[Fis] Can the can drink beer ? - No way!

[Bruno Marchal]

On 26 Mar 2017, at 16:30, Bob Logan wrote:

> Hello Krassimir - I agree with the sentiments you expressed - they  
> seem to parallel my thoughts.
>
> I am often  puzzled by the use of the term ‘information’ in the way  
> it is often used by physicists re the info of material objects . The  
> way the term information is used in physics such as Wheelers its  
> from bits does not conform to my understanding of information as a  
> noun describing the process of informing.

Wheeler used "information" in the sense of Shannon. It is a  
quantitative measure of something, a degree of of surprise, where a  
subject can be informed of one bit of information by letting it able  
to distinguish two things, like 0 and 1. It is a sort of "atom" of  
digital information, and it has today a sort of cousin in quantum  
mechanics. It occurs also in arithmetic, because classical universal  
machine, nor the quantum one, can know which universal machine emulate  
them.


> How can abiotic matter be informed as it cannot make any  choices  
> and hence cannot be informed.

Why? It can imprint the difference which makes the difference. Choice  
are relative to our ability to predict ourself, which we can't. "We"  
are not that abiotic matter, but abiotic matter can support  
determinatically "our" choices. But "our" is fuzzify by belonging to  
infinitely many histories. Consciousness, the first person experience  
is a selector.



> Living organisms make choices and use information to make those  
> choices for all living creatures from bacteria to humans including  
> physicists :-).

And very plausibly mathematicians too :)

And the numbers too, and all objects in any Turing universal system.


> The only information involved in the uses by physicists describing  
> our universe of the word information is that associated with  
> physicists becoming informed of what is happening in the universe  
> they observe.

Becoming informed in what happens in their brain, and assuming there  
is some most probable universal computation or neighborhood. But  
assuming mechanism, below our substitution level, there is an infinity  
of universal computations "in competition".



> I am happy that they want to discuss this info but I believe there  
> is a need to distinguish between info (biotic) and info (abiotic) as  
> used in physics.

Is that not the difference between un code i and the function phi_i  
that it describes for some universal machine u?


> The use of a single word information for both categories is  
> confusing, at least it is for me.

It is a problem in the interdisciplinary fields. The solution consists  
in making clear which notion we use, and be careful in not mixing the  
different meaning of the terms. They can sometimes be related. In  
computer science: information is used in Shannon sense most of time,  
and information with meaning is handled by mathematical semantic,  
where a reality (alas called "model" by logicians) is "modeled" by  
mathematical structures, like groups, fields, (N, +, *), Hilbert  
space, but in AI it can be the plausible neighborhood of a robot.



> This ambiguity reminds me of Shannon's use of the term entropy to  
> define his notion of information having taken the advice of Von  
> Neumann.  A story is told that Shannon did not know what to call his  
> measure and von Neumann advised him to call it entropy because  
> nobody knows what it means and that it would therefore give Shannon  
> an advantage in any debate (Campbell, Jeremy 1982, p. 32   
> Grammatical Man: Information, Entropy, Language, and Life. New York:  
> Simon and Schuster. ).  Shannon defined information in such a way  
> that he admitted was not necessarily about meaning. Information  
> without meaning has no meaning for me.
>

I agree with you, sometimes "information" is used ambiguously. But I  
think we can solve that issue in making clear which sense we use in  
this or that context.

Information without meaning has some meaning for Shannon, though, and  
for me too. In my approach, it plays some role, as you get one bit of  
Shannon information in a self-duplicating experience, but I use al lot  
information-with-meaning too. "meaning " refers to some reality we, or  
the machine/number in consideration, bet on. We can define it for  
simpler machine than us, but can't for machine like us, of or  
equivalent complexity. Computer science (mathematical logic) seems to  
explain why the meaning of "meaning" might be necessary deluding,  
preventing the machine from some reductionist theories.

Note that the term machine is ambiguous. Sometimes it refers to the  
body, sometimes to the behavior, sometimes to the possible subjecst  
which that machine-body makes it possible for him/her to manifest  
itself relatively to the possible universal machines emulating  
them.The can can't drink the beer, indeed.

Kind regards to everybody, ... er ... no, to every-soul :)

