<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV><FONT size=4>Dear Colleagues,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Thank you for comments and remarks.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Many thanks to Mark for his interesting post.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Really, the correspondence between energy and information is
fundamental and needs to be clearly explained.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>I want to present my point of view because it is different
from other ones. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>It is clear, the energy is needed to create a reflection.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Without energy no internal changes (reflections) in the
entities may be realized.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>This means that energy is needed to realize reflection which
may become information for given subject.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Without energy information is impossible.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>But the opposite correspondence does not exist.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Energy does not depend on information.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>It exists in reality without subjects’
“decisions”.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Energy is objective phenomenon , Information is subjective
phenomenon.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Let see a simple example.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Let we have two equal pieces of paper.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>They contain some energy, let assume that its quantities are
equal in both pieces.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>In other words, for instance, if we burn these pieces they
will release practically the same quantities of energy.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>If I have such piece of paper and you have another such
one, we may exchange them as equivalent without any additional
conditions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Let now the pieces of paper are painted with some
colors.</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The paint will add some additional energy to pieces.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Let assume that again it is in equal quantities in both
pieces.</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 13.6pt">Again, we may exchange pieces as equivalent
without any additional conditions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>At the end, let pieces of paper are painted as
follow:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>- the first piece is painted as USD 100 (one hundred
dollars)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>- the second one is pained as RUB 100 (one hundred
rubles)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>i.e. let have two real banknotes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Now, we will not agree to exchange these pieces of paper
without additional conditions.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>As it is shown by Bloomberg, on 08/25/2014, 12.59:59, (<A
href="http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USDRUB:CUR">http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/USDRUB:CUR</A>)
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><FONT style="FONT-WEIGHT: normal">US DOLLAR-RUSSIAN RUBLE
Exchange Rate is:</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><SPAN class=currency_factor_description>Price of 1 USD in RUB
is 36.1646,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><SPAN class=currency_factor_description>i.e now the first
piece of paper is equivalent to more than 36 pieces of second
one.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><SPAN class=currency_factor_description>Because of information
for the subjects, the pieces became different notwithstanding that the energy
quantities are equal in both pieces.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><SPAN class=currency_factor_description>The subjective
decisions have important role in this case.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><SPAN
class=currency_factor_description></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4><SPAN class=currency_factor_description>In conclusion, the
energy and information are different phenomena – objective and subjective,
respectively.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Energy may be explained by triple (see Mark’s nice
explanations about triples!) : (source, recipient, transition) => (x, y, f)
=> y=f(x) .</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Information has to be explained by quadruple (source,
recipient, evidence, subject). Here, it is important to remember Mark’s
“Infological System” as Subject.</FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The triples are object of study by Mathematics, quadruples –
by Informatics.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></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
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=ssalthe@binghamton.edu
href="mailto:ssalthe@binghamton.edu">Stanley N Salthe</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Monday, August 25, 2014 4:51 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=fis@listas.unizar.es
href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es">fis</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Fis] Fw: Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT.
