[Fis] FIS discussions. What is information - Shannons numbers or nature's numbers?

[Bruno Marchal]

Hi Jerry, Hi colleagues,


> On 19 Oct 2019, at 07:18, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chandler en me.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> This re-posted because the first sending was not distributed.
>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> From: Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chandler en icloud.com <mailto:jerry_lr_chandler en icloud.com>>
>>> Subject: Re: [Fis] FIS discussions
>>> Date: October 13, 2019 at 10:56:19 PM CDT
>>> To: annette.grathoff en is4si.org <mailto:annette.grathoff en is4si.org>
>>> Cc: fis <fis en listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis en listas.unizar.es>>
>>> 
>>> Dear Annette, List 
>>> 
>>>> On Oct 13, 2019, at 4:04 PM, annette.grathoff en is4si.org <mailto:annette.grathoff en is4si.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The next huge difficulty (connected to the unclear status of matter) is to model the influence of what makes a difference on relationships which enable matter. Threshold levels are nice, but how can the quality of relationships be in-formed through the special quality (pattern) carried and transmitted by a difference which makes a difference? Philosophy helps us in understanding how meaningful communication can develop in contextual environments and Sociology hints to connections between meaningfulness and stability respectively cooperation and trust. But this both is observed in very highly developed systems and provides little help for understanding more basic dynamics. Regarding those, I bet on wave mechanics to promote our basic knowledge here (but you know that I got very involved in this in my project, so bias is not excluded).
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> What are the objectives of the inquiry into the scientific nature of information? It seems that the very name, FIS, suggests that Shannon information is insufficient for scientific information.  One might ask “Why”?  Is it because of the nature of matter?  Do the constraints on the nature of matter the boundary of the concept of information?  
>>> 
>>> One aspect of Shannon information is that it requires that the transmissible form of information be represented in terms of bits and bytes.  Indeed, bits and bytes are the only permissible forms of representation of Shannon information.  The units of Shannon information are numeric of indefinite magnitude, are they not? As numeric units, Shannon units are unbounded in scale and are unlimited in scope.  This fact that Shannon information can represent unbounded scales (magnitudes) is one key element of the wildly successful theory.
>>> 
>>> Another aspect of information is the scope of the meanings of information. What are the limits on the scope of Shannon information?  How are the scope of the bits and bytes represented in the the theory? Is the scope of a Shannon message constrained numerically in any way?  If so, how is the scope of information represented in a Shannon message?
>>> 
>>> The Shannon hypothesis of Information is that all communication can be  encoded into transmissible forms of numbers that contain the message.


How would you relate Shannon hypothesis with the hypothesis of Digital Mechanism in the cognitive science (aka philosophy of mind, aka theology of numbers)?

I would say that Shannon hypothesis, as you define it, implies the Mechanist hypothesis. In that case the whole of physics becomes a branch of arithmetic (including meta-arithmetic). 

The difference which makes all difference, in that case, is the difference between 0 and 1, or it is the difference between the combinators S and K, or any difference making a structure into a universal machinery in Turing’s sense.



>>> 
>>> Does the same hypothesis,  the same critical concept, apply to the neighboring concept of real scientific information, that is, the natural forms of scientific information as used by working scientists (physicists, engineers, chemists, biologists, physicians, ecologists, and other specialists)?

No. As all computations are executed in the arithmetical reality, physics becomes a perspectival statistics on all computations, and this entails that matter is NOT Turing emulable. Digital Mechanism makes Digital physicalism impossible. Arithmetic determines a differentiating flux of consciousness, but the statistics cannot make matter entirely Turing emulable. If “I” can survive with a digital virtual body, then my body cannot be Turing emulable, as it is determined by a statistics on a non computable domain. No machine can determine which machines support her, and its body is determined by all computations going through its current relative state. You can derive the quantum logics from this.




>>> 
>>>  Is this a conundrum?
>>> Or, it merely a matter of "getting the physics right”?

Physics has to be justified from a theory of information, in its large sense of “theory of consciousness”.



>>> 
>>> By the way, I would argue that the clarity of the status of matter, i.e., the chemical table of elements and their compositions, augmented by a huge range of physical measurements that span variables from all physical units of measure, is vastly clearer than any theory of physics. 
>>> 
>>>  Does not the theory of wave mechanics emanate from the physics of atoms and composites?   Or, shall we simply agree that the relationships from between physical theories form a “which came first, the chicken or the egg?”


Assuming Mechanism, everything (quanta and qualia) arise from elementary arithmetic, or from elementary combinator theory (or from any other universal machinery). It happens that the two SK equations of the combinator theory are enough:

Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)

+ some identity axioms, but no need of logics (!). Well, we add often the difference axiom S ≠ K, to avoid the trivial combinatory algebra with one unique identity combinator, as III = I, and IIII = (II)II trivially.

Then we can prove (using logic) that without assuming at least one universal machinery (like the numbers, or the combinators) we cannot get anyone of them. With assuming any of them, we get them all, and their many interaction, conflicts, quantum physical realities, etc.

We are back at Pythagorus, when we assume Mechanism, or Shannon hypothesis, I would say. But with Church’s thesis and computer science, that is also much more than Pythagorus. It is basically the whole neoplatonist theology up to Damascius.

Best,

Bruno







>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> 
>>> Jerry
>>> 
>>> “The union of units unite the unity."
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACI�N SOBRE PROTECCI�N DE DATOS DE CAR�CTER PERSONAL
> 
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la informaci�n sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si est� suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicaci�n en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------

------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20191020/335d4ee1/attachment.html>