<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Dear Jerry, Pridi, and
Colleagues,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Thank you for the nice comments!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">To answer to questions I have to present next
step from the GIT (General Information Theory) we are developing.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Let remember in words (below “Infos” is
abbreviation from “Information Subject”, it is an intelligent natural or
artificial agent (system)):</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Information is quadruple (Source, Recipient,
Evidence, Infos) or formally </FONT><FONT face="Times New Roman"><EM>i = (s, r,
e, I)</EM> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">The nest step is to define elements of the
quadruple:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"><STRONG><EM>s</EM> and <EM>r</EM> are
structured sets;</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"><STRONG><EM>e</EM> is a mapping from
<EM>s</EM> in <EM>r</EM> which preserves (all or partial) structure of
<EM>s</EM> and resolves any <EM>information expectation</EM> of
<EM>I</EM></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">I expect new questions:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">- what is an “intelligent agent”</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">- what is “information
expectation”</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">- ...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">If it is interesting, answers to these
questions may be given in further letters.</FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">***</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Now I want to make some comments to letters received (their full texts are
given below my answers).</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Pridi: “information cannot be viewed in any absolute sense but as internal
representations of "external patterns"”</DIV>
<DIV>Kr.: Yes, the “reflection” is a property of Matter, “information” is
a reflection for which the information quadruple exists. But information is not
“internal representations of "external patterns" ”. It is result from resolving
the<EM> subjective information expectation</EM> which is process of comparing of
internal and external patterns. I know, this will cause new questions <IMG
class="wlEmoticon wlEmoticon-smile"
style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none"
alt=Smile src="cid:2DCB9F0D5A4543C2B449B4C55F9457CB@VaioMarkov"></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Pridi: In this framework then, it seems that "information" cannot be
conceptualized without reference to the both "something out there" and the
"internal structures" of the receptor/cognitive system. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Kr.: Yes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Pridi: How can we really quantify meaningful (semantic) information ...
?</DIV>
<DIV>Kr.: By distance between "external patterns" and “information expectation”
(sorry to be not clear but it is long text for further letters).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Pridi: All "objective" measures (entropy, negentropy,...) are actually
totally dependant of I1 and I2 and can never be considered as "absolute". </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Kr.: Yes, but the world humanity is an Infos and its
information expectations we assume as <FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">"absolute".</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Pridi: ... some researchers that posit that "information" may be more
fundamental than the fundamental physical (mass, time, space, amps). </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Kr.: Yes, there are other paradigms which are useful in some
cases, but in our paradigm “information” is not fundamental but “reflection” is
the fundamental.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Pridi: ... no "absolute truth" (whatever this means) is really gained.
"Only" a richer more complete (subjective but coherent) world-view .</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Kr.: Yes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Jerry: ... assertion of a quadruple of symbols is rather close
to the philosophy of C S Peirce (hereafter "CSP") </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Kr.: Our paradigm is nor opposite to what science has explored
till now. All already investigated information theories (Shannon,<FONT
style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt">Peirce, etc) </FONT>have to be a part or intersection of
a new GIT.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Jerry: ... </FONT>moves these 'definitions' of individual
symbols into the subjective realm. (CSP's notion of "interpretation?)</DIV>
<DIV>Different researchers have the freedom to interpret the evidence as they
choose, including the relationships to engineering terms such as
"bandwidth".</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Kr.: Yes. But not only researches, everybody has such freedom.