Bruno Marchal
ULB-IRIDIA
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


>
>
> ______________________
>
> Robert K. Logan
> Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto
> Fellow University of St. Michael's College
> Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD
> http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan
> www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications
> https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/people/homepages/logan/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 26, 2017, at 5:39 AM, Krassimir Markov <markov at foibg.com>  
> wrote:
>
> Dear Brian, Arturo, Karl, Alex, Lars-Goran, Gyuri, and FIS colleagues,
>
> Thank you for your remarks!
>
> What is important is that every theory has its own understanding of  
> the concepts it uses.
> For “foreigners”, theirs meaning may be strange or unknown.
> Some times, concepts of one theory contradict to corresponded  
> concepts from other theory.
>
> For years, I have met many different definitions of concept  
> “information” and many more kinds of its use.
> From materialistic up to weird point of view...
>
> To clear my own understanding, I shall give you a simple example:
>
> CAN THE CAN DRINK BEER ?
>
> CAN THE CAN EXCHANGE BEER WITH THE GLASS ?
>
> The can is used by humans for some goals, for instance to store some  
> beer for a given period.
> But the can itself “could not understand” its own functions and what  
> the can can do with beer it contains.
> All its functionality is a human’s  consciousness model.
> Can cannot exchange beer with the glass if there are no human  
> activity or activity of additional devices invented by humans to  
> support this.
>
> Further:
>
> CAN THE ARTIFICIAL LEG WALK  ?
> You know the answer ... Human with an artificial leg can walk ...
> All functionality of artificial leg is a result from human’s   
> consciousness modeling and invention.
>
> In addition:
>
> IS THE “PHYSICAL INFORMATION” INFORMATION ?
> If it is, the first question is how to measure the quantity and  
> quality of such “information” and who can do this?
> I prefer the answer “NO” – “physical information” is a concept which  
> means something else but not “information” as it is in my  
> understanding.
> From my point of view, “physical information” is a kind of  
> reflection (see “Theory of reflections” of T.Pavlov).
> Every reflection may be assumed as information iff (if and only if)  
> there exist a subjective information expectation to be resolved by  
> given reflection.
> For physical information this low is not satisfied. Because of this,  
> I prefer to call this phenomenon simply “a reflection”.
>
> And so on ...
>
>
> Finally:
>
> Human been invented too much kinds of prostheses including ones for  
> our intellectual functionalities, i.e. many different kinds of  
> electronic devices which, in particular, can generate some  
> electrical, light, etc. impulses, which we assume as “information”;  
> usually a combination of impulses we assume as s structure to be  
> recognized by us as “information”.
>
> A special kind of prostheses are Robots. They have some autonomous  
> functionalities but are still very far from living consciousness.  
> The level of complexity of robot’s consciousness is far of human’s  
> one. Someone may say that robots understand and exchange  
> “information”, but still they only react on incoming signals  
> following the instructions given by humans. Theirs functioning is  
> similar to human ones but only similar. They may recognize some  
> structures of signals and exchange such ones with other robots or  
> living creatures. Maybe someone wants to call this “information  
> exchange”, but, after Shannon, I call this “sending and/or receiving  
> signals”. And automatic reaction to signals.
>
> One may say, the Robot (Computer) memory  contains information but  
> really it does not contain anything – it has its own structure which  
> can be changed temporally of permanently by external electrical  
> impulses.
> Is the human memory the same – a structure which can be changed  
> temporally of permanently by external or internal signals? I think –  
> yes, It is!
> What is the difference? Why we may say that the living creatures  
> process information but not living couldn’t?
> The answer is: because the living creatures may create and resolve  
> the “information expectation” with very high level of complexity.
> Maybe in the future robots will can do it ...
> Such robot I call “INFOS”. It will be artificial living creature.  
> Possibly with some biological elements.
>
> It will be very interesting and amazing to see how the can can drink  
> beer :-) And very dangerous – where the beer will be kept if the can  
> can drink it?
>
> I hope, now it is clear why I assert that (now!) non-living objects  
> COULD NOT “exchange information”.
>
> Friendly regards
> Krassimir
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Karl Javorszky
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 8:24 PM
> To: Alex Hankey
> Cc: Krassimir Markov ; Arturo Tozzi ; FIS Webinar
> Subject: Re: [Fis] non-living objects COULD NOT “exchange information”
>
> 1) Let me second to the point Alex raises:
> machines, computers, do exchange information. It would be against  
> cultural conventions to say that the notification that the  
> refrigerator sends to your phone's app "to-do-list" of the content  
> "milk only 0.5 liter available" is not an information.
>
> The signals my car's pressure sensor sends to my dashboard, saying  
> "tire pressure front right wheel is critically low" is a clear case  
> of information, whether I read it or not.
>
> 2) Let me add to the point Alex states, namely that the "form of  
> information that I presented to FiS a year ago offers the only  
> scientifically based,mathematical physics form of 'information' that  
> I have personally seen in the scientific literature", (Alex, will  
> you please restate in the present context, for the present  
> discussion, your formulation) the following:
>
> I have given in my work "Natural orders - de ordinibus  
> naturalibus" (ISBN 9783990571378) the following definition of the  
> term "information":
> 8.3.3.3             Information is a description of what is not the  
> case. [Let x = ak. This is a statement, no information contained.  
> Let x = ak and k <symbol for is_included_in> {1,2,...,k,...,n}. This  
