<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span lang="EN-GB">The
question „Is information physical?” relates to the equivalence between two
mental/emotional contents of the brain, and can be compared to “Is A = B ?” at
first sight. In the form the question is posed, it is rendered in a more empathic
fashion in the form “Does A contain a sufficiently large proportion of
properties of B so that one may reasonably say that A is either a subset of B
or is identical with B or does A include B ?”.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span lang="EN-GB">That, what “physical”
refers to, may be understood to be beyond individual interpretations. Logical
sentences can be constructed about observations of the world, and agreements
can be achieved about what these sentences denote. Society has created a
cultural construct, like the value </span><span lang="EN-GB">π</span><span lang="EN-GB">, what the term “physical” means.
The concept is detached from the varieties of individual connotations and
emotional associative links, memory embeddings and personal involvements while
having learnt to de-personalise the concept from its individual connections
within the person’s brain.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span lang="EN-GB">The “information”
part of the equivalence to be investigated can be varied along the connotations
of “information”. One generates sentences like “Is the background physical?”, “Is
the otherwise physical?”, “Is one specific of the remaining alternatives
physical?”, “Is the increase in my knowledge physical?”, “Is the surprise I experience
physical?”, “Is the contrast physical?” <span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span lang="EN-GB">Maybe a
first step towards a satisfying answer to the question of the equivalence of information
with effects, phenomena, ideas that are within the domain of Physics, would be
to arrive at a cultural understanding of what the term means.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span lang="EN-GB">Presently,
in normal conversational context, “information” is equivalent to “is news for
me”. If one receives a message that contains data that are already known, the
information content of that message is Zero. This moment links the content’s
information value to the learning history of individuals. (If one has never
learnt that a cold, low quality, drinking glass will splitter if poured hot
water into, this experience will inform him on the subject.) The individual
variety of the extent/amount/diversity of information makes that term – as used
in colloquial speech – not suited for usage in a logical discourse.<span></span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 10pt;line-height:115%;font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><span lang="EN-GB">If we speak
in logical style, then the information domain refers to the collection of
alternatives to that what is the case, and the content of the information is a
selection criterion for some of the alternatives. Whether the background as such
or specific elements from among the elements of the background are physical or
not, is a matter for gourmets to chew on. If <i>v=d/t </i>is physical, so be it.<span></span></span></p>
<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2018-04-25 14:39 GMT+02:00 Jose Javier Blanco Rivero <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:javierweiss@gmail.com" target="_blank">javierweiss@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><p dir="ltr">Dear all,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Following the ideas of Mark, Lou, Krassimir and Arturo, I think it is worth to insist on a proposal I made in this forum a few months ago. That is, the thesis of a general theory of communication media.<br>
(Before going on I would like to remark that the concepts used here do not designate essences but functions, they are thought as answers to how-questions and not to what-questions)<br>
Instead of talking about carriers or substrates of information, we should be talking about communication media. Because, as Krassimir remarked, information can only become information in the context of a medium -material or not. <br>
As a medium can operate any redundant pattern and/or self organized process. Being information the result of or distinctions traced by this self driven process in an effort to fix its own structures according to the constraints set by its environment and by its own actual possibilities of actualizing determined states of itself. Talking about communication would make sense as long as there are information processing, therefore redundance, and selection of information. It also makes sense as long as way to describe the evolution of the behavior of systems that interact somehow becoming interdependent to some degree. As Arturo points out, anthropocentrism -and I would add: a persistent philosophy of consciousness- is rather an obstacle. Any selfrerential and selforganized system can draw distinctions, process information and communicate. But we should take care to distinguish the very medium that make that system possible (which can be the domain of the physical, that is, the domain of existence of the observable and mensurable) and the media that function more or less regularly to the purpose of communication. <br>
I remember I also criticized the idea of information transmission. Information is not transmitted. Regular patterns are instrumentalized to codify a symbolic system. When this occurs a technical medium of communication has been developed. <br>
I know there would be many flaws other general setting of this proposal, but I also think it is a thought worth to be followed and perfectioned. This would not lead astray of information science. On the contrary, it lays inside its very spirit. Elemental units such as information are related to wider contexts such as communication. It is up to theory to put together that unity. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Best,</p><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_quote">El abr 24, 2018 10:49 PM, "Burgin, Mark" <<a href="mailto:mburgin@math.ucla.edu" target="_blank">mburgin@math.ucla.edu</a>> escribió:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Dear Colleagues,</p>
<p>I would like to suggest the new topic for discussion</p>
<p> <wbr> Is information physical?<br>
</p>
<p>My opinion is presented below:<br>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p><p class="m_-3390924778993118791m_-8509686474319206682MsoPlainText"><span><span> </span>Why some
people erroneously think that
information is physical<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_-3390924778993118791m_-8509686474319206682MsoPlainText"><span><span> </span><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_-3390924778993118791m_-8509686474319206682MsoPlainText"><span><span> </span>The main
reason to think that information is
physical is the strong belief of many people, especially,
scientists that there
is only physical reality, which is studied by science. At the
same time, people
encounter something that they call information.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_-3390924778993118791m_-8509686474319206682MsoPlainText"><span><span> </span>When
people receive a letter, they
comprehend that it is information because with the letter they
receive
information. The letter is physical, i.e., a physical object.
