Indeed, in this framework some kind of
> > "universal" or "absolute" notions must be accepted as true.
> > >
> > > One apparent way out would be to demonstrate that information
> > somehow logically entails the fundemantal physical entities while
> > accepting that we are still within a human-centered world view. And
> > thus no "absolute truth" (whatever this means) is really gained.
> > "Only" a richer more complete (subjective but coherent) world-view .
> > >
> > > Am I making anys sense? Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > Best
> > >
> > > Pridi
> > >
> >
> > Pridi's comment concur with many of my views wrt the concept of
> > information.
> >
> > Krassimir's assertion of a quadruple of symbols is rather close to the
> > philosophy of C S Peirce (hereafter "CSP") in one context.
> >
> > S as symbol represents an external source of signal, that which is
> > independent of the individual mind and being. This is analogous to
> > CSP's term "sinsign".
> >
> > R is a thing itself. That is, R generates S.
> >
> > E as evidence is a vague term which infers an observer (2nd Order
> > Cybernetics?) that both receives and evaluates the signal (S) from the
> > thing (R). CSP categorizes evidence as icon, index or symbol with
> > respect to the entity of observation.
> >
> > I as Krassimirian information is a personal judgment about the
> > evidence. (Correspondence with CSP's notion of "argument" is
> > conceivable.)
> >
> > Krassimir's assertion that:
> > > For different I , information may be different because of subjects'
> > finite memory and reflection possibilities.
> > > Because of this, a physical event with an infinite bandwidth may
> > have finite information content (for concrete information subject) .
> >
> >
> > moves these 'definitions' of individual symbols into the subjective
> > realm. (CSP's notion of "interpretation?)
> > Different researchers have the freedom to interpret the evidence as
> > they choose, including the relationships to engineering terms such as
> > "bandwidth".
> >
> >
> > Pridi's post appropriately recognizes the tension between objective
> > scientific theories and subjective judgments about evidence by
> > different individuals with different professional backgrounds and
> > different symbolic processing powers.
> >
> > The challenge for Krassimirian information, it appears to me, is to
> > show that these definitions of symbols motivate a coherent symbol
> > system that can be used to transfer information contained in the
> > signal from symbolic representations of entities. It may work for
> > engineering purposes, but is it extendable to life?
> >
> > (For me, of course, this requires the use of multiple symbol systems
> > and multiple forms of logic in order to gain the functionality of
> > transfer of "in-form" between individuals or machines.)
> >
> > Pridi writes:
> > > How can we really quantify meaningful (semantic) information beyond
> > Shannon (that disregards semantics) and his purely statistical
> > framework?
> >
> > One aspect of this conundrum was solved by chemists over the past to
> > two centuries by developing a unique symbol system that is restricted
> > by physical constraints, yet functions as an exact mode of
> > communication.
> >
> > Chemical notation, as symbol system, along with mathematics and data,
> > achieves this end purpose (entelechy) of communication, for some
> > entities, such as the meaning of an "atomic number" as a relational
> > term and hence the meaning of a particular integer as both quantity
> > and quality.
> >
> > This requires a dyadic mathematics and synductive logic for
> > sublations.
> >
> >
> > Pridi writes:
> >
> > > It does give me a better understanding of how information (beyond
> > Shannon) can be formalized!
> >
> > Can you communicate how this "better understanding... ...
> > foramlized" works?
> >
> > It is not readily apparent to me how Krassimirian information can be
> > formalized.
> >
> > Anybody have any suggestions on how this quadruple of symbols can be
> > formalized into a quantitative coherent form of communication?
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > _______________________________________________
> > Fis mailing list
> > Fis at listas.unizar.es
> > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Fis mailing list
> > Fis at listas.unizar.es
> > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Fis mailing list
> > Fis at listas.unizar.es
> > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> >
----------
Professor John Collier collierj at ukzn.ac.za
Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa
T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031
Http://web.ncf.ca/collier
More information about the Fis
mailing list