<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr bgColor=#ffffff text=#000000>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV><FONT size=4>Dear Mark and colleagues,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>I totally agree!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>The need of variety of information theories which explain the
information phenomena from different point of view and on different levels was
fixed more than twenty years ago in the name of the first ITHEA Int. Journal
called “Information theories and applications”. As more theories so much
systematized knowledge.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Mark, thank you for brilliant remark!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>As you see we continue and extend our common research started
in 1989-1991.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Friendly regards</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Krassimir</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </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=mburgin@math.ucla.edu
href="mailto:mburgin@math.ucla.edu">Burgin, Mark</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Friday, August 29, 2014 11:33 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=markov@foibg.com
href="mailto:markov@foibg.com">Krassimir Markov</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Information Quadruple and
GIT.</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'>Dear
Krassimir and Colleagues,<BR> In his e-mail, Krassimir very well explained
the differences between energy and information in the sense of General
Information Theory (GIT). These differences appear because GIT studies
information on the higher level than the General Theory of Information (GTI). If
we look into mathematics, we see that group theory studies mathematical
structures on on the higher level than set theory. Although set theory is most
basic, while group theory has more applications outside mathematics, both
theories - set theory and group theory - are necessary for mathematics as a
whole. Thus, we may compare GIT to group theory and GTI to set theory as groups
have additional structure in comparison with sets as the information quadruple
of GIT has additional structure in comparison with the information triad of GTI.
<BR><BR> Sincerely,<BR> Mark Burgin<BR>
<DIV class=moz-cite-prefix><BR>On 8/25/2014 11:51 AM, Krassimir Markov
wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:4DB94BB047854822AA6BB4D4A946A227@VaioMarkov type="cite">
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 14pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000">
<DIV><FONT size=4>Dear Colleagues,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </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> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4>I want to present my point of view because it is different
from other ones. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </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> </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> </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> </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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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> </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> </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
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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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
moz-do-not-send="true">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>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>
Fis mailing list<BR>> <A
href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">Fis@listas.unizar.es</A><BR>>
<A href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis"
target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</A><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> Fis mailing
list<BR>> <A href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">Fis@listas.unizar.es</A><BR>> <A
href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</A><BR>><BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> Fis mailing
list<BR>> <A href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">Fis@listas.unizar.es</A><BR>> <A
href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</A><BR>><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>----------<BR>Professor
John
Collier
<A href="mailto:collierj@ukzn.ac.za" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">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
moz-do-not-send="true" value="+27312603248">+27 (31) 260 3248</A> / 260
2292 F: <A
href="tel:%2B27%20%2831%29%20260%203031" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true" value="+27312603031">+27 (31) 260 3031</A><BR><A
href="Http://web.ncf.ca/collier" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">Http://web.ncf.ca/collier</A><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Fis
mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">Fis@listas.unizar.es</A><BR><A
href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target=_blank
moz-do-not-send="true">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>Fis mailing list<BR><A
class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated
href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</A><BR><A
class=moz-txt-link-freetext
href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</A><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR>
<FIELDSET class=mimeAttachmentHeader></FIELDSET> <BR><PRE wrap="">_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
<A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</A>
<A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</A>
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>