Because of this there exist advertising processes ... but for this we have to
talk in further letters. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Jerry: Pridi's post appropriately recognizes the tension
between objective scientific theories and subjective judgments about evidence by
different individuals with different professional backgrounds and
different symbolic processing powers. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Kr.: Yes, there will be tension if we assume world as plane
structure. But it is hierarchical one and what is assumed as “subjective” at one
level is assumed as “objective” for the low levels.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Jerry: ... to show that these definitions of symbols motivate
a coherent symbol system that can be used to transfer information contained in
the signal from symbolic representations of entities. It may work for
engineering purposes, but is it extendable to life?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Kr.: The goal of work on GIT is to create a coherent symbol
system which is equal valid for life creatures and artificial
agents.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Jerry: ... this requires the use of multiple symbol systems
and multiple forms of logic in order to gain the functionality of transfer of
"in-form" between individuals or machines.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Kr.: Yes, at least on three levels – Information, Infos,
Inforaction (Information interaction)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Jerry: Anybody have any suggestions on how this quadruple of
symbols can be formalized into a quantitative coherent form of
communication?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Kr.: A step toward this I give above in the beginning of this
letter but it is very long journey ...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Thank you for creative discussion!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Friendly regards</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Krassimir</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>-----Original Message----- </DIV>
<DIV>From: Jerry LR Chandler </DIV>
<DIV>Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:57 PM </DIV>
<DIV>To: FIS </DIV>
<DIV>Cc: Krassimir Markov ; Pridi Siregar </DIV>
<DIV>Subject: Re: [Fis] Re to Pridi: infinite bandwith and finite
informationcontent CS Peirce and Chemical Nomenclature </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Pridi, Krassimir, List:</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>(In order to place this comment in context, and for reference, I have
copied Krassimir's "definition" of information below. My comments follow the
excellent post of Pridi.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> In physical world there exist only reflections but not information.
</DIV>
<DIV>> </DIV>
<DIV>> Information “ i " is the quadruple: </DIV>
<DIV>> i = (s, r, e, I) </DIV>
<DIV>> where </DIV>
<DIV>> s is a source entity, which is reflected in r </DIV>
<DIV>> r is the entity in which reflection of s exists </DIV>
<DIV>> e is an evidence for the subject I which proofs for him and only for
him that the reflection in r reflects just s , i.e. the evidence proofs for the
subject what the reflection reflects . </DIV>
<DIV>> I is information subject who has possibility to make decisions in
accordance with some goals – human, animal, bacteria, artificial intelligent
system, etc. </DIV>
<DIV>> </DIV>
<DIV>> In other words, information is a reflection, but not every reflection
is information – only reflections for which the quadruple above exist are
assumed as information by the corresponded subjects. </DIV>
<DIV>> </DIV>
<DIV>> For different I , information may be different because of subjects’
finite memory and reflection possibilities. </DIV>
<DIV>> Because of this, a physical event with an infinite bandwidth may have
finite information content (for concrete information subject) . </DIV>
<DIV>On Jul 23, 2014, at 6:45 AM, Pridi Siregar wrote:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> Dear Krassimir,</DIV>
<DIV>> </DIV>
<DIV>> Thank you for your explanation. It does give me a better understanding
of how information (beyond Shannon) can be formalized! However, a closer look at
the formalism and its semantic does raise new questions:</DIV>
<DIV>> </DIV>
<DIV>> From the definition you have given, it appears that information cannot
be viewed in any absolute sense but as internal representations of "external
patterns" whose meaning depends on the subject capturing/interpreting/storing
the said patterns. In this framework then, it seems that "information" cannot be
conceptualized without reference to the both "something out there" and the
"internal structures" of the receptor/cognitive system. </DIV>
<DIV>> </DIV>
<DIV>> In other words the concept of "information" lies within some
"subjective" (albeit rational) realm. I'm sure that I'm stating the obvious for
most of FIS members but a question arised upon reading your formalism: How can
we really quantify meaningful (semantic) information beyond Shannon (that
disregards semantics) and his purely statistical framework? Or beyond
Boltzmann's entropy/Information based on micro-macro states ratios?</DIV>
<DIV>> </DIV>
<DIV>> When we formalize i = (s, r, e, I) there is a "meta-level"
formalisation that is only apparent since even (s,r) reflect our own (human)
subjective world-view. We could actually write (I1(s), I1(r), e, I2) where I1
and I2 are two distinct cognitive systems and both of which lie at the OBJECT
level of the formalizing agent which is NEITHER I1 or I2. All "objective"
measures (entropy, negentropy,...) are actually totally dependant of I1 and I2
and can never be considered as "absolute". </DIV>
<DIV>> </DIV>
<DIV>> </DIV>
<DIV>> This leads me to a second question (sorry for the lengthy message):
there are some researchers that posit that "information" may be more fundamental
than the fundamental physical (mass, time, space, amps). This appears (and
perhaps only appears) to be at the opposite end of the above-mentioned view.
