[Fis] _ Reply to Annette (A Priori Modeling)

Marcus Abundis 55mrcs at gmail.com
Wed Jun 22 11:41:16 CEST 2016


In an online exchange, Annette raises a few points and questions that I
summarize below.
===
> Please give me your basic definition of entropy <
My short answer is that I define entropy as "material variation" of any
type, as clarified in paper #2 and detailed starting on page 5 (actually
named on page 6). This definition is admittedly generic/vague, for a few
reasons:
  a) many "types of meaning" (or entropy, if you wish) must be framed and
then joined. I name three minimum types of meaning/entropy in paper #2.
This multitude requires that a generic term first be named if an UTI is to
be developed (point 1 in the introductory text).
  b) noise is itself informational in a Darwinian role as “demise.” I
believe this departs from most informational notions, where noise is seen
as the opposite of information. This view also accommodates an inverse,
where one eventually “makes sense” of nominally chaotic events.
As such, I name an existential ground Generic Entropy, and the “tendency to
symmetric dispersal,” within that ground, “material entropy.” And so,
“material variation” (of any type) is meant to capture the entirety of
those entropic roles. Lastly, I find the notion of “pure symmetry” a useful
scientific fiction, but still a fiction in the context of true empiric
models (point 8 in the introductory text).

> So the different entropies you are using in your video point to different
options to organize <
> elements in a way that they generate recognizable (and therefore to a
degree similar) <
> information out of those elements? <
Here, *options* and *recognizable* are the key terms. As you note, I am
using a different (novel?) notion of “entropy,” beyond even the novel way
in which Shannon did, and thus (hopefully) extend Shannon's view. The most
reductive aspect here is “the element” (i.e., a “fulcrum,“ a “load,” a
“bit,” etc. [re paper #4]). Then, inter-RELATED *element sets,* depending
on their order (innate functioning or dis-functioning), convey a specific
role (signal or noise). It is this RELATING of singular elements (there are
many *options*) that conveys specific meaning/functioning/logic/order. This
meaningful relating can equally convey *recognizable* “types of order” or
“types disorder” (e.g., many “types of screws” exist, each with unique
functional advantages and disadvantages, or uses and mis-uses – a machine
screw works poorly in wood). Finally, a “recognizably deformed screw” (a
use-less *option*) must also be accounted for within this continuum. This
notion of related data echoes the idea already noted in the exchange with
Antonio.

> So I see it that you confirm to Shannon´s interpretation of entropy as
actually being information <
Well, in essence we may agree, but I would call this an unfortunate choice
of words. “Information," I think, has come to mean so many things to so
many people that it is *nearly* a useless term. Even though I use this term
myself, I try to minimize its use. I would say that I agree with Shannon’s
view of signal entropy as a *type* of information – and then extend that
concept using type theory, to include “meaningful” roles. Only when taken
as a whole does “information” exist, within my framing.

Also, the notion of stability (as necessary for meaning) you emphasize I
find helpful but also limiting. I tend to think of  *everything* as pro tem
except for perhaps the Standard Model and the Periodic Table (addressed in
paper #2; Lee Smolin may disagree?). Within type theory the central
question becomes “At what point/level(s) does material variation
(“entropy”) break down or fail?”, and how and why does it fail? For me,
this is a more useful way of viewing things – using stability is too much
like The Denial of Death (Ernest Becker). This requires us to look beyond
thermodynamics for answers. I believe thermodynamics is historically
stressed as it is the closest we have to a “hard science” that we might
ascribe to “information” (outside of Shannon, of course). We could easily
spend hours discussing this I think . . . . but we are essentially on the
same page.

Lastly, thanks for sending me Shu-Kun Lin’s paper (The Nature of the
Chemical Process. 1. Symmetry Evolution – Revised Information Theory,
Similarity Principle and Ugly Symmetry). It looks to have some useful
“pokes,” and I will hungrily dig into it when I have a chance.

Thanks for your questions.

Marcus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160622/2e9df736/attachment.html>


More information about the Fis mailing list