Quintuples?</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style='FONT-SIZE: small; TEXT-DECORATION: none; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri"; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; COLOR: #000000; FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline'>
<DIV dir=ltr>Bob wrote:
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse">Recall
that some thermodynamic variables, especially work functions like<BR>Helmholz
& Gibbs free energies and exergy all are tightly related to<BR>information
measures. In statistical mechanical analogs, for example, the<BR>exergy becomes
RT times the mutual information among the molecules</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse"><BR></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse">S:
So, the more organized, the more potential available energy.<BR><BR>I happen to
be a radical who feels that the term "energy" is a construct<BR>with little
ontological depth.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse"><BR></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse">S:
I believe it has instead ontological breadth!</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse"><BR></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse">It
is a bookkeeping device (a nice one, of</SPAN> <SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse">course,
but bookkeeping nonetheless). </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse">It
was devised to maintain the </SPAN><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse">Platonic
worldview. Messrs. Meyer & Joule simply </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse">gave
us the conversion </SPAN><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse">factors
to make it look like energy is constant.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse"><BR></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse">S:
It IS constant in the adiabatic boxes used to measure it.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse"><BR></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse">*Real*
</SPAN><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse">energy
is always </SPAN><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse">in
decline -- witness what happens to the work functions I </SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse">just
mentioned.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse"><BR></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse">S:
In decline in the actual material world that we inhabit. That is, the
local world -- the world of input and dissipation. I think the information
problem may be advanced if we try to explain why the energy efficiency of any
work is so poor, and gets worse the harder we work. This is the key local
phenomenon that needs to be understood.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: arial,sans-serif; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse"><BR></SPAN>STAN</DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:40 AM, John Collier <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:collierj@ukzn.ac.za"
target=_blank>collierj@ukzn.ac.za</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Nice
post, Bob. I agree pretty much. Brooks and Wiley got slammed by Morowitz for
using the *Real* energy in their book, which being about biology is the only
sensible notion of energy.<BR><BR>There is still a need for a clear
dimensional analysis of the relation(s) between information and energy. I work
on that periodically, but only minimal progress so far. Perhaps I can focus on
it better now that I am retired.<BR><BR>John<BR><BR>At 02:11 AM 2014-08-22,
Robert E. Ulanowicz wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Dear
Joseph,<BR><BR>Recall that some thermodynamic variables, especially work
functions like<BR>Helmholz & Gibbs free energies and exergy all are
tightly related to<BR>information measures. In statistical mechanical
analogs, for example, the<BR>exergy becomes RT times the mutual information
among the molecules.<BR><BR>I happen to be a radical who feels that the term
"energy" is a construct<BR>with little ontological depth. It is a
bookkeeping device (a nice one, of<BR>course, but bookkeeping nonetheless).
It was devised to maintain the<BR>Platonic worldview. Messrs. Meyer &
Joule simply gave us the conversion<BR>factors to make it look like energy
is constant. *Real* energy is always<BR>in decline -- witness what happens
to the work functions I just mentioned.<BR><BR>Well, enough heresy for one
night!<BR><BR>Cheers,<BR>Bob U.<BR><BR>> Dear Mark and
All,<BR>><BR>> I return belatedly to this short but key note of Mark's
in which he<BR>> repeats his view, with which I agree, that Energy
is a kind of<BR>> information and information is a kind of
energy.<BR>><BR>> My suggestion is that it may be useful to expand
this statement by looking<BR>> at both Information and Energy
(mass-energy) as emergent properties of the<BR>> universe. Since we agree
they are not identical, we may then look at how<BR>> the properties
differ. Perhaps we can say that Energy is an extensive<BR>> property,
measured primarily by quantity, and Information is an intensive<BR>>
property. The difficulty is that both Energy and Information
themselves<BR>> appear to have both intensive and extensive properties,
measured by vector<BR>> and scalar quantities respectively. I am
encouraged to say that this<BR>> approach might yield results that are
compatible with advanced theories<BR>> based on the sophisticated
mathematics to which Mark refers.<BR>><BR>> I would say then that in
our world it is not the question of which is more<BR>> fundamental that
is essential, but that Energy and Information share<BR>> properties which
are linked dynamically. In this dialectical<BR>> interpretation, the need
for a 'demon' that accomplishes some function, as<BR>> in the paper
referred to in John's note, is a formal exercise.<BR>><BR>> Thank you
and best wishes,<BR>><BR>> Joseph<BR>><BR>><BR>> -----
Original Message -----<BR>> From: Burgin, Mark<BR>> To: Joseph
Brenner<BR>> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2014 9:19 PM<BR>> Subject: Re:
[Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and GIT.
Quintuples?<BR>><BR>><BR>> Dear Joseph and Colleagues,<BR>> An
answer to "the perhaps badly posed question of whether information
or<BR>> energy is more fundamental" is given in the book M.Burgin, Theory
of<BR>> 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<BR>> based on sophisticated mathematics.<BR>><BR>>
Sincerely,<BR>> Mark Burgin<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> On
7/31/2014 2:40 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote:<BR>><BR>> Dear
Krassimir and Colleagues,<BR>><BR>> I have followed this
discussion with interest but not total agreement.<BR>> As I have
commented to Krassimir previously, I feel that his system,<BR>> based on
symbols as outlined in his paper, is too static to capture the<BR>>
dynamics of complex information processes and their value (valence).
