physics, entropy and information

Since my views fit into a pansemiotics (which some on this list call
pan-informationist), then, I have a few comments on James Barham's
post.

J. Barham/Juan said that "in a natural system we cannot have
'information alone' detached from any interaction process past,
present or future; information is always there for a
purpose....structural order alone does not represent information -
information appears only when structural order leads to specific
change elsewhere". This is basic Aristotle, Peirce...and a modern
version is Goertzel. The point is - 'information alone' doesn't exist
anywhere, unless you define 'information' as Platonic Form or
structure. And, as pointed out, structure/form/Information
alone...doesn't exist 'per se'. Therefore, why does James conclude
that such a view will not be agreed to by 'pan-informationists'? Why,
James, do you think that someone who is a pan semiotician (I prefer
that term to pan-informationist) - would think that information is a
'fundamental constituent????

You state that pan informationists think that information is a
'fundamental constituent of the universe on an ontological par with
matter and energy'. Now - I speak only for myself but I certainly
disagree with this statement. My view, repeated often enough, is that
the fundamental constituent of the universe is energy. Period. When
energy is moved into spatial and temporal relations, which are only
possible within gradients of energy, then, it is matter. What is
matter? It is energy that is in measured relations with other
energy/matter. As such, it is 'informed matter'. Informed matter
operates in a variety of states or relations. Some relations are
short-term, volatile, operative only in present time. That's 'data'.
When this volatile energy is 'cooled', so to speak by being organized
within long term habits, then, it is 'information'. But- informed
matter is simply matter that is existent in relations to other matter.
A plant is drawing water from the soil. The water is 'information' to
the plant, because it is in a particular relation to the plant.

I think that you are confusing information with 'message'. Two
different things. That seems to me what you mean by your monadic and
dyadic interactions. I don't think that anything purely monadic
exists. I can't imagine what a monadic entity would be. Certainly, in
the abiotic and biotic world - such a thing can't exist. In the
socioconceptual realm - well, there are societies, fundamentalist or
otherwise, that certainly try to inhibit interactions with others.
They will inevitably collapse.

You further mention the term 'intrinsic information'. What is this?
Again, sounds like some Platonic Form.

I don't think that most scientists view an organism as 'nothing more
than the sum of its parts'. They aren't vitalists because they are not
reductionists.

But - information obviously means different things to us. I don't
think of it as a message. Messages can be viewed as part of the
mechanics of information-processing (chemicals inhibiting or promoting
interactions) and in that state, I would call such messages 'data'.
Information, to me, is a result of the interaction of data being
processed and obviously affects both sides of the interaction. Both
are 'informed'. I would also agree with Norbert Fenzl, that S is not I
but S is a condition for I. Very much so. Data is more related to
entropy, for data is relatively unbound energy entering a
system...and can be transformed into information..or not.

And, there's that all important 'fundamental constant', so to speak -
the mediative role of Habit, or compressed information, ie,
Knowledge - that few on this list ever talk about.

Edwina Taborsky
39 Jarvis St. #318
Toronto, Ontario M5E 1Z5
(416) 361.0898
Received on Mon Jun 3 22:23:14 2002