glossaLAB - User contributions [en]

Draft:Structure

2026-01-23T12:30:10Z

Frederik J. Schmidt: added "usage of llm´s"

{{Proposal
|Was created on date=2025-12-22
|Created from clarus=Understanding Complexity
|Has author=Frederik Jasper Schmidt (Frederik J. Schmidt)
|Has publication status=glossaLAB:Open
}}
Structure is, contrary to [[:en:Ontology|ontological]] conceptions, not a [[substance]] from a systems-theoretical perspective, even though substances may be structurally relevant for a [[system]] (Luhmann, Niklas 1997, p. 74)<ref name=":0">Niklas Luhmann. Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. 1997 Suhrkamp</ref>. Structures are therefore not the environment itself, but rather the environment’s connectable utilization as processed by the system that defines itself (Luhmann, Niklas 1997, p. 92, p. 100<ref name=":0" />; Foerster, Heinz von, p. 3)<ref name=":1">Foerster, Heinz von. Understanding Understanding. Essays on Cybernetics and Cognition. 2003 Springer-Verlag New York</ref>.

Structure is the [[condensate]] of recursive autopoiesis, the repeatable within difference (ibdm, Preface: viii),<ref name=":1" /> which enables the processing of the [[:en:IESC:COMPLEXITY|complexity]] of difference through the banalization of indifference (Luhmann, Niklas, 1997, pp. 46ff)<ref name=":0" />. [[:en:Perturbación|Perturbation]]<nowiki/>s are processed [[Self-referential|self-referentially]] (ibdm. pp. 92ff)<ref name=":0" />, whereby structure itself is not visible to the system, but only [[reconstructable]] (ibdm. 77f)<ref name=":0" />.

A distinction can be made between [[:en:IESC:COUPLING_(Loose)|loosely]] and [[:en:IESC:COUPLING_(Excessive)|tightly]] [[:en:IESC:STRUCTURAL_COUPLING|coupled]] structures.

Loose couplings enable an increase in complexity by providing a [[form]] of backup for variable demands (Luhmann, Niklas, 1987, pp. 377ff)<ref name=":2">Niklas Luhmann. Soziale Systeme Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie. 1987 Suhrkamp</ref>, whereas tightly coupled structures are necessary for the fundamental maintenance of [[:en:gB:Autopoiesis|autopoiesis]] (ibid. 385ff)<ref name=":2" />.

=== Usage of Llm´s ===
The article was developed and written in German first. It was subsequently translated into English in collaboration with ChatGPT, with the explicit aim of achieving more precise and idiomatic phrasing while preserving the intended meaning and argumentative [[:en:Draft:Structure|structure]].

Draft:Information vs Energy

2026-01-23T12:28:30Z

Frederik J. Schmidt: added "usage of llm´s"

{{Proposal
|Was created on date=2025-12-28
|Created from clarus=Understanding Complexity
|Has author=Frederik Jasper Schmidt (Frederik J. Schmidt)
|Has publication status=glossaLAB:Open
}}

== [[Information]] vs. [[:en:IESC:ENERGY|Energy]] ==
The question of whether energy and information are comparable can be answered in different ways. Energy stays to be an [[:en:IESC:INVARIANT|invariant]] quantity; information, however, is described on the one hand as a computable quantity and on the other as system-relative and therefore abstract (Luhmann, Niklas, 1997 p. 71, 609; Foerster, Heinz von, 2003, p.3) <ref name=":0">Luhmann, Niklas (1997): Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Bd. 1;2. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.</ref><ref name=":1">Von Foerster, Heinz (2003). Understanding Understanding: Essays on Cybernetics and Cognition. New York: Springer-Verlag. </ref>. Neither side refutes the other; rather, the distinction of information performs a re-entry into itself and invites a situational i.e., observer-dependent selection between a [[:en:IESC:CYBERNETICS_(First_and_Second_Order)|first-order and a second-order cybernetic]] perspective on what counts as information (Foerster, Heinz von, 2003, p. 285).<ref name=":1" /> This article aims to clarify the selection of analytical approaches by pointing out their limitations, rather than claiming to provide a neutral or exhaustive overview.