It<BR>> suffers from the same problems as that of Peirce and of
set-theoretic<BR>> approaches, namely, a certain arbitrariness in the
selection and number<BR>> of independent elements and their grounding in
nature (or rather absence<BR>> of grounding).<BR>><BR>>
If you will permit a naïve but well-intentioned question, why not have
a<BR>> theory whose elements are quintuples? Would this not be a
'better', more<BR>> complete theory? This opens the possibility of an
infinite regress, but<BR>> that is the point I am trying to make: the
form of the theory is, to a<BR>> certain extent, defining its
content.<BR>><BR>> The /development/ of any GIT should,
from the beginning I think,<BR>> recognize the existence in real time, so
to speak, of any new<BR>> suggestions in the context of other recent
contributions of a different<BR>> form, such as those of Luhn,
Hofkirchner, Marijuan, Deacon,<BR>> Dodig-Crnkovic, Wu and so on. Several
of these already permit a more<BR>> directed discussion of the perhaps
badly posed question of whether<BR>> information or energy is more
fundamental. Otherwise, all that work will<BR>> need to be done at the
end. In any case, the GIT itself, to the extent<BR>> that it could be
desirable and useful, would also have to have some<BR>> dynamics capable
of accepting theories of different forms. 20th Century<BR>> physics
sought only identities throughout nature and the balance is now<BR>>
being somewhat restored. I think keeping the diversity of theories
of<BR>> information in mind is the most worthwhile
strategy.<BR>><BR>> One of the values of Krassimir's
approach is that it recognizes the<BR>> existence of some of these more
complex questions that need to be<BR>> answered. I simply suggest that
process language and a recognition of<BR>> dynamic interactions (e.g.,
between 'internal' and 'external') could be<BR>> part of the
strategy.<BR>><BR>> Best
wishes,<BR>><BR>>
Joseph<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> -----
Original Message -----<BR>> From: Krassimir
Markov<BR>> To: Jerry LR Chandler ; FIS ; Pridi
Siregar<BR>> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 10:42
AM<BR>> Subject: [Fis] Information
quadruple<BR>><BR>><BR>> Dear Jerry, Pridi,
and Colleagues,<BR>><BR>> Thank you for the
nice comments!<BR>><BR>> To answer to
questions I have to present next step from the GIT<BR>> (General
Information Theory) we are
developing.<BR>><BR>> Let remember in words
(below "Infos" is abbreviation from "Information<BR>> Subject", it is an
intelligent natural or artificial agent
(system)):<BR>><BR>> Information is quadruple
(Source, Recipient, Evidence, Infos) or<BR>> formally i = (s, r, e,
I)<BR>><BR>> The nest step is to define
elements of the quadruple:<BR>><BR>> s and r
are structured sets;<BR>> e is a mapping from s
in r which preserves (all or partial) structure<BR>> of s and resolves
any information expectation of I<BR>><BR>> I
expect new questions:<BR>> - what is an
"intelligent agent"<BR>> - what is "information
expectation"<BR>> -
...<BR>><BR>> If it is interesting, answers to
these questions may be given in<BR>> further
letters.<BR>><BR>>
***<BR>><BR>> Now I want to make some comments
to letters received (their full texts<BR>> are given below my
answers).<BR>><BR>> Pridi: "information cannot
be viewed in any absolute sense but as<BR>> internal representations of
"external patterns""<BR>> Kr.: Yes, the
"reflection" is a property of Matter, "information" is<BR>> a reflection
for which the information quadruple exists. But<BR>> information is not
"internal representations of "external patterns" ".<BR>> It is result
from resolving the subjective information expectation<BR>> which is
process of comparing of internal and external patterns. I<BR>> know, this
will cause new questions<BR>><BR>> Pridi: In
this framework then, it seems that "information" cannot be<BR>>
conceptualized without reference to the both "something out there"
and<BR>> the "internal structures" of the receptor/cognitive
system.<BR>> Kr.:
Yes.<BR>><BR>> Pridi: How can we really
quantify meaningful (semantic) information<BR>> ...
