Re: Einstein and biology

["James N Rose" <***>]

> Pete Giansante wrote:
>
> Hi Jamie:
>
> I have inserted some specific questions below, the answers to which will serve
> to reduce a bit of my own ignorance:
>
>     >  [JNR:]
>     >
>     >  ...its no wonder or surprise that Warren Weaver
>     >  advised Claude Shannon (via their collaboration through the Ford
>     >  Foundation)
>     >  to use the word 'entropy' in his development of information theory.
>     >  (!)
>     >
>     >
> That statement was a bit of a lightning bolt, as I have always been under the
> impression that it was Shannon's own unique genius that spotted the similarity
> between his mathematical concept of information and thermodynamic entropy. I
> don't have the source handy, but I have a memory of John von Neumann's having
> traced Shannon's influences back to Boltzmann's observation that entropy is
> related to "missing information".
>
> I suspect that one of my principal inputs in ascribing the information/entropy
> connection to Shannon is John R. Pierce's classic An Introduction to Information
> Theory: Symbols, Signals and Noise (Dover - 1961, 1980). I also recall some
> inputs from Wiener, although I can't say where, exactly, and I'm not motivated
> to undertake a search through my Weiner library... I have everything Wiener ever
> published.
>
> Hmmm... I just checked my copy of the original 1949 edition of Shannon & Weaver,
> The Mathematical Theory of Communication, and I found the following relevant
> passage in Footnote #1, Chapter 1.1, p. 3, which is in Warren Weaver's part of
> the book:
>
>      [WW:]
>
>      "...Dr. Shannon has himself emphasized that communication theory owes
>      a great debt to Professor Norbert Wiener for much of its basic
>      philosophy. Professor Wiener, on the other hand, points out that
>      Shannon's early work on switching and mathematical logic antedated his
>      own interest in this field; and generously adds that Shannon certainly
>      deserves credit for independent development of such fundamental
>      aspects of the theory as the introduction of entropic ideas."
>
> That seems pretty conclusive to me as a documentation of Shannon's independency
> in his inclusion of entropy in the original in development of information
> theory, and all the more so because the attribution comes from Weaver himself.

Pete, I can't find my source at the moment, but I read a few
years ago that Weaver urged Shannon to explicitly use the term
entropy when Shannon was going to avoid it or use a different
term.

> Nevertheless, it's an important enough matter that I would want to be certain
> about Shannon's originality in linking entropy to information, especially if you
> have access to special knowledge that you are at liberty to disclose. I would
> greatly appreciate any references to source material you could provide in
> documenting Weaver's originality in the entropy/information link you have
> mentioned. I would, especially appreciate access to any special knowledge that
> you are at liberty to disclose.

I just can't track it down at the moment.  It was something I picked
up out of the public domain, already published somewhere.  I did find
one semi-related piece and have to correct something, it was the Rockefeller
Foundation, not Ford.

In the meantim, you might find this of interest:

<http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/weaver/weaver-1947b.htm>

I was so impressed discovering Weaver's connection with Shannon,
that I transcribed the 1947 Weaver paper to the web, because
there was little or no material about him and his role re
informaton theory on the web at all.  Now there is.  :-)



>     >  In any event, Rosennean Complexity is true complexity, seen
>     >  from the vantage understanding of 'generalizations of systems',
>     >  quite in the
>     >  standing of Bertalanffy, Beer, Miller, Rapoport, Ashby, Boulding.
>     >
> Well... I'm 3 for 6 on that pantheon of what I assume you consider to be
> "general system theory" minds, which I guess ain't bad "for a physicist", as
> they say. I have studied von Bertalanffy (General System Theory and Perspectives
> on General System Theory), Rapoport (General System Theory), and Ashby (Design
> for a Brain and An Introduction to Cybernetics), but I am unfamiliar with the
> works of Beer, Miller, and Boulding (as far as I know -- although just now, Beer
> rings a bell for some reason). May I presume upon your expertise and generosity
> in requesting recommended readings in their works for a neophyte like me?
>
> Incidentally, I find references to "complexity" in Ashby, but I have not found
> how he defines it, which does make it somewhat difficult to know exactly what
> he's talking about. I would be grateful if you could point me in the direction
> of any of Ashby's work that is definitive of "complexity".
>
> One last question of a personal nature -- and since I don't have your permission
> to ask it, you need not feel obligated to reply. Anatol Rapoport's classic
> text,  General System Theory: Essential Concepts and Applications was published
> as Volume 10 of the Abacus Press Cybernetics and Systems Series, whose
> Editor-in-Chief is listed as a "Dr. J. Rose, Blackburn". Are you that same "Dr.
> J. Rose"?
>
> Thanks in advance for your response.

:-)  I'm a different J.Rose.  But am glad to see the same 'family name'
(we're not related as far as I know) done up in print.  :-)

Re the references .. please email me directly with the subject line
of the email "'General Systems' references wanted"  or something similar
for me to flag and reply to directly next week or so, ok Pete?  Thanks.

BTW, what aspect of physics do you specialize in?

Best regards,

Jamie

> Best regards,
>
> PVG