[Fis] Answer to the comments made by Joseph

[John Collier]

Folks,

Doing dimensional analysis entropy is heat difference divided by temperature. Heat is energy, and temperature is energy per degree of freedom. Dividing, we get units of inverse degrees of freedom. I submit that information has the same fundamental measure (this is a consequence of Scott Muller’s asymmetry principle of information. So fundamentally we are talking about the same basic thing with information and entropy.

I agree, though, that it is viewed from different perspectives and they have differing conventions for measurement.

I agree with Loet’s other points.

John

From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Loet Leydesdorff
Sent: July 26, 2015 8:50 AM
To: 'Joseph Brenner'; 'Fernando Flores'; fis at listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Answer to the comments made by Joseph

Dear Joe,


a)     information is more than order; there is information in absence (Deacon), in disorder, in incoherence as well as coherence;

The absent options provide the redundancy; that is, the complement of the information to the maximal information [H(max)].

See also my recent communication (in Vienna) or at http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.05251


b)     information is not the same as matter-energy, but it is inseparable from it and reflects its dualistic properties;

Information is dimensionless. It is coupled to the physics of matter-energy because S = k(B) * H.
k(B) provides the dimensionality (Joule/Kelvin) and thus the physics. In other domains of application (e.g., economics), this coupling [via k(B)] is not meaningful.


c)     information is both energy and a carrier of meaning, which is not, in my humble opinion, a hard physicalist approach;



Meaning provides more options to the information and thus increases the redundancy. In the case of reflexivity and further codification of meanings, the generation of redundancy can auto-catalytically be reinforced (Ulanowicz).



Best,

Loet


d) it remains to be shown that digitalism or computationalism is or could be the natural language for the description of the non-digital world, that is, of the complexity of the world that is of interest. Rafael Capurro has talked about the 'digital casting' of the world that we (or most of us) use in our daily lives, but this philosophical concept, with which I agree, is not a scientific description of the physics of informational processes as such. The best synthesis here of which I am aware is the Informational-Computationalism of Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic and even that is a framework, not an ontology.
e) it is possible to use probabilities to describe the evolution of real processes, as well as as a mathematical language for describing acts;
f) your presentation of a parameter designated as 'freedom' is indeed original, but it is a classificatory system, based on bits. It will miss the non-algorithmic aspects of values. I am suspicious of things that have infinite levels and represent 'pure' anything;
g) I do not feel you have added value to human acts by designating them as ∞-free This may not be intended as doctrine but it looks like it.
h) your conclusions about informational value are correct from what I will call a hard neo-capitalist ;-) standpoint, but I am sure you agree there are other ones.

In trying to learn through association with this FIS group, I have come to believe that Informational Science is unique in that it can capture some of the complexity of nature, culture and society. It is not a 'hard simplification' as you suggest some sciences are.  The concept of (its) foundations is very broad, and it can and should include careful binary analyses such as the one you have made. However, I am pleading for a more directed positioning of your approach with respect to others. Is this an acceptable basis for you for continuing the debate?

Thank you again,

Joseph
----- Original Message -----
From: Fernando Flores<mailto:fernando.flores at kultur.lu.se>
To: fis at listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis at listas.unizar.es>
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 3:58 PM
Subject: [Fis] Answer to the comments made by Joseph

Hello everybody:


I will answer to the comments made by Joseph and Luis will answer to the comments made by Moisés.

Dear Joseph:

Thank you for your comments. We are not sure about the usefulness of identifying “information” (order) with “mater”. In this sense we are very carefully to avoid any hard physicalist approach. In this sense we believe with Norbert Wiener:
The mechanical brain does not secrete thought “as the liver does bile”, as the earlier materialist claimed, nor does it put it out in the form of energy, as the muscle puts out its activity. Information is information, not matter nor energy. No materialism, which does not admit this, can survive at the present day.
An informational description of the world must stand as a new branch of science in which “digitalism” will be the natural language.  Of course as any other science, it is a simplification of the complexity of nature/society/culture. I believe that we are shown that we are very conscious about the risks of a hard simplification, and that is why we introduced that idea of freedom in a chain of acts and use probability as mathematical language. We considered the vital acts as ∞-free.



Fernando Flores PhD
Associate Professor
History of Ideas and Sciences
Lund University

________________________________
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis at listas.unizar.es<mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20150727/b6195d30/attachment.html>