=== Information in first order cybernetics ===
First-order cybernetics specifies in advance what counts as information before the system to be observed is observed. This methodological reduction, bracketing the selective properties of information, is of high epistemic value for clearly delimited problem settings (ibdm, pp. 288-289)<ref name=":1" />, such as those found in engineering and the natural sciences, because it comes with high operability.

Traditions grounded in [[:en:Norbert_Wiener|Norbert Wiener]], [[:en:Shannon,_Claude_Elwood|Claude Shannon]], etc.

==== Typical Assumption (1st Order) ====
Information is what is transmitted through a channel in order to steer system behaviour. In this way, information is treated as a signal-like cause: it has effects because it is (physically) transmitted.

Note that Shannon’s and Weaver´s [http://www.systemspedia.bcsss.org/?title=INFORMATION+THEORY information theory] deliberately brackets semantics: it quantifies signal uncertainty under a specified code and channel, not meaning. Confusions typically arise when this operational notion is silently extended to semantic validity or sense-making.

===== Advantages of this Assumption =====

* High modelability like feedback control, communications engineering, measurement systems.
* Operational availability as one can measure, count, encode, transmit, filter.
* Amenable to causal linkage and therefore testable.

===== Costs of this Assumption =====

* Meaning is easily confused with signal efficacy.
* Who decides what “the signal” is often remains implicit.
* Transmission illusion: ways of thinking develop that assume “meaning” is transmitted whereas in fact only a sign/signal state is transmitted (ibdm, p. 22).<ref name=":1" /> This tends to produce a theory of open systems (Luhmann, Niklas, 1997, p. 92).<ref name=":0" />

=== Information in Second-Order Cybernetics ===
Second-order cybernetics does not begin with the system, but with the observation of the observation of the system. It asks: Under which distinctions is anything counted as information at all?

A constructivist bridge is Bateson’s “[[:en:IESC:DIFFERENCE|difference]] that makes a difference”. Information is not a transported entity, but an attribution of relevance that emerges in [[:en:Draft:Structure|structur]]<nowiki/>al coupling. The “difference” is not located in the environment alone, but in the system’s own selective change under perturbation.

Radical-constructivistic traditions grounded in [[Niklas Luhmann]], [[Heinz von Foerster]], Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela.

==== Typical Assumption (2nd Order) ====
Information is not something “out there”, but something that emerges within the system through selection, it could therefore be called [[:en:gB:Endogenous_information|endogenous information]]. An event in the environment is initially only a [http://www.systemspedia.bcsss.org/?title=PERTURBATION perturbation]; whether it becomes informative is decided by the system’s internal connectability (Anschlussfähigkeit) (Foerster, Heinz von, 2003, pp. 213-214)<ref name=":1" />.

===== Advantages of this Assumption =====

* It becomes visible that “information” always depends on distinctions and is therefore system-relative.
* Meaning and communication are not reduced to signal transport. Sense (Sinn) and reference enable insights beyond mere normativity.
* Demands for total transparency, complete control, or an “objective informational situation” become recognisable as claims to authority over distinctions.

===== Costs of this Assumption =====

* Not everything is measurable or computable.
* Validity is system-relative and not ontologically guaranteed. What functions as an ultimate guarantor differs: in theology, the concept of God; in systems theory, “reality”(Luhmann, Niklas, 1988, p. 29)<ref name=":2">Luhmann, Niklas (1988). Erkenntnis als Konstruktion. Bern, Benteli. P.29</ref>.
* The claim to be a general theory that also applies to itself entails an unusual level of abstraction (Foerster, Heinz von, 2003, pp. 288-289)<ref name=":1" />.

=== The Boundary Point: Re-Entry as a Logical Threshold ===
The sharpest point arises where distinctions concern their own validity:

* “What counts as information here at all?”
* “Which data count as relevant and why?”

