Re: [Fis] A definition of Information

From: Stanley N. Salthe <[email protected]>
Date: Tue 24 Feb 2004 - 00:20:00 CET

Replying to S�ren:
Entropy IS like Shiva because, not only is it formed spontaneously from
energy gradients as they dissipate, but it also forms from available energy
as that is used to derive exergy during work. So building is accomplised
only by burning an external gradient. Whatever happens -- positive,
negative or nothing, entropy forms.
     Now, I do not put the Second Law "over" a law of the mind. The
specification hierarchy moves from the most generally present phenomena to
the most particular, as in : {most generally present {most particular}}.
Now here the most particular is "higher" than the more generally present.
In fact it 'integrates' these generalities to its own ends. It is just
that S�ren did not understand the organizing principle of the specification
hierarchy.
     As to the three categories, one way to arrange them in specfication
terms (that is, creating a new subclass when more information is required
to describe something), we could have {Firstness {Secondness {Thirdness}}}.
The problem with this simple view is that it might be argued that the whole
hierarchy is also a Thirdness, especially if we read it as a temporal
process of emergence, as in {Firstness -> {Secondness -> {Thirdness}}}.

STAN

>I agree that it seem a good idea to ascribe meaning differently based on
>the levels of the hierarchy. But as Pedro remarks : is entropy really
>foundational? Shiva is actually the god for both destruction and
>creation, because you often have to destroy the old to produce something
>new. Peirce see this and says that sometimes the habit formation of
>evolution will be broken and some new connection be constructed.
>
>But Stan; being a Peircian pansemiotician how can you put the second law
>over the law of mind (the tendency to produce habits) and the fact that
>the pure feeling of Firstness is behind and in everything. This view
>does not attack the foundational character of the second law for the
>irreversibility of evolution and establishing the arrow of time in
>physics, but it does give a new perspective on meaning and Cosmogony.
>
>
>"Stanley N. Salthe" wrote:
>>
>> > Hello Stan: I appreciated your quick response. You say that Information
>> >is any constraint on entropy production. What this implies is that
>> >information is a constraint on the production of disorder ( another term
>> >for entropy) which can only happen if there is the introduction of order.
>> >The only way we can consider the concept of order as opposed to disorder
>> >is by means of some differentiating attribute; some meaning about the
>> >thing that is "ordered" as opposed to "disordered". This is of course
>> >radically different from the philosophical perspective taken by Shannon
>> >and followers. Your thoughts? And thanks. Syed
>>
>> Syed -- Remember that much entropy production is a by-product of order
>> production by agents. It is for that reason that entropy production is the
>> most general appreciation of material dynamics. Whatever happens produces
>> entropy from dissipated gradients. Now, as to whether or not the reason
>> for anything happening IS in order to produce entropy, I like to note that
>> we are in a radically disequilibrated world (otherwise we could not be
>> here). Then, (assuming that the Universe is isolated) we know that it's
>> strong tendency is to move toward equilibrium. Now, using the
>> specification hierarchy: {physical world {material world {biological world
>> {{{etc.}}}}, we can see that it is possible to allocate explanation to
>> different integrative levels. So, at the material level we can say that
>> whatever happens has the purpose of producing entropy. At the biological
>> level we find several possible purposes (final causes). For example
>> Darwinians say that whatever happens serves to increase the "fitness" of
>> populations. So, {entropy production {fitness increase}}. And so on. At
>> the sociocultural level, one agency's order may be another's disorder --
>> consider our favorite pasttime, war. So, yes, I agree that parsing events
>> into order or disorder requires a system of interpretance to make the
>> decision. From the Universe's point of view, they would all be equal!
>> Now, if the Big Bang had not been so acceleratedy rapid, this problem
>> of returning to equilibrium would not be with us (nor would we be here).
>> WE are constraints on entropy production because we are part of the
>> material accumulations on the surface of the earth as a result of some of
>> the Sun's energy being captured rather than being serenely reflected off
>> into space. Because we ARE we must serve that greatest Deity, the Second
>> Law -- even by dying!
>>
>> STAN
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fis mailing list
>> fis@listas.unizar.es
>> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>--
>Best wishes S�ren Brier
>
>Copenhagen Business School
>Dept. of Management, Politics and Philosophy
>Bl�g�rdsgade 23 B, 3. floor, room 326, DK-2200 Copenhagen N.
>Telephone +45 38152208, mail sbr.lpf@cbs.dk .
>
>Old home page with full text papers:
>http://www.flec.kvl.dk/personalprofile.asp?id=sbr&p=engelsk
>
>Ed. of Cybernetics & Human Knowing http://www.imprint-academic.com/C&HK
>Subscription sandra@imprint.co.uk, support this interdisciplinary
>cybernetic, systemic and semiotic endeavor! Vol. 10:3-4 is a unique
>tribute to Heinz von Foerster!

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Mon Feb 23 23:15:31 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon 07 Mar 2005 - 10:24:46 CET