> statement contains the information k <symbol for  
> is_not_included_in>{1,2,...,k-1,k+1,...,n}.]
> (Sorry for the included & not-included symbols not making it thru  
> the simplified  text editor in use here.)
>
> Karl
>
>
> 2017-03-24 18:51 GMT+01:00 Alex Hankey <alexhankey at gmail.com>:
>> BUT, in common parlance, computers and mobile phones 'exchange  
>> information' (in the abstract, digital sense) all the time.  
>> Including this email.
>>
>> If you wish to cleanly restrict yourself to semantic content, the  
>> the form of information that I presented to FiS a year ago offers  
>> the only scientifically based,mathematical physics form of  
>> 'information' that I have personally seen in the scientific  
>> literature.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Alex Hankey
>>
>>
>> On 24 March 2017 at 15:25, Krassimir Markov <markov at foibg.com> wrote:
>>> Dear Arturo and FIS Colleagues,
>>> Let me remember that:
>>> The basic misunderstanding that non-living objects could  
>>> “exchange  information” leads to many principal theoretical as  
>>> well as psychological faults.
>>> For instance, photon could exchange only energy and/or reflections !
>>> Sorry for this n-th my remark ...
>>> Friendly greetings
>>> Krassimir
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: tozziarturo at libero.it
>>> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 4:52 PM
>>> To: fis at listas.unizar.es
>>> Subject: [Fis] I: Re: Is information truly important?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear  Lars-Göran,
>>>> I prefer to use asap my second FIS bullet, therefore it will be  
>>>> my last FIS mail for the next days.
>>>>
>>>> First of all, in special relativity, an observer is NOT by  
>>>> definition a material object that can receive and store incoming  
>>>> energy from other objects.
>>>> In special relativity, an observer is a frame of reference from  
>>>> which a set of objects or events are being measured.  Speaking of  
>>>> an observer is not specifically hypothesizing an individual  
>>>> person who is experiencing events, but rather it is a particular  
>>>> mathematical context which objects and events are to be evaluated  
>>>> from. The effects of special relativity occur whether or not  
>>>> there is a "material object that can recieve and store incoming  
>>>> energy from other objects" within the inertial reference frame to  
>>>> witness them.
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, take a photon (traveling at speed light) that  
>>>> crosses a cosmic zone close to the sun.  The photon  
>>>> "detects" (and therefore can interact with) a huge sun surface  
>>>> (because of its high speed), while we humans on the Earth  
>>>> "detect" (and can interact with) a much smaller sun surface.
>>>> Therefore, the photon may exchange more information with the sun  
>>>> than the humans on the Earth: both the photon and the humans  
>>>> interact with the same sun, but they "detect" different surfaces,  
>>>> and therefore they may exchange with the sun a different  
>>>> information content.
>>>> If we also take into account that the photon detects an almost  
>>>> infinite, fixed time, this means once again that it can exchange  
>>>> much more information with the sun than we humans can.
>>>>
>>>> In sum, once again, information does not seem to be a physical  
>>>> quantity, rather just a very subjective measure, depending on the  
>>>> speed and of the time of the "observer".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Arturo Tozzi
>>>> AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
>>>> Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
>>>> Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
>>>> http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ----Messaggio originale----
>>>>> Da: "Lars-Göran Johansson" <Lars-Goran.Johansson at filosofi.uu.se>
>>>>> Data: 24/03/2017 14.50
>>>>> A: "tozziarturo at libero.it"<tozziarturo at libero.it>
>>>>> Ogg: Re: [Fis] Is information truly important?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 24 mars 2017 kl. 13:15 skrev tozziarturo at libero.it:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Fisers,
>>>>>> a big doubt...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We know that the information of a 3D black hole is proportional  
>>>>>> to its 2D horizon, according to the Bekenstein-Hawking equations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, an hypotetical observer traveling at light speed (who  
>>>>>> watches a black hole at rest) detects a very large black hole  
>>>>>> horizon, due to Einstein's equations.
>>>>>> Therefore, he detects more information from the black hole than  
>>>>>> an observer at rest, who sees a smaller horizon…
>>>>> An observer is by definition a material object that can recieve  
>>>>> and store incoming energy from other objects. Since it requires  
>>>>> infinite energy  to accelerate even a slighest object to the  
>>>>> velocity of light, no observer can travel at the speed of light.  
>>>>> That means that your thought experiment is based in inconsistent  
>>>>> assumptions and no vaild conclusions from them can be drawn.
>>>>> Lars-Göran Johansson
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In sum, information does not seem to be a physical quantity,  
>>>>>> rather just a very subjective measure...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Arturo Tozzi
>>>>>> AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
>>>>>> Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
>>>>>> Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
>>>>>> http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>>>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lars-Göran Johansson
>>>>> lars-goran.johansson at filosofi.uu.se
>>>>> 0701-679178
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
>> Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
>> SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
>> Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India
>> Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195
>> Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789
>> ____________________________________________________________
>>
>> 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences,  
>> Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20170326/546bb68a/attachment.html>