[Fis] [External Email] Re: Fwd: Entropy, the Second Law, and Life

[Stanley N Salthe]

Stan – I am not really sure how to respond to your note. In your short

paragraph you offer a catalogue of issues that lie far outside my view

of information science, and I believe, the view of most other careful

readers in information science.

 – ‘Entropy applies everywhere, and always in the same way’

> This argues that signal entropy and thermodynamic entropy are

identical.

    S: I would not assert this!  Signal entropy is variety of
possibilities, while thermo entropy is possible diversity of locations of
dispersed photons. So, formally there is a clear matching, although in
thermo we see dispersion, while in information we see choice of one
position from many possibilities.


 I know of no other FIS member that agrees with this view.

Shannon and Weaver (1949) themselves referred to signal entropy

as ‘disappointing and bizarre’, bizarre expressly because it differs so

clearly from classic notions of thermodynamic entropy.

    S: It is a formal matching only.


– ‘ . . . NOT problems for physicists’

> Again, careful readers in physics know well of many force-Energy

related issues. Dark energy and dark matter are wholly unexplained,

gravity is poorly understood, no Unified Field Theory exists to detail

force-Energy transitions or quantum-cosmic roles, matter/anti-matter

asymmetry is yet another open issue, etc., etc. etc. And then we

have thermodynamic energy as ONLY one of 16 accepted forms of

energy where the interrelations between those 16 is unclear. I have

seen three of four times where Richard Feynman during the course

of a lecture comments on how interesting the issue of force-energy

relations is . . . and then promptly walk off in an entirely different

direction – leaving that one question hanging. I chuckle every time I

see it.

     S: I pass on this


In short, you seem to make my argument for me that ‘entropy’ is

a concept often misused and abused, not even differentiating

between signal and thermodynamics. Shannon in The Bandwagon

(1956) cautioned against reckless and excess of the concept

‘entropy’ – and here we are over 60 years later still dealing with this

issue. Odd.

     S: I here stress conceptual similarity, not material difference.

Entropy is referred to in many different particular ways, depending

upon the application of the idea of dispersion -- in some cases we have

the process of dispersion (entropy production), in some choice of one

from many existing (e,g, already ‘dispersed’) possibilities (going the
other way).

STAN
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 4:00 PM Stanley N Salthe <ssalthe en binghamton.edu>
wrote:

> Stan – I am not really sure how to respond to your note. In your short
>
> paragraph you offer a catalogue of issues that lie far outside my view
>
> of information science, and I believe, the view of most other careful
>
> readers in information science.
>
>  – ‘Entropy applies everywhere, and always in the same way’
>
> > This argues that signal entropy and thermodynamic entropy are
>
> identical.
>
>     S: I would not assert this!  Signal entropy is  variety of
> possibilities, while thermo entropy is possible diversity of locations of
> dispersed photons. So, formally there is a clear matching, although in
> thermo with see dispersion, while in information we see choice of one
> position from many possibilities.
>
>
>  I know of no other FIS member that agrees with this view.
>
> Shannon and Weaver (1949) themselves referred to signal entropy
>
> as ‘disappointing and bizarre’, bizarre expressly because it differs so
>
> clearly from classic notions of thermodynamic entropy.
>
>     S: It is a formal matching only.
>
>
> – ‘ . . . NOT problems for physicists’
>
> > Again, careful readers in physics know well of many force-Energy
>
> related issues. Dark energy and dark matter are wholly unexplained,
>
> gravity is poorly understood, no Unified Field Theory exists to detail
>
> force-Energy transitions or quantum-cosmic roles, matter/anti-matter
>
> asymmetry is yet another open issue, etc., etc. etc. And then we
>
> have thermodynamic energy as ONLY one of 16 accepted forms of
>
> energy where the interrelations between those 16 is unclear. I have
>
> seen three of four times where Richard Feynman during the course
>
> of a lecture comments on how interesting the issue of force-energy
>
> relations is . . . and then promptly walk off in an entirely different
>
> direction – leaving that one question hanging. I chuckle every time I
>
> see it.
>
>      S: I pass on this
>
>
> In short, you seem to make my argument for me that ‘entropy’ is
>
> a concept often misused and abused, not even differentiating
>
> between signal and thermodynamics. Shannon in The Bandwagon
>
> (1956) cautioned against reckless and excess of the concept
>
> ‘entropy’ – and here we are over 60 years later still dealing with this
>
> issue. Odd.
>
>      S: I here stress conceptual similarity, not material difference. Entropy
> is referred to in many different particular ways, depending
>
> upon the application of the idea of dispersion/multiplicity -- in some
> cases we have the process of dispersion (entropy production), in some
>
> choice of one from many existing (e,g, already 'dispersed') possibilities
> (going the other way).
>
> STAN
>
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 11:57 AM Marcus Abundis <55mrcs en gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Stan – I am not really sure how to respond to your note. In your short
>>
>> paragraph you offer a catalogue of issues that lie far outside my view
>>
>> of information science, and I believe, the view of most other careful
>>
>> readers in information science.
>>
>>
>>  – ‘Entropy applies everywhere, and always in the same way’
>>
>> > This argues that signal entropy and thermodynamic entropy are
>>
>> identical. I know of no other FIS member that agrees with this view.
>>
>> Shannon and Weaver (1949) themselves referred to signal entropy
>>
>> as ‘disappointing and bizarre’, bizarre expressly because it differs so
>>
>> clearly from classic notions of thermodynamic entropy.
>>
>>
>> – ‘ . . . NOT problems for physicists’
>>
>> > Again, careful readers in physics know well of many force-Energy
>>
>> related issues. Dark energy and dark matter are wholly unexplained,
>>
>> gravity is poorly understood, no Unified Field Theory exists to detail
>>
>> force-Energy transitions or quantum-cosmic roles, matter/anti-matter
>>
>> asymmetry is yet another open issue, etc., etc. etc. And then we
>>
>> have thermodynamic energy as ONLY one of 16 accepted forms of
>>
>> energy where the interrelations between those 16 is unclear. I have
>>
>> seen three of four times where Richard Feynman during the course
>>
>> of a lecture comments on how interesting the issue of force-energy
>>
>> relations is . . . and then promptly walk off in an entirely different
>>
>> direction – leaving that one question hanging. I chuckle every time I
>>
>> see it.
>>
>>
>> In short, you seem to make my argument for me that ‘entropy’ is
>>
>> a concept often misused and abused, not even differentiating
>>
>> between signal and thermodynamics. Shannon in The Bandwagon
>>
>> (1956) cautioned against reckless and excess of the concept
>>
>> ‘entropy’ – and here we are over 60 years later still dealing with this
>>
>> issue. Odd.
>>
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20210109/b5027ce2/attachment-0001.html>