RE: [FMG-SPAM] - Re: [Fis] a definition of information - BayesianFilter detected spam

> I do not disagree with this, but the way I make the
> connection is different from the usual one, and I do think it
> makes a big difference for our understanding of meaning. It
> is both biological, psychological and cultural.

Dear Soeren and colleagues,

When we move from an interaction between two dynamics (e.g., social and
biological as in the previous exchange) to a three-dimensional one (like
the interaction between biological, psychological and cultural) the
information-theoretical problem is very differently defined. From this
perspective, we seem to agree.

Whereas the mutual information in two dimensions is always positive, the
mutual information in three dimensions can be negative. I owe this to
Bob Ulanowicz (who may be listening?) and I have elaborated on this with
empirical examples in a paper entitled
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/th4/index.htm> The Mutual Information of
University-Industry-Government Relations: An Indicator of the Triple
Helix Dynamics, Scientometrics 58(2), 445-467. <
<http://users.fmg.uva.nl/lleydesdorff/th4/T(uig).pdf> pdf-version>

The case that you indicate of a certain correspondence between the three
dimensions corresponds to a depiction of three Venn-diagrams with a
common zone of overlap. The mutual information in three dimensions is
then positive. But one can move the three circles out so that an empty
zone is created among them. In this case the coordination between the
three spheres (helices) is based on the three mutual zones of overlap
and when all these overlaps transmit a hypercycle can be formed on top
of them. In this case the mutual information in three dimensions is
negative: a negative (probabilistic) entropy is contained within this
system. (One can also depict this system as a tetraheder of spheres
operating upon one another.)

Although I can easily see the interesting points about this model from
the perspective of using information theory in empirical research about
complex systems, I find it more difficult to see how that would lead to
a correspondence between biological, psychological and cultural meaning.
Each of these systems can be expected to select the meaningful
information from the noise along its own time axis (that is, using its
own code). These dynamics cannot be expected to correspond (unless one
assumes a harmonie preetablie a la Leibniz), and I therefore expect this
configuration to lead to a negative entropy in the mutual information
among them. These systems tend to become complex. Among three
subdynamics a harmony cannot be expected to last.

I know that you are particularly interested in large accolades which can
then be labeled as philosophical groundings. However, the complex system
is emergent (ex post) and not grounded in a common denominator (ex
ante). It is precisely in this play with the time axis that Rosen's
ideas are different from Leibniz's. Leibniz's model was based on the
harmonic solution as these were popular among 17th century physicists
(Kepler, etc.).

Let me not finish this email without also expressing my condoleances
with all those in Spain who have lost relatives and friends.

With kind regards,

Loet

  _____

Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
 <mailto:loet@leydesdorff.net> loet@leydesdorff.net ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/

 <http://www.upublish.com/books/leydesdorff-sci.htm> The Challenge of
Scientometrics ; <http://www.upublish.com/books/leydesdorff.htm> The
Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society
Received on Sun Mar 14 08:12:46 2004