<div dir="ltr">Cari colleghi,<div>il 4 agosto ho scritto alcune cose che stranamente non sono state considerate né positivamente né negativamente. Mentre sul concetto processo di tras-in-form-azione o trans-in-form-azione sì è discusso abbastanza. Forse troppo. Tra le cose già scritte il 4 agosto vi è il rapporto-equivalenza energia/informazione implicito nel meccanismo del diavoletto di Maxwell da me accennato. Perché non se ne parla? Potrebbe essere utile farlo.</div>
<div>Saluti cordiali.</div><div>Francesco Rizzo.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-08-21 15:59 GMT+02:00 Joseph Brenner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:joe.brenner@bluewin.ch" target="_blank">joe.brenner@bluewin.ch</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font face="Arial">Dear Mark and All,</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">I return belatedly to this short but key note of
Mark's in which he repeats his view, with which I agree, that<font face="Times New Roman" size="3"> Energy is a kind of information and
information is a kind of energy.</font></font><font face="Arial"><br> </font></div>
<div><font face="Arial">My suggestion is that it may be useful to expand
this statement by looking at both Information and Energy (mass-energy)
as emergent properties of the universe. Since we agree they are not
identical, we may then look at how the properties differ. Perhaps we can say
that Energy is an extensive property, measured primarily by quantity,
and Information is an intensive property. The difficulty is that both
Energy and Information themselves appear to have both intensive and extensive
properties, measured by vector and scalar quantities respectively. I am
encouraged to say that this approach might yield results that are
compatible with advanced theories based on the sophisticated
mathematics to which Mark refers.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">I would say then that in our world it is not
the question of which is more fundamental that is essential, but that Energy and
Information share properties which are linked dynamically. In this dialectical
interpretation, the need for a 'demon' that accomplishes some function, as in
the paper referred to in John's note, is a formal exercise.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">Thank you and best wishes,</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">Joseph</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div style="FONT:10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<div style="BACKGROUND:#e4e4e4"><b>From:</b> <a title="mburgin@math.ucla.edu" href="mailto:mburgin@math.ucla.edu" target="_blank">Burgin, Mark</a>
</div>
<div><b>To:</b> <a title="joe.brenner@bluewin.ch" href="mailto:joe.brenner@bluewin.ch" target="_blank">Joseph Brenner</a> </div>
<div><b>Sent:</b> Friday, August 01, 2014 9:19 PM</div>
<div><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT.
Quintuples?</div></div>
<div><font face="Arial"></font><font face="Arial"></font><font face="Arial"></font><font face="Arial"></font><font face="Arial"></font><br></div>Dear Joseph and Colleagues,<br>An answer to "t<font face="Arial">he perhaps badly posed question of whether information or
energy is more fundamental</font>" is given in the book M.Burgin, Theory of
information. The answer is a little bit unexpected:<br>Energy is a kind of
information and information is a kind of energy.<br>It's a pity that very few
researchers read books with advanced theories based on sophisticated
mathematics.<br><br> Sincerely,<br>Mark Burgin<br><br><br><br>
<div>On 7/31/2014 2:40 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote:<br></div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><font face="Arial">Dear Krassimir and Colleagues,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">I have followed this discussion with interest but
not total agreement. As I have commented to Krassimir previously, I feel that
his system, based on symbols as outlined in his paper, is too static
to capture the dynamics of complex information processes and their value
(valence). </font><font face="Arial">It suffers from the same problems as
that of Peirce and of set-theoretic approaches, namely, a certain
arbitrariness in the selection and number of independent elements
and their grounding in nature (or rather absence of grounding).</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">If you will permit a naïve but well-intentioned
question, why not have a theory whose elements are quintuples? Would this not
be a 'better', more complete theory? This opens the possibility of an
infinite regress, but that is the point I am trying to make: the form of the
theory is, to a certain extent, defining its content.</font> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">The /development/ of any GIT should, from the
beginning I think, recognize the existence in real time, so to speak, of any
new suggestions in the context of other recent contributions of a different
form, such as those of Luhn, Hofkirchner, Marijuan, Deacon, Dodig-Crnkovic,
Wu and so on. Several of these already permit a more directed discussion
of the perhaps badly posed question of whether information or energy is more
fundamental. Otherwise, all that work will need to be done at the end. In any
case, the GIT itself, to the extent that it could be desirable and useful,
would also have to have some dynamics capable of accepting theories of
different forms. </font><font face="Arial">20th Century physics sought
only identities throughout nature and the balance is now being somewhat
restored. I think keeping the diversity of theories of information in mind is
the most worthwhile strategy. </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">One of the values of Krassimir's approach is that
it recognizes the existence of some of these more complex questions that need
to be answered. I simply suggest that process language and a recognition
of dynamic interactions (e.g., between 'internal' and 'external') could be
part of the strategy.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">Best wishes,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Arial">Joseph</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="PADDING-RIGHT:0px;PADDING-LEFT:5px;MARGIN-LEFT:5px;BORDER-LEFT:#000000 2px solid;MARGIN-RIGHT:0px">
<div style="FONT:10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </div>
<div style="BACKGROUND:#e4e4e4;FONT:10pt arial"><b>From:</b>
<a title="markov@foibg.com" href="mailto:markov@foibg.com" target="_blank">Krassimir Markov</a> </div>
<div style="FONT:10pt arial"><b>To:</b> <a title="jerry_lr_chandler@me.com" href="mailto:jerry_lr_chandler@me.com" target="_blank">Jerry LR
Chandler</a> ; <a title="fis@listas.unizar.es" href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">FIS</a> ; <a title="pridi.siregar@ibiocomputing.com" href="mailto:pridi.siregar@ibiocomputing.com" target="_blank">Pridi
Siregar</a> </div>
<div style="FONT:10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, July 26, 2014 10:42
AM</div>
<div style="FONT:10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> [Fis] Information
quadruple</div>
<div><br></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="FONT-SIZE:14pt;COLOR:#000000;FONT-FAMILY:'Calibri'">
<div><font face="Times New Roman">Dear Jerry, Pridi, and
Colleagues,</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman">Thank you for the nice
comments!</font></div>
<div> </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> </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> </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> </div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman">The nest step is to define elements of the
quadruple:</font></div>
<div> </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> </div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman">If it is interesting, answers to these
questions may be given in further letters.</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font face="Times New Roman">***</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now I want to make some comments to letters received (their full texts
are given below my answers).</div>
<div> </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 style="BORDER-TOP-STYLE:none;BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE:none;BORDER-LEFT-STYLE:none;BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE:none" alt="Smile" src="cid:865E560849CF4C6DA1B1F934756CC86D@PCdeJoseph"></div>
<div> </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> </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> </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> </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> </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> </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> </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> </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> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </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> </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> </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> </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> </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> </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>
<p></p>
<hr>
_______________________________________________<br>Fis mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br><a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
</blockquote><br>
<fieldset></fieldset> <br><pre>_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a>
</pre></blockquote><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>