[Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!

[Stanley N Salthe]

Loet -- Well, so you favor the definition of information as an invention of
Western technology related to communication.  Others prefer to define
information in such a way that it emerges into the world with biology -- in
the genetic system.  Still others define information in such a way that it
can be viewed as a physical quantity, perhaps a measure of the importance
of context in any physical interaction.  As a generalizer, I prefer the
latter, giving us the subsumptive hierarchy:

     Information ~ {context {material code {uncertainty}}}

STAN

On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Loet Leydesdorff <loet at leydesdorff.net>
wrote:

> I would add another possibility -- information does not appear in the
> universe until it is manipulated by modern human society as a commodity.
>
>
>
> Yes, Stan, this makes sense to me: information (in bits) can be considered
> as a measurement of the expected uncertainty. It is *yet* meaning-free,
> but it can be provided with meaning in a system of reference – such as a
> discourse.
>
>
>
> For example, {50%,50%} contains 1 bit of information. Thus, if we mix 50
> euro coins with 50 coins of a dollar or we group 50 black cats with 50
> white ones, the uncertainty is one bit of information. This does not tell
> us anything about the cats themselves as in a biology.
>
>
>
> During the recent conference in Vienna, I was amazed how many of our
> colleagues wish to ground information in physics. However, the
> information-theoretical evaluation seems mathematical to me. The
> mathematical notion of entropy is different from the physical one. The
> physical one is only valid for the physico-chemical system of momenta and
> energy.
>
>
>
> When I exchange the 50 dollars into 50 euros, the expected information
> content of the distribution of coins goes from one to zero bits, but this
> is not thermodynamic entropy. The physics of the exchange process are
> external to the informational-theoretical evaluation.
>
>
>
> I know that you wish to express this with hierarchies. Information can be
> measured at each level or as mutual information between them. But what the
> information means, depends on the specific systems of reference.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Loet
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Loet Leydesdorff
>
> *Emeritus* University of Amsterdam
> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
>
> loet at leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
> Honorary Professor, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of
> Sussex;
>
> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>,
> Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,
> <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;
>
> Visiting Professor, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of
> London;
>
> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en
>
>
>
> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Stanley
> N Salthe
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 14, 2015 3:14 PM
>
> *To:* fis
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!
>
>
>
> Krassimir -- Thanks. Now I see what your objection is.  You do not agree
> with the Wheeler concept that information was he basis upon which
> everything else was founded. Rather, you see it as appearing along with
> matter. Or you might consider that it appeared 'along with form', in which
> case information doesn't appear in the universe until life makes it
> appearance.  I would add another possibility -- information does not appear
> in the universe until it is manipulated by modern human society as a
> commodity.
>
>
>
> STAN
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Krassimir Markov <markov at foibg.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear John and Stan,
>
> What is cause, and what is result? This is the question.
>
> If we not assume information and informational processes as secondary
> effect from activity of living mater,  it is not possible to proof anything
> and we have to believe that proposed models maybe are truth. We have to
> trust to Author but not to experiments.
>
> Information has to be included not in the beginning of the hierarchy – at
> least in the middle where living mater appear.
>
> Sorry that my post was apprehended as careless!
>
> Friendly regards
>
> Krassimir
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Stanley N Salthe <ssalthe at binghamton.edu>
>
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 13, 2015 3:30 PM
>
> *To:* Krassimir Markov <markov at foibg.com>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!
>
>
>
> Krassimir -- ???  I fail to understand your assertion.  This (and any
> hierarchy) is a logical formulation, allowing us to allocate influences
> from various aspects of nature in an orderly manner.
>
>
>
> So, please explain further your careless assertion!
>
>
>
> STAN
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Krassimir Markov <markov at foibg.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear John and Stan,
>
> Your both hierarchies are good only if you believe in God.
>
> But this is believe, not science.
>
> Sorry, nothing personal!
>
> Friendly regards
>
> Krassimir
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* John Collier <Collierj at ukzn.ac.za>
>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2015 5:02 PM
>
> *To:* Stanley N Salthe <ssalthe at binghamton.edu> ; fis
> <fis at listas.unizar.es>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!
>
>
>
> Not quite the same hierarchy, but similar:
>
>
>
>
>
> It from bit is just information, which is fundamental, on Seth Lloyd’s
> computational view of nature. Paul Davies and some other physicists agree
> with this.
>
> Chemical information is negentropic, and hierarchical in most
> physiological systems.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Stanley
> N Salthe
> *Sent:* Friday, June 12, 2015 3:40 PM
> *To:* fis
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Philosophy, Computing, and Information - apologies!
>
>
>
> Pedro -- Your list:
>
>
>
> physical, biological, social, and Informational
>
>
>
> is implicitly a hierarchy -- in fact, a subsumptive hierarchy, with the
> physical subsuming the biological and the biological subsuming the social.
> But where should information appear?  Following Wheeler, we should have:
>
>
>
> {informational {physicochemical {biological {social}}}}
>
>
>
> STAN
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan <
> pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Ken. I think your previous message and this one are drawing sort
> of the border-lines of the discussion. Achieving a comprehensive view on
> the interrelationship between computation and information is an essential
> matter. In my opinion, and following the Vienna discussions, whenever life
> cycles are involved and meaningfully "touched", there is info; while the
> mere info circulation according to fixed rules and not impinging on any
> life-cycle relevant aspect, may be taken as computation. The distinction
> between both may help to consider more clearly the relationship between the
> four great domains of sceince: physical, biological, social, and
> Informational. If we adopt a pan-computationalist stance, the information
> turn of societies, of bioinformation, neuroinformation, etc. merely reduces
> to applying computer technologies. I think this would be a painful error,
> repeating the big mistake of 60s-70s, when people band-wagon to developed
> the sciences of the artificial and reduced the nascent info science to
> library science. People like Alex Pentland (his "social physics" 2014) are
> again taking the wrong way... Anyhow, it was nicer talking face to face as
> we did in the past conference!
>
> best ---Pedro
>
> Ken Herold wrote:
>
> FIS:
>
> Sorry to have been too disruptive in my restarting discussion post--I did
> not intend to substitute for the Information Science thread an alternative
> way of philosophy or computing.  The references I listed are indicative of
> some bad thinking as well as good ideas to reflect upon.  Our focus is
> information and I would like to hear how you might believe the formal
> relational scheme of Rosenbloom could be helpful?
>
> Ken
>
> --
> Ken Herold
> Director, Library Information Systems
> Hamilton College
> 198 College Hill Road
> Clinton, NY 13323
> 315-859-4487
> kherold at hamilton.edu <mailto:kherold at hamilton.edu>
>
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------
> 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 X
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
> pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20150615/fcc654c4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 13610 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20150615/fcc654c4/attachment.png>