?<BR>> Kr.: By distance between "external
patterns" and "information<BR>> expectation" (sorry to be not clear but
it is long text for further<BR>>
letters).<BR>><BR>> Pridi: All "objective"
measures (entropy, negentropy,...) are actually<BR>> totally dependant of
I1 and I2 and can never be considered as<BR>>
"absolute".<BR>> Kr.: Yes, but the world humanity
is an Infos and its information<BR>> expectations we assume as
"absolute".<BR>><BR>> Pridi: ... some
researchers that posit that "information" may be more<BR>> fundamental
than the fundamental physical (mass, time, space,
amps).<BR>> Kr.: Yes, there are other paradigms
which are useful in some cases,<BR>> but in our paradigm "information" is
not fundamental but "reflection"<BR>> is the
fundamental.<BR>><BR>> Pridi: ... no "absolute
truth" (whatever this means) is really gained.<BR>> "Only" a richer more
complete (subjective but coherent) world-view
.<BR>> Kr.:
Yes.<BR>><BR>> Jerry: ... assertion of a
quadruple of symbols is rather close to the<BR>> philosophy of C S Peirce
(hereafter "CSP")<BR>> Kr.: Our paradigm is nor
opposite to what science has explored till<BR>> now. All already
investigated information theories (Shannon,Peirce,<BR>> etc) have to be a
part or intersection of a new GIT.<BR>><BR>>
Jerry: ... moves these 'definitions' of individual symbols into the<BR>>
subjective realm. (CSP's notion of
"interpretation?)<BR>> Different researchers have
the freedom to interpret the evidence as<BR>> they choose, including the
relationships to engineering terms such as<BR>>
"bandwidth".<BR>> Kr.: Yes. But not only
researches, everybody has such freedom. Because<BR>> of this there exist
advertising processes ... but for this we have to<BR>> talk in further
letters.<BR>><BR>> Jerry: Pridi's post
appropriately recognizes the tension between<BR>> objective scientific
theories and subjective judgments about evidence<BR>> by different
individuals with different professional backgrounds and<BR>> different
symbolic processing powers.<BR>> Kr.: Yes, there
will be tension if we assume world as plane structure.<BR>> But it is
hierarchical one and what is assumed as "subjective" at one<BR>> level is
assumed as "objective" for the low
levels.<BR>><BR>> Jerry: ... to show that
these definitions of symbols motivate a<BR>> coherent symbol system that
can be used to transfer information<BR>> contained in the signal from
symbolic representations of entities. It<BR>> may work for engineering
purposes, but is it extendable to life?<BR>> Kr.:
The goal of work on GIT is to create a coherent symbol system<BR>> which
is equal valid for life creatures and artificial
agents.<BR>><BR>> Jerry: ... this requires the
use of multiple symbol systems and<BR>> multiple forms of logic in order
to gain the functionality of transfer<BR>> of "in-form" between
individuals or machines.<BR>> Kr.: Yes, at least
on three levels - Information, Infos, Inforaction<BR>> (Information
interaction)<BR>><BR>> Jerry: Anybody have any
suggestions on how this quadruple of symbols<BR>> can be formalized into
a quantitative coherent form of
communication?<BR>> Kr.: A step toward this I
give above in the beginning of this letter<BR>> but it is very long
journey ...<BR>><BR>> Thank you for creative
discussion!<BR>> Friendly
regards<BR>>
Krassimir<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>
-----Original Message-----<BR>> From: Jerry LR
Chandler<BR>> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:57
PM<BR>> To: FIS<BR>>
Cc: Krassimir Markov ; Pridi Siregar<BR>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Re to Pridi: infinite bandwith and finite<BR>>
informationcontent CS Peirce and Chemical
Nomenclature<BR>><BR>> Pridi, Krassimir,
List:<BR>><BR>> (In order to place this