Here, a re-entry occurs: the distinction (or its use) itself becomes the object of further distinction (ibdm. p. 301). <ref name=":1" />This has a central consequence: From this point on, validity can no longer be fully “resolved” through additional rules without introducing a new meta-distinction (Chaitin, Gregory, 2002, p.167; Osoria, Ortiz; Diaz Nafria, 2016, p.16)<ref>Ortiz Osoria, H. M., Díaz Nafría, J. M. (2016). The Cybersyn Project as a Paradigm for Managing and Learning in Complexity. Systema 4(2).</ref><ref>Chaitin, Gregory J. (2002). Computers, Paradoxes and the Foundations of Mathematics. American Scientist, Volume 90. </ref>, which in turn presupposes what it is supposed to ground.

Practically, this means for the energy/information question:

As soon as one does not merely measure signals but asks what is to count as information, one is in the second order, and a complete “closure by rules” is logically unattainable. The limit is not a lack of data, but the structure of observation itself.

==== Boundary-Drawing ====
The most productive presentation is neither naive equation nor total separation, but:

* First order: information as a signal-like control variable is legitimate and extremely powerful, so long as one does not covertly smuggle meaning into it.
* Second order: information as selection is indispensable as soon as meaning, validity, observation, and responsibility are in play.
* Coupling: energy and information are structurally coupled, but only insofar as the construction of the observed system’s “reality” is assumed to be complete.
* Boundary: where distinctions thematise their own validity, the limit must be explicitly marked (Luhmann, Niklas, 1988, pp. 23-24).<ref name=":2" />

=== Usage of Llm´s ===
The article was developed and written in German first. It was subsequently translated into English in collaboration with ChatGPT5.2 (extended thinking), with the explicit aim of achieving more precise and idiomatic phrasing while preserving the intended meaning and argumentative structure.

== References ==

Draft:Information vs Energy

2026-01-23T12:13:32Z

Frederik J. Schmidt:

Draft:Information vs Energy

2026-01-21T18:09:05Z

Frederik J. Schmidt:

{{Proposal
|Was created on date=2025-12-28
|Created from clarus=Understanding Complexity
|Has author=Frederik Jasper Schmidt (Frederik J. Schmidt)
|Has publication status=glossaLAB:Open
}}

== [[Information]] vs. [[:en:IESC:ENERGY|Energy]] ==
The question of whether energy and information are comparable can be answered in different ways. Energy stays to be an [[:en:IESC:INVARIANT|invariant]] quantity; information, however, is described on the one hand as a computable quantity and on the other as system-relative and therefore abstract (Luhmann, Niklas, 1997 p. 71, 609; Foerster, Heinz von, 2003, p.3) <ref name=":0">Luhmann, Niklas (1997): Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Bd. 1;2. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.</ref><ref name=":1">Von Foerster, Heinz (2003). Understanding Understanding: Essays on Cybernetics and Cognition. New York: Springer-Verlag. </ref>. Neither side refutes the other; rather, the distinction of information performs a re-entry into itself and invites a situational i.e., observer-dependent selection between a [[:en:IESC:CYBERNETICS_(First_and_Second_Order)|first-order and a second-order cybernetic]] perspective on what counts as information (Foerster, Heinz von, 2003, p. 285).<ref name=":1" /> This article aims to clarify the selection of analytical approaches by pointing out their limitations, rather than claiming to provide a neutral or exhaustive overview.

=== Information in first order cybernetics ===
First-order cybernetics specifies in advance what counts as information before the system to be observed is observed. This methodological reduction, bracketing the selective properties of information, is of high epistemic value for clearly delimited problem settings (ibdm, pp. 288-289)<ref name=":1" />, such as those found in engineering and the natural sciences, because it comes with high operability.

Traditions grounded in [[:en:Norbert_Wiener|Norbert Wiener]], [[:en:Shannon,_Claude_Elwood|Claude Shannon]], etc.

==== Typical Assumption (1st Order) ====
Information is what is transmitted through a channel in order to steer system behaviour. In this way, information is treated as a signal-like cause: it has effects because it is (physically) transmitted.

