<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Ramon and colleagues (Karl, Jerry,
      Annette...)</div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
    </div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Thanks for the excellent comment on
      entropy. It clarifies basic aspects of the abuse on the Second Law
      and entropy, particularly by nonphysicists. There is sort of a
      meta-knowledge, widely shared in this list, that the reliability
      of informational approaches has to be grounded on physics. If we
      look for informational properties of fermions, hadrons, electrons,
      atoms, periodic table, waves, etc. the inquiry is quite OK, for
      these are places where important info developments are occurring
      (e.g., from chemoinformation to quantum information science and to
      the new info interpretations of quantum mechanics). But, let me
      colorfully say, that if we visit other neighboring planets, that
      very physics has not generated much diversity around. Terrestrial
      life itself is what has created an amazing panorama of uncanny
      complexity around information. From cells to nervous systems to
      hyperconnected societies. I will mention just three major
      conundrums--with the spirit of enlarging the current discussion.</div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
    </div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">1. The informational view of the cell
      (unfortunately we are still not too far from Crick's Central
      Dogma).</div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">2. The informational coupling between
      organisms and their environments via the electro-molecular
      processing of nervous systems ("meaning" culminating in
      consciousness. <br>
    </div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">3. The hypercommunication paradox (how
      mobiles and artificial social networks are creating
      dis-functionalities and havoc in contemporary societies--rather
      than the utopian "happiness"  promised).</div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
    </div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">It is unfortunate that we, scholars
      devoted to "information study", are not interested collectively in
      one of the biggest historical transformations--perhaps the biggest
      one-- taking place just in front of our eyes. As I often mention,
      we also need focused discussions --chaired ones-- in order to
      contemplate these alternative conundrums and not to automatically
      fall under the spell of "conundrum 0" of what is (physical)
      information. So, given that we have recently incorporated new
      organization into the list via IS4SI, let me reiterate the need of
      suggestions with potential themes/chairs for future focused
      discussions. Please send them publicly in the list or privately to
      me offline. Those new in the list may have a glance to the
      historical record of fis chaired discussions at:
      <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://fis.sciforum.net/fis-discussion-sessions/">https://fis.sciforum.net/fis-discussion-sessions/</a></div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><b>And  very best greetings to Michel
        and the emerging FRENCH CHAPTER!! It is great that we count with
        further nucleus of organization. </b>I see just now their
      promising message...</div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
    </div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Best regards to all,<br>
    </div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">--Pedro</div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
    </div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">PS. just in retrospect, I would ad the
      fourth informational conundrum on the"ecology of knowledge" (how
      disciplinary and individual limitations might be partially
      transcended via the never-ending combinatorics of knowledge).   </div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
    </div>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix"> El 23/10/2019 a las 14:58, GUEVARA
      ERRA RAMON MARIANO escribió:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHVHHJWhQFZmU3DuXQG7NFpLkFXhzCBj-Ou3Uf9GCaj9fxivtA@mail.gmail.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div>Dear all, <br>
        </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>I want to add a small comment about the units of entropy
          [this is related to : "One aspect of Shannon information is
          that it requires that the transmissible form of information
          be represented in terms of bits and bytes.  Indeed, bits and
          bytes are the only permissible forms of representation of
          Shannon information.  The units of Shannon information are
          numeric of indefinite magnitude, are they not? As numeric
          units, Shannon units are unbounded in scale and are unlimited
          in scope.  This fact that Shannon information can represent
          unbounded scales (magnitudes) is one key element of the wildly
          successful theory." ]</div>
        <div>I found that comment very interesting and I thought about
          the relation with thermodynamics. <br>
        </div>
        <div>Indeed, Gibbs (or Boltzmann ) entropy is related to Shannon
          entropy, as it was shown by Landauer and others. They are
          actually proportional. If this is the case, we can think of
          entropy as having units as in S = k log N, the famous
          Boltzmann formula. The units are J/K. It means that changes in
          information (actually erasing information) leads to generation
          of heat. It is also interesting that information depends on
          the scale used to calculate it. For example, we can calculate
          the entropy in a DNA molecule in terms of its nucleotids the
          same as we can calculate the entropy of an English text. But
          we can also calculate the entropy at a smaller spatial scale,
          and they are not the same. Actually entropy is ill defined
