Re: Biological Information

Dear Ray:
Dear Werner:

The question of the nature of "information" has been widely debated for
several decades.
A very articulated discussion of the relation of information to biology
was prepared by Prof. Miller (Living Systems, 1978, McGraw-Hill, 1102
pages.) In this scholarly tome, Prof. Miller systematically discusses
the hierarchical structure of information in biology and social systems,
often seeking quantitative expressions (in terms of Shannon formula).
The orderly progression of construction of information is systematically
analysed and synthesised in terms of 19 subsystems at each of 6
hierarchical levels.

 Werner, your consistent view that:

> NO INFORMATION COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT FROM
> LIFE IS KNOWN,

 is true... if and only if one assumes that the entire universe is
connected, then all of everything is connected. So, life is connected
to everything in the universe and vice versa. At this level of system's
logic (the entire universe being the "system"), I agree. From a
mathematical perspective, the Platonic ideal of "complete independence"
is needed to separate variables which may be loosely coupled in the real
world. One task facing scientists who are curious about the role of
information in biology is to understand when loosely coupled variables
are important and when they can be neglected. (Tradionally, I would
add, both physics and engineering has neglected the loose coupling of
systems because the mathematics becomes intractable. (For example,
consider the quantum mechanical calculation of the information
(conformation) of a protein molecule.) Thus, the "myth" of independence
could be viewed as a dogma necessary for analytical solutions and
engineering successes - for human actions in a pragmatic world. All
living systems are coupled to the ecoment (the immediate surroundings)
and demonstrate a sensitivity to initial conditions with respect to many
variables from the ecoment. This loose coupling of an organism to its
ecoment is absolutely necessary for acquiring essential nutrients to
sustain itself.

In summary, while your assertion about "completely independent" may be
myth-breaking for the physics / engineering community, Professor
Miller's work suggests that this is well recognized by the biological
community and the philosophical community.

> > * Is it different to information physicists discuss ?
> NO ITS JUST ANOTHER LANGUAGE.

The question of language is, in my mind, a far deeper issue than
suggested here.
The language of physics is remarkedly sparse - a few dozen terms and a
few dozen equations give a nice foundation for subject. The prime
question is whether these few words can be used to give a "completely
independent" description of human activity. For example, could one give
a meaningful description of a concert, a poem or a sexual desire in
terms of the language of physics? Or, would the loose coupling of
nonlinear variables become the dominent 'form-creating' source of the
dynamics?

Another example of language. Can one imagine giving a "completely
independent" description of a conscious movement of a human being in
terms of the actions of the individual atoms of the body? (One
estimates about 10 to the 27 atoms in a mature adult.) This example
suggests that the systematic organisation of closures (as previously
discussed) is critical to the formation of scientific languages. Can
the language of physics be expanded to describe life forms? If so,
would a physical language of life produce anything significantly
different from the existng languages of biology and medicine?

In conclusion, we seek a method to distinguish the real stuff of physics
from the philosophies of the physicists. This is a tough problem (far
more difficult than mathematics because the logic is occult.) Koichiro
very wisely suggested to me (several years ago) that the conservation
rules are a good starting point for this task. Do any other possible
starting points exist which might help us in making this separation?

Cheers to All

Jerry LR Chandler
Research Professor
Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study
George Mason University

Prof.Dr. Werner Ebeling wrote:
>
> >
> > Dear FIS Colleagues
> SHORT COMMENTS FROM WEB
> >
> > The Kindergarden Questions
> > --------------------------
> > [these are the questions we ask when young, no-one can answer
> > us at that stage and then when we grow up we find that still,
> > no-one can answer us !!!]
> >
> > * What is information ?
> see Wiener INFORMATION IS INFORMATION
> > * Is information no less than an artefact of observation ?
> CERTAINLY NOT
> > * What is biological information ?
> THIS IS THE TRUE INFORMATION, NO INFORMATION COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT FROM
> LIFE IS KNOWN, OR IS THERE ANYBODY AMONG THE FIS-PEOPLE WHO KNOWS IT BETTER??
> > * Is it different to information physicists discuss ?
> NO ITS JUST ANOTHER LANGUAGE.
>
> WERNER EBELING
>
> >
> >
> > BioInformation - an Historical Anachronism ?
> > --------------------------------------------
> > The rise in the notion of information in biological
> > systems could be related to the contemporary scientific
> > culture of mid 40s - mid 50s - - information theory,
> > formal languages, computational science etc. Maybe the
> > metaphorc notion of text and language, which gave rise
> > to notions of codes, messages, transcription and translation
> > is due for replacement. The notions associated with
> > genome as program are far too simplistic. At the end of the day,
> > will this approach simply facilitate syntax and no semantics ?
> > Is gaining semantic understand nothing but a philosophical
> > dream?
> TO ME THIS IS THE ESSENCE NOT JUST A DREAM !!!
> I LIKE THE VIEWS OF MICHAEL CONRADS ON MATTERS OF
> BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION
>
> > Information - - Matter, Energy and Measurement
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > The Internalist stance. How can we develop the intellectual tools
> > needed to reason from this point of view ?
> >
> I DO NOT SEE HERE THE REAL SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM
>
> REGARDS FROM MADRID, WHERE I STAY AT THE MOMENT
> ITS SPRING TIME HERE
>
> Werner Ebeling
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Fri Feb 20 18:27:09 1998