Re: [Patents] Greg: Why information is physical

[Xavi Drudis Ferran <xdrudis@tinet.org>]

Disclaimer: I'm quite lost here.

> 
> > A recent German Patent Office document declares that information is
> > physical enough to allow information processes (i.e. software) to be
> > patentable under most conditions.  For example, they write (somewhat
> > ill-formed semantically, though):
> 
> >     .... it is immediately apparent that the field of technology
> >     alters to the extent that natural forces are controllable.
> >     The field of information is therefore also included, at least
> >     so far as it is controllable by natural forces, that is to say,
> >     can be represented by physical variables in the form of data
> >     and processed by machine, thus producing systematic results with
> >     clear cause and effect.  In this sense, information can be
> >     regarded as a physical variable and data processing as a
> >     physical process.
> >

It sounds like a sophism to me. The embodiment of information is not
the information itself, you might see information as an abstraction of
a class of embodiments that would convey the same meaning (or of
observations of those embodiments), but the abstraction (or better,
the observation) process is a jump from physics to reason. The fact
that you can represent information by data on magnetic fields or ink
moisture in a paper does not mean that data is physical, just as the
fact that you can represent a text in different encodings does not
mean that the text is numeric.

I think it is pointless to argue. It's an axiomatic thing. 
You can probably explain the world thinking everything is data and 
algorithms or you can explain it by thinking there's a physical 
world and then there's logics. It's like trying to prove God 
exists or it doesn't. You can believe any. But if you believe 
your god requires you to steal my work I will do my best to 
stop you, no matter what you believe. 

> >
> >     Algorithmic randomness provides a rigorous, entropylike measure of
> > disorder of an individual, microscopic, definite state of a physical
> > system. It is defined by the size (in binary digits) of the shortest
> > message specifying the microstate uniquely up to the assumed resolution.

> > Equivalently, algorithmic randomness can be expressed as the number of
> > bits in the smallest program for a universal computer that can reproduce
> > the state in question (for instance, by plotting it with the assumed
> > accuracy). In contrast to the traditional definitions of entropy,
> > algorithmic randomness can be used to measure disorder without any
> > recourse to probabilities. Algorithmic randomness is typically very

???? I don't understand. The only way I know to establish the shortest
size of a message specifying something is by assuming some probability
distribution on the values of that something (even if you usually
assume uniform distribution when you don't know it or don't care to
study it). That's the channel model in Shannon, if I understood
anything about information theory at all.

> >    Physical entropy, the author suggests, is a sum of (i) the missing
> > information measured by Shannon's formula and (ii) of the algorithmic
> > information content-algorithmic randomness-present in the available data
> > about the system. This definition of entropy is essential in describing
> > the operation of thermodynamic engines from the viewpoint of information
> > gathering and using systems. These Maxwell demon-type entities are capable
> > of acquiring and processing information and therefore can 'decide' on the
> > basis of the results of their measurements and computations the best
> > strategy for extracting energy from their surroundings. From their
> > internal point of view the outcome of each measurement is definite.
> > The limits on the thermodynamic efficiency arise not from the ensemble
> > considerations, but rather reflect basic laws of computation. Thus
> > inclusion of algorithmic randomness in the definition of physical entropy
> > allows one to formulate thermodynamics from the Maxwell demon's point of
> > view.
>
I haven't understood a single bit. 


-- 
Xavi Drudis Ferran
xdrudis@tinet.org