          even in statistical mechanics, where we need to know the size
          of the cells in phase space. If I remember well this gives an
          infinite amount of entropy for an ideal gas. But then we
          consider cells given by the quantum mechanical uncertainty in
          phase space (dp dx proportional to Planck constant h for one
          dimension) and entropy becomes finite. <br>
        </div>
        <div>   <br>
        </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <div class="gmail_quote">
        <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 4:19
          PM Karl Javorszky <<a
            href="mailto:karl.javorszky@gmail.com"
            moz-do-not-send="true">karl.javorszky@gmail.com</a>>
          wrote:<br>
        </div>
        <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
          0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
          <div dir="ltr">
            <div>This is Part Two of the Letter to Jerry ("Shannon and
              the Tautomat")</div>
            <div><br>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
                0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
                New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt
                36pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
                New Roman","serif""><i><span
                    style="font-size:14pt" lang="EN-GB">Does the
                    same hypothesis, the same critical concept, apply to
                    the neighboring concept of
                    real scientific information, that is, the natural
                    forms of scientific
                    information as used by working scientists
                    (physicists, engineers, chemists,
                    biologists, physicians, ecologists, and other
                    specialists)? Is this a conundrum?
                    Or, it merely a matter of "getting the physics
                    right”?<span></span></span></i></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
                0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
                New Roman","serif""><span
                  style="font-size:14pt" lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
                0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
                New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">In
                  the last few generations I had the enjoyment to watch,
                  there was a
                  movement to the<span></span></span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
                0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
                New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span>subjectification
                  of reality. There
                  is less talk nowadays about the Principle to which one
                  has to subject himself.
                  If the Great Idea, which is independent of today’s
                  small despairs and hopes,
                  goes through dead bodies to show us its supreme
                  merits, it is received with
                  more suspicion than in my parents’ and grandparents’
                  times. Similarly, it used
                  to be that Physics rules supreme. After the
                  discoveries of the last centuries,
                  it was natural that the measuring scientists believed
                  they had figured out the
                  answers. in actual fact, it seems, Physics is subject
                  to Mathematics is subject
                  to Logic is subject to Philosophy is subject to
                  Physiology is subject to Regulation
                  Theory (formerly known as Theology). No,
                  unfortunately, it is now the theory of
                  Physics that has to re-adjust to the facts coming from
                  life sciences, just like
                  these had to give up long-held dogmata after being
                  repeatedly shown facts of
                  evidence. The table has turned now. The fact is that
                  you cannot procreate
                  unless some circumstances are ideal. The requirements
                  of maintaining an ideal
                  surrounding leads to requirements relating to ordered
                  changes in the
                  environment (that the changes that come – e.g. by tide
                  and daylight rhythms –
                  will happen in an ordered way, where all the rules
                  that come from <i>a=a </i>are
                  observed) and that the elements are complying with the
                  changes in the
                  surrounding environment. Therefore the surrounding
                  environment has to be made
                  up such that it obeys laws that govern well ordered
                  assemblies that undergo
                  changes. Sorting pictures the ranking of elements of a
                  set according to a
                  property (e.g. being well prepared for
                  cold/drought/predators, etc.)<span></span></span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
                0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
                New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">Sorting
                  things around and reordering them again, and watching
                  the
                  patterns they make as they follow the rules of
                  combinatorics, one discovers
                  that whatever small thing it is that consists of two
                  parts, in an idealised
                  assembly, under external influences the elements will
                  group up, spontaneously,
                  because it is in their nature to react so. Please
                  watch the exciting life of
                  elements of a set while being reordered. One can
                  educate himself massively on
                  the subject of ‘order’ by playing with his tautomat.
