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

[Karl Javorszky]

16 shades of order



Dear Colleagues,

Thanks again to Marcus, who has shared with us, that there are 16 distinct
forms of energy, according to today’s knowledge. The number 16 is really
important, as it is a part of a smoking gun, contributing evidence towards
the proof of a theory.

The theory is centred around order. The transmission of genetic information
– from the written form in the DNA into the expanded, contemporary form in
the realisation by the organism, and retour -happens only under
circumstances that are highly ordered. Even the smallest intoxication or
stress can cause a deviation from the usual-expected, a disorder, that
leads to disturbances in physiology with the result that reproduction is
not possible.

Order connects the linear with the planar and the spatial. Order connects
the antecedent and the subsequent elements with the presently existing
elements. Order allows predictions about what shall come next: be this next
a next place or a next moment or a next property.

The subject being a fascinating one, the necessity was evident to write a
treatise bout the problem. The treatise introduces the problem, discusses
it, shows a/the solution, points out the limits of the explanation.

Let me show in a table the parallels between the treatise about speech and
the treatise about order

pointing to objects and their pictures in the brain and speaking about the
exercise

pointing to pictures of objects in the brain as they are moving

establishing what is a language

presenting the logical primitives (centaurs)

clarifying what is a word

demonstrating what are cycles

establishing the term structure

establishing the term order (succession)

type and position of words

position is a consequence of order

reference grid of meanings

usual patterns

address of elements in the reference grid

expectations for next coincidences

speaking comprehensively

avoid speaking, show



The great difference to the tractatus on speech is that the tractatus on
order does not involve the reader into a dialogue. The less is said by the
archaeologist who uncovers Atlantis, the less trouble he will get into with
geologists, marine vulcanologists, archeobotanists, historians and the
more.

The picture presented to you is a Lied ohne Worte. We speak of relations as
such. Symbols can picture the picture, but the reader has to look and find
his own words for that what she sees. Using simple symbols, one can
engineer a nice model, name it a tautomat, because it produces tautologies,
and watch the patterns. It is one’s own decision, whether one uses the term
“force” or that of “predictability”.

The 16, what has been brought to our attention, is a key part in the
mechanism. The system works with optimal capacity, if the term: *“How many
distinct properties among objects?” *is *16. *In fact, Nature makes use of
a very slight distortion within, inbuilt in the counting system. This
little wiggle allows a whole screenplay to come into existence. There is an
accounting equivalence among the answers to* “How many?”, “Where?”, “What
properties?”*, specifically if the *How many? is ~ 66. *The 16 comes in
extremely handy, as the necessary background combinatorics is zeroed in on,
actually, *17. *It will hopefully charm a smile on your face, as you learn,
that the two central sentences of Nature are, both: *6+11=17*, although
their spatial coordinates are slightly out of whack relative to each other.
The banality of it all: *6+11=17. *

If the model would bring you forth a previously unknown chemical element,
with properties as predicted, or a previously unobserved planet, with
properties as predicted, you would credit the idea and the engineering.
Here, we have the phenomenon called *gravity* that appears with properties
as predicted, based on sorting and ordering pairs of natural numbers. The
16 kinds of logical entities that have been observed in Nature support the
credibility of the model, too.

So much to 16, please forgive an old war horse which wakes up as the
trumpet calls 16.

Am Sa., 9. Jan. 2021 um 20:32 Uhr schrieb Stanley N Salthe <
ssalthe en binghamton.edu>:

> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información 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 está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicación 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/20210112/eacf868e/attachment-0001.html>