Re: Replies to Juan, and John & Norbert

Dear Fisers
just a brief comment
James said:
 
> Certainly, it is no accident that the Shannon equation takes the same
> form as the Boltzmann equation. After all, one might say that what
> Shannon was doing was analyzing the statistical mechanics of
> communication channels. But that does not mean that information and
> thermodynamic entropy are the same thing. After all, it is no accident
> that the equations describing electromagnetic and mechanical waves have
> the same form, either. They are both WAVES.

At this point I agree completely, and it was exactly what I wanted to say. Both equations describe a similar relation (motion) for different systems. Information (I) is not thermodinamic entropy (S)... BUT in opens sytsems they are related. Open systems use a part of their total input energy to overcome structural inertia, what means "randomization" of the microstate of the system (or makes the macrostate less probable). This IS entropy (S) and is an important part of the whole Information process, because thats how structural Information is being "actualized". So S is not I but S is a condition for I.

> But just as light and water differ in many other respects, so too do
> information and thermodynamic entropy. The main way they differ is that
> information is intrinsically MEANINGFUL for some cognitive agent. To use
> the word "information" in a way that neglects its meaning is to misuse
> words, in my view, and to sow confusion.
> Meaning is the heart of the matter. Or, more precisely, the VALUE that
> structures have for cognitive agents in light of their goals is the
> essence of information. So, value is the heart of the matter.

Here we reach some very sensitive point:
IF you define Information as meaningful for a cognitive agent and you presume that only bio- or socio system have that quality, THAN of course you are absolutly right and I respect your conclusion, but I have to disagree.
On the other hand, I would agree completely with your definition if we presume that this is valid for ALL open sytems, respecting the different levels of evolution and qualities of complexity.
So, we should start to make very precise and tough definitions among the terms and concepts we use: like meaning, cognitive agent, value..
best regards
Norbert
Received on Mon Jun 3 17:04:24 2002