                  Like playing with a
                  general version of the Rubik cube. <span></span></span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
                0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
                New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">Had
                  our culture allowed concepts of individuality of
                  elements as the
                  basis of Logic and therefore of Arithmetic and all her
                  descendants, we would
                  live in a different society. It could not have
                  happened before our times
                  anyway, because one needs computers to delineate and
                  concretise the concepts
                  that we discuss. We have now the technical means to
                  sing about the heroics of
                  the little individual Dinge an sich; what we need now
                  is the inner permission
                  to be curious. Some songs will sound familiar to
                  professionals: there are
                  charms, up and down jumpers, spinners, bosoms, muons
                  and some more. The
                  individual Dinge are quite flexible: in dependence of
                  external influences, they
                  will match up with distinctly separate gangs of other
                  individual Dinge,
                  therefore taking part in several great adventures. The
                  problem is that you do
                  not need to excavate a huge circular tunnel with the
                  circumference of a great
                  number of kilometres, so a small city’s worth of
                  well-paid professionals will
                  not earn their bread, once people say, well one can
                  figure that out much
                  cheaper! Bring me <i>n</i> urns and <i>n</i> balls,
                  <i>d </i>colors, some
                  robots and a few scribes and you will see what
                  particles build up a unit (the
                  term <i>particle </i>in itself is an authoritarian
                  one, imposing identity on
                  the object named by suggesting it is a part, a small
                  one, of a greater Ding. It
                  is otherwise: the greater is built up of the parts,
                  not the smaller gets
                  created by misadventures of the Whole. Let us stay
                  with Kant, it is the Ding an
                  sich, but now, ready for a spin out in the world,
                  painted in two colors. These
                  coloured things team up for some moments for some
                  tasks, and some of them stay
                  together for very long, but the world is not a
                  collection of fragments of a
                  broken Ultimate Whole.)<span></span></span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
                0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
                New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt
                36pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
                New Roman","serif""><i><span
                    style="font-size:14pt" lang="EN-GB">By the way,
                    I would argue that the clarity of the status of
                    matter, i.e., the chemical
                    table of elements and their compositions, augmented
                    by a huge range of physical
                    measurements that span variables from all physical
                    units of measure, is vastly
                    clearer than any theory of physics.<span></span></span></i></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt
                36pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
                New Roman","serif""><i><span
                    style="font-size:14pt" lang="EN-GB">Does not the
                    theory of wave mechanics emanate from the physics of
                    atoms and composites? Or,
                    shall we simply agree that the relationships from
                    between physical theories
                    form a “which came first, the chicken or the egg?”;</span></i><i><span
                    style="font-size:13.5pt" lang="EN-GB"> “The union
                    of units unite the unity."</span></i><i><span
                    style="font-size:14pt" lang="EN-GB"><span></span></span></i></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
                0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
                New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
                0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
                New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">The
                  chemical elements are logical archetypes. That they
                  exist and that
                  they have such characteristics, which allow them to be
                  grouped in several ways
                  into types, is beyond any question. They are part of
                  the setup. <span></span></span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
                0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
                New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">Let
                  us discuss a large warehouse with many items that are
                  subject to
                  seasonal fluctuations of demand. The inner logistics
                  of the warehouse has to
                  keep up with optimising the retrieval costs by
                  re-arranging the contents such
                  that the most often sold product shall be the closest
                  to the packaging area.
                  Now we state two hypothesises: 1) if the warehouse is
                  not optimised, pileups,
                  traffic jams, are to be expected among delivery boys
                  fetching the merchandise,
                  2) the actions of optimising the warehouse contribute
                  to the inner traffic of
                  the warehouse, and by that means cause pileups,
                  traffic jams, are to be
                  expected among delivery boys fetching the merchandise.
                  The quantity and the
                  quality (type, constituents) of the pileups will
                  differ, but pileups will come
                  into existence. Some points in space are more sought
                  after than other points
                  (entrance and exit of the warehouse). The pileups are
                  distinguishable. These
                  are what is called chemical elements. We are playing
                  presently with interference
                  patterns coming from the two differing sub-segments of
                  the common space, but
                  arranging playing-card type pictures of triangles
                  intersecting each other is a
                  very time-consuming hobby. Anyone interested in
                  naturally generated hiccups and
                  pileups in theoretical space?<span></span></span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
                8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
                New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
                8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
                New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">Now
                  the time has come to go beyond
                  answering your questions and offering a concept which
                  can clarify the relation
                  between the special case (Shannon) and the general
                  system. This relates to the
                  sadly neglected topic of the cuts.</span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
                8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
                New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">As
                  we have learnt that 5 is 1+1+1+1+1, we
                  have seen this demonstrated on the number line, with
                  cuts creating the unit
                  distances. Then we have learnt that 2+3=5. We have
                  seen two and then three
                  units placed alongside each other and we have counted
                  that these are indeed
                  five. What we neglected to ask, is the following: what
                  happened to that noble
                  and valiant Cut of the Second Class that formerly
                  separated the Two from the
                  Three? Had it been demoted to a simple, unimportant,
                  common Cut First Class?