comment in context, and for reference, I have<BR>> copied Krassimir's
"definition" of information below. My comments<BR>> follow the excellent
post of Pridi.)<BR>><BR>> > In physical
world there exist only reflections but not
information.<BR>>
><BR>> > Information " i " is the
quadruple:<BR>> > i = (s, r, e,
I)<BR>> >
where<BR>> > s is a source entity, which is
reflected in r<BR>> > r is the entity in which
reflection of s exists<BR>> > e is an evidence
for the subject I which proofs for him and only for<BR>> him that the
reflection in r reflects just s , i.e. the evidence<BR>> proofs for the
subject what the reflection reflects .<BR>> >
I is information subject who has possibility to make decisions in<BR>>
accordance with some goals - human, animal, bacteria, artificial<BR>>
intelligent system, etc.<BR>>
><BR>> > In other words, information is a
reflection, but not every<BR>> reflection is information - only
reflections for which the quadruple<BR>> above exist are assumed as
information by the corresponded subjects.<BR>>
><BR>> > For different I , information may
be different because of subjects'<BR>> finite memory and reflection
possibilities.<BR>> > Because of this, a
physical event with an infinite bandwidth may<BR>> have finite
information content (for concrete information subject)
.<BR>> On Jul 23, 2014, at 6:45 AM, Pridi Siregar
wrote:<BR>><BR>> > Dear
Krassimir,<BR>>
><BR>> > Thank you for your explanation. It
does give me a better<BR>> understanding of how information (beyond
Shannon) can be formalized!<BR>> However, a closer look at the formalism
and its semantic does raise<BR>> new
questions:<BR>>
><BR>> > From the definition you have
given, it appears that information<BR>> cannot be viewed in any absolute
sense but as internal<BR>> representations of "external patterns" whose
meaning depends on the<BR>> subject capturing/interpreting/storing the
said patterns. In this<BR>> framework then, it seems that "information"
cannot be conceptualized<BR>> without reference to the both "something
out there" and the<BR>> "internal structures" of the receptor/cognitive
system.<BR>> ><BR>>
> In other words the concept of "information" lies within some<BR>>
"subjective" (albeit rational) realm. I'm sure that I'm stating the<BR>>
obvious for most of FIS members but a question arised upon reading<BR>>
your formalism: How can we really quantify meaningful (semantic)<BR>>
information beyond Shannon (that disregards semantics) and his<BR>>
purely statistical framework? Or beyond Boltzmann's<BR>>
entropy/Information based on micro-macro states
ratios?<BR>> ><BR>>
> When we formalize i = (s, r, e, I) there is a
"meta-level"<BR>> formalisation that is only apparent since even (s,r)
reflect our own<BR>> (human) subjective world-view. We could actually
write (I1(s),<BR>> I1(r), e, I2) where I1 and I2 are two distinct
cognitive systems and<BR>> both of which lie at the OBJECT level of the
formalizing agent which<BR>> is NEITHER I1 or I2. All "objective"
measures (entropy,<BR>> negentropy,...) are actually totally dependant of
I1 and I2 and can<BR>> never be considered as
"absolute".<BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>>
> This leads me to a second question (sorry for the lengthy
message):<BR>> there are some researchers that posit that "information"
may be more<BR>> fundamental than the fundamental physical (mass, time,
space, amps).<BR>> This appears (and perhaps only appears) to be at the
opposite end of<BR>> the above-mentioned view. Indeed, in this framework
some kind of<BR>> "universal" or "absolute" notions must be accepted as
true.<BR>> ><BR>>
> One apparent way out would be to demonstrate that information<BR>>
somehow logically entails the fundemantal physical entities while<BR>>
accepting that we are still within a human-centered world view.