Indeed, in this framework some kind of "universal" or "absolute" notions must be
accepted as true.</DIV>
<DIV>> </DIV>
<DIV>> One apparent way out would be to demonstrate that information somehow
logically entails the fundemantal physical entities while accepting that we are
still within a human-centered world view. And thus no "absolute truth"
(whatever this means) is really gained. "Only" a richer more complete
(subjective but coherent) world-view .</DIV>
<DIV>> </DIV>
<DIV>> Am I making anys sense? Any thoughts?</DIV>
<DIV>> </DIV>
<DIV>> Best</DIV>
<DIV>> </DIV>
<DIV>> Pridi </DIV>
<DIV>> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Pridi's comment concur with many of my views wrt the concept of
information. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Krassimir's assertion of a quadruple of symbols is rather close to the
philosophy of C S Peirce (hereafter "CSP") in one context.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>S as symbol represents an external source of signal, that which is
independent of the individual mind and being. This is analogous to CSP's
term "sinsign".</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>R is a thing itself. That is, R generates S.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>E as evidence is a vague term which infers an observer (2nd Order
Cybernetics?) that both receives and evaluates the signal (S) from the thing
(R). CSP categorizes evidence as icon, index or symbol with respect to the
entity of observation.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I as Krassimirian information is a personal judgment about the
evidence. (Correspondence with CSP's notion of "argument" is conceivable.)
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Krassimir's assertion that: </DIV>
<DIV>> For different I , information may be different because of subjects’
finite memory and reflection possibilities. </DIV>
<DIV>> Because of this, a physical event with an infinite bandwidth may have
finite information content (for concrete information subject) . </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>moves these 'definitions' of individual symbols into the subjective realm.
(CSP's notion of "interpretation?)</DIV>
<DIV>Different researchers have the freedom to interpret the evidence as they
choose, including the relationships to engineering terms such as
"bandwidth".</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Pridi's post appropriately recognizes the tension between objective
scientific theories and subjective judgments about evidence by different
individuals with different professional backgrounds and different symbolic
processing powers.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>The challenge for Krassimirian information, it appears to me, is to show
that these definitions of symbols motivate a coherent symbol system that can be
used to transfer information contained in the signal from symbolic
representations of entities. It may work for engineering purposes, but is it
extendable to life?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>(For me, of course, this requires the use of multiple symbol systems and
multiple forms of logic in order to gain the functionality of transfer of
"in-form" between individuals or machines.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Pridi writes:</DIV>
<DIV>> How can we really quantify meaningful (semantic) information
beyond Shannon (that disregards semantics) and his purely statistical
framework?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>One aspect of this conundrum was solved by chemists over the past to two
centuries by developing a unique symbol system that is restricted by physical
constraints, yet functions as an exact mode of communication. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Chemical notation, as symbol system, along with mathematics and data,
achieves this end purpose (entelechy) of communication, for some entities, such
as the meaning of an "atomic number" as a relational term and hence the meaning
of a particular integer as both quantity and quality. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This requires a dyadic mathematics and synductive logic for
sublations.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Pridi writes:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>> It does give me a better understanding of how information (beyond
Shannon) can be formalized! </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Can you communicate how this "better understanding... ...
foramlized" works? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It is not readily apparent to me how Krassimirian information can be
formalized.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Anybody have any suggestions on how this quadruple of symbols can be
formalized into a quantitative coherent form of communication?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Cheers</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Jerry </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>