                  Does this little inexactitude not come back and hunt
                  us as a mysterious vanity
                  of Nature?</span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
                8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
                New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">Shannon
                  keeps the deep silence of one who
                  has ridden roughshod across the Society of Cuts. Not
                  so us.</span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
                8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
                New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">We
                  account for the cuts very exactly,
                  because it is them who determine the structure of the
                  set. If you have a Cut of
                  Class {(2,(7,4,3),/insert funny notation here/, etc. }
                  (that is a cut that
                  separates two from among seven of which 4 are in 1
                  more group and 3 in 2 more
                  groups) being different from a Cut of Class
                  {8,(11,7,0,5)}, then you can keep
                  count of the cuts and keeping count of the states of
                  the set is more or less
                  superfluous. If you have a usual distribution of the
                  types of cuts, then the
                  actual measurement (experience) can be compared to
                  that, on the level of the
                  messages about cuts, which more or less exactly
                  describes the state of the set.
                  The additional advantage of bookkeeping the cuts is
                  that they translate into
                  First Class cuts, if the need arises to become
                  linearised. If we play with 136
                  puppets (as is the most reasonable way to do), Shannon
                  has 136 cuts that are
                  all alike. The tautomat generates a varied diversity
                  of cuts that are a
                  description of the set’s state. If we match each state
                  of the tautomat to one
                  of the states of Shannon, we see that in the intervals
                  1-32 and 97-135ff
                  Shannon has more alternatives to carry messages
                  expressed by the state of the
                  set that numbers <i>n</i> elements. Within the range
                  of 33-96 however, with a
                  peak at 67, up to 3.4 times more alternatives are
                  there for the state to have
                  states in its form (reading) as a complete assembly
                  than as a sequenced
                  collection of elements. </span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
                8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
                New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">Information
                  is a description of the
                  remaining alternatives. The remaining alternatives do
                  not exist in this moment
                  /they remain/. This is the reason the birth of the
                  concept is so much of
                  endless pain and futile efforts. In logic it is
                  strictly forbidden to talk
                  about things that do not exist. Maybe one can help
                  with the idea that we talk
                  about the cuts, because the cuts do exist. Their
                  biodiversity has not been
                  addressed yet. The cuts appear to be the origami
                  mechanism that unfolds from a
                  linear order into an elaborate composition. </span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
                8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
                New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
                8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
                New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">The
                  last point is a reassuring thought: we
                  already do have a very detailed table of all possible
                  collections of cuts – of group
                  boundaries – which come from the elements’
                  belonging-to to cycles. It looks
                  promising to investigate, how the collection of cuts
                  does not change if the set
                  is linearised. It appears that the cuts are the actual
                  carriers of information,
                  as they detail, which alternatives remain, and this
                  independently of linear or
                  spatial neighbourhood.</span></p>
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm 0cm
                8pt;line-height:107%;font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
                New Roman","serif""><span lang="EN-GB">Thank
                  you for addressing by your questions
                  some interesting topics.<a
                    name="m_4414160887436725937__GoBack"
                    moz-do-not-send="true"></a> </span></p>
            </div>
            <div>Karl<br>
            </div>
          </div>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-- 
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group

<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es">pcmarijuan.iacs@aragon.es</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/">http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/</a>
------------------------------------------------- </pre>
  <div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br /> <table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
        <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="" width="46" height="29" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;" /></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" target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;">www.avast.com</a>           </td>
        </tr>
</table>
<a href="#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1" height="1"> </a></div></body>
</html>