As a result,
people start thinking that information is physical. When
people receive an
e-mail, they comprehend that it is information because with
the e-mail they
receive information. The e-mail comes to the computer in the
form of
electromagnetic waves, which are physical. As a result, people
start thinking
even more that information is physical.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_-3390924778993118791m_-8509686474319206682MsoPlainText"><span><span> </span>However,
letters, electromagnetic waves and
actually all physical objects are only carriers or containers
of information.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_-3390924778993118791m_-8509686474319206682MsoPlainText"><span><span> </span>To
understand this better, let us consider a
textbook. Is possible to say that this book is knowledge? Any
reasonable person
will tell that the textbook contains knowledge but is not
knowledge itself. In
the same way, the textbook contains information but is not
information itself.
The same is true for letters, e-mails, electromagnetic waves
and other physical
objects because all of them only contain information but are
not information.
For instance, as we know, different letters can contain the
same information.
Even if we make an identical copy of a letter or any other
text, then the
letter and its copy will be different physical objects
(physical things) but
they will contain the same information.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_-3390924778993118791m_-8509686474319206682MsoPlainText"><span><span> </span>Information
belongs to a different
(non-physical) world of knowledge, data and similar essences.
In spite of this,
information can act on physical objects (physical bodies) and
this action also
misleads people who think that information is physical.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_-3390924778993118791m_-8509686474319206682MsoPlainText"><span><span> </span>One more
misleading property of information
is that people can measure it. This brings an erroneous
assumption that it is
possible to measure only physical essences. Naturally, this
brings people to
the erroneous conclusion that information is physical.
However, measuring
information is essentially different than measuring physical
quantities, i.e.,
weight. There are no “scales” that measure information. Only
human intellect
can do this.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="m_-3390924778993118791m_-8509686474319206682MsoPlainText"><span><span> </span>It is
possible to find more explanations
that information is not physical in the general theory of
information. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p></p>
Sincerely,<br>
Mark Burgin<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="m_-3390924778993118791m_-8509686474319206682moz-cite-prefix">On 4/24/2018 10:46 AM, Pedro C.
Marijuan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
Dear FIS Colleagues,<br>
<br>
A very interesting discussion theme has been proposed by Mark
Burgin --he will post at his early convenience. <br>
Thanks are due to Alberto for his "dataism" piece. Quite probably
we will need to revisit that theme, as it is gaining increasing
momentum in present "information societies", in science as well as
in everyday life...<br>
Thanks also to Sung for his interesting viewpoint and references.<br>
<br>
Best wishes to all,<br>
--Pedro<font size="+2"> <br>
</font><br>
<pre class="m_-3390924778993118791m_-8509686474319206682moz-signature" cols="72">
------------------------------<wbr>-------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
<a class="m_-3390924778993118791m_-8509686474319206682moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es" target="_blank">pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es</a>
<a class="m_-3390924778993118791m_-8509686474319206682moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/" target="_blank">http://sites.google.com/site/p<wbr>edrocmarijuan/</a>
------------------------------<wbr>------------------- </pre>
<div id="m_-3390924778993118791m_-8509686474319206682DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top:1px solid #d3d4de">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:55px;padding-top:18px"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif" alt="" style="width:46px;height:29px" height="29" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width:470px;padding-top:17px;color:#41424e;font-size:13px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18px">Libre de virus. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" style="color:#4453ea" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a href="#m_-3390924778993118791_m_-8509686474319206682_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_-3390924778993118791m_-8509686474319206682mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Fis mailing list
<a class="m_-3390924778993118791m_-8509686474319206682moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a>
<a class="m_-3390924778993118791m_-8509686474319206682moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bi<wbr>n/mailman/listinfo/fis</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bi<wbr>n/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>
</div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-<wbr>bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>