And<BR>> thus no "absolute truth" (whatever this means) is really
gained.<BR>> "Only" a richer more complete (subjective but coherent)
world-view .<BR>>
><BR>> > Am I making anys sense? Any
thoughts?<BR>>
><BR>> >
Best<BR>> ><BR>>
> Pridi<BR>>
><BR>><BR>> Pridi's comment concur with
many of my views wrt the concept of<BR>>
information.<BR>><BR>> Krassimir's assertion
of a quadruple of symbols is rather close to the<BR>> philosophy of C S
Peirce (hereafter "CSP") in one
context.<BR>><BR>> S as symbol represents an
external source of signal, that which is<BR>> independent of the
individual mind and being. This is analogous to<BR>> CSP's term
"sinsign".<BR>><BR>> R is a thing
itself. That is, R generates
S.<BR>><BR>> E as evidence is a vague term
which infers an observer (2nd Order<BR>> Cybernetics?) that both receives
and evaluates the signal (S) from the<BR>> thing (R). CSP
categorizes evidence as icon, index or symbol with<BR>> respect to the
entity of observation.<BR>><BR>> I as
Krassimirian information is a personal judgment about the<BR>>
evidence. (Correspondence with CSP's notion of "argument" is<BR>>
conceivable.)<BR>><BR>> Krassimir's assertion
that:<BR>> > For different I , information may
be different because of subjects'<BR>> finite memory and reflection
possibilities.<BR>> > Because of this, a
physical event with an infinite bandwidth may<BR>> have finite
information content (for concrete information subject)
.<BR>><BR>><BR>> moves these 'definitions'
of individual symbols into the subjective<BR>> realm. (CSP's notion of
"interpretation?)<BR>> Different researchers have
the freedom to interpret the evidence as<BR>> they choose, including the
relationships to engineering terms such as<BR>>
"bandwidth".<BR>><BR>><BR>> Pridi's post
appropriately recognizes the tension between objective<BR>> scientific
theories and subjective judgments about evidence by<BR>> different
individuals with different professional backgrounds and<BR>> different
symbolic processing powers.<BR>><BR>> The
challenge for Krassimirian information, it appears to me, is to<BR>> show
that these definitions of symbols motivate a coherent symbol<BR>> system
that can be used to transfer information contained in the<BR>> signal
from symbolic representations of entities. It may work for<BR>>
engineering purposes, but is it extendable to
life?<BR>><BR>> (For me, of course, this
requires the use of multiple symbol systems<BR>> and multiple forms of
logic in order to gain the functionality of<BR>> transfer of "in-form"
between individuals or machines.)<BR>><BR>>
Pridi writes:<BR>> > How can we really
quantify meaningful (semantic) information beyond<BR>> Shannon (that
disregards semantics) and his purely statistical<BR>>
framework?<BR>><BR>> One aspect of this
conundrum was solved by chemists over the past to<BR>> two centuries by
developing a unique symbol system that is restricted<BR>> by physical
constraints, yet functions as an exact mode of<BR>>
communication.<BR>><BR>> Chemical notation, as
symbol system, along with mathematics and data,<BR>> achieves this end
purpose (entelechy) of communication, for some<BR>> entities, such as the
meaning of an "atomic number" as a relational<BR>> term and hence the
meaning of a particular integer as both quantity<BR>> and
quality.<BR>><BR>> This requires a dyadic
mathematics and synductive logic for<BR>>
sublations.<BR>><BR>><BR>> Pridi
writes:<BR>><BR>> > It does give me a
better understanding of how information (beyond<BR>> Shannon) can be
formalized!<BR>><BR>> Can you communicate how
this "better understanding... ...<BR>> foramlized"
works?<BR>><BR>> It is not readily apparent to
me how Krassimirian information can be<BR>>
formalized.<BR>><BR>> Anybody have any
suggestions on how this quadruple of symbols can be<BR>> formalized into
a quantitative coherent form of
communication?<BR>><BR>>
Cheers<BR>><BR>>
Jerry<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>
------------------------------<U></U>------------------------------<U></U>----------------<BR>>
______________________________<U></U>_________________<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-<U></U>bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</A><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>
______________________________<U></U>_________________<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-<U></U>bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</A><BR>><BR>>
______________________________<U></U>_________________<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-<U></U>bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</A><BR>><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>----------<BR>Professor
John
Collier
<A href="mailto:collierj@ukzn.ac.za"
target=_blank>collierj@ukzn.ac.za</A><BR>Philosophy and Ethics, University of
KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South Africa<BR>T: <A
href="tel:%2B27%20%2831%29%20260%203248" target=_blank
value="+27312603248">+27 (31) 260 3248</A> / 260
2292 F: <A
href="tel:%2B27%20%2831%29%20260%203031" target=_blank
value="+27312603031">+27 (31) 260 3031</A><BR><A
href="Http://web.ncf.ca/collier"
target=_blank>Http://web.ncf.ca/collier</A><BR><BR><BR>______________________________<U></U>_________________<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-<U></U>bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>Fis mailing
list<BR>Fis@listas.unizar.es<BR>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>