Note that Shannon’s and Weaver´s [http://www.systemspedia.bcsss.org/?title=INFORMATION+THEORY information theory] deliberately brackets semantics: it quantifies signal uncertainty under a specified code and channel, not meaning. Confusions typically arise when this operational notion is silently extended to semantic validity or sense-making.

===== Advantages of this Assumption =====

* High modelability like feedback control, communications engineering, measurement systems.
* Operational availability as one can measure, count, encode, transmit, filter.
* Amenable to causal linkage and therefore testable.

===== Costs of this Assumption =====

* Meaning is easily confused with signal efficacy.
* Who decides what “the signal” is often remains implicit.
* Transmission illusion: ways of thinking develop that assume “meaning” is transmitted whereas in fact only a sign/signal state is transmitted (ibdm, p. 22).<ref name=":1" /> This tends to produce a theory of open systems (Luhmann, Niklas, 1997, p. 92).<ref name=":0" />

=== Information in Second-Order Cybernetics ===
Second-order cybernetics does not begin with the system, but with the observation of the observation of the system. It asks: Under which distinctions is anything counted as information at all?

A constructivist bridge is Bateson’s “[[:en:IESC:DIFFERENCE|difference]] that makes a difference”. Information is not a transported entity, but an attribution of relevance that emerges in structural coupling. The “difference” is not located in the environment alone, but in the system’s own selective change under perturbation.

Radical-constructivistic traditions grounded in [[Niklas Luhmann]], [[Heinz von Foerster]], Humberto Maturana, Francisco Varela.

==== Typical Assumption (2nd Order) ====
Information is not something “out there”, but something that emerges within the system through selection, it could therefore be called [[:en:gB:Endogenous_information|endogenous information]]. An event in the environment is initially only a [http://www.systemspedia.bcsss.org/?title=PERTURBATION perturbation]; whether it becomes informative is decided by the system’s internal connectability (Anschlussfähigkeit) (Foerster, Heinz von, 2003, pp. 213-214)<ref name=":1" />.

===== Advantages of this Assumption =====

* It becomes visible that “information” always depends on distinctions and is therefore system-relative.
* Meaning and communication are not reduced to signal transport. Sense (Sinn) and reference enable insights beyond mere normativity.
* Demands for total transparency, complete control, or an “objective informational situation” become recognisable as claims to authority over distinctions.

===== Costs of this Assumption =====

* Not everything is measurable or computable.
* Validity is system-relative and not ontologically guaranteed. What functions as an ultimate guarantor differs: in theology, the concept of God; in systems theory, “reality”(Luhmann, Niklas, 1988, p. 29)<ref name=":2">Luhmann, Niklas (1988). Erkenntnis als Konstruktion. Bern, Benteli. P.29</ref>.
* The claim to be a general theory that also applies to itself entails an unusual level of abstraction (Foerster, Heinz von, 2003, pp. 288-289)<ref name=":1" />.

=== The Boundary Point: Re-Entry as a Logical Threshold ===
The sharpest point arises where distinctions concern their own validity:

* “What counts as information here at all?”
* “Which data count as relevant and why?”

Here, a re-entry occurs: the distinction (or its use) itself becomes the object of further distinction (ibdm. p. 301). <ref name=":1" />This has a central consequence: From this point on, validity can no longer be fully “resolved” through additional rules without introducing a new meta-distinction (Chaitin, Gregory, 2002, p.167; Osoria, Ortiz; Diaz Nafria, 2016, p.16)<ref>Ortiz Osoria, H. M., Díaz Nafría, J. M. (2016). The Cybersyn Project as a Paradigm for Managing and Learning in Complexity. Systema 4(2).</ref><ref>Chaitin, Gregory J. (2002). Computers, Paradoxes and the Foundations of Mathematics. American Scientist, Volume 90. </ref>, which in turn presupposes what it is supposed to ground.

Practically, this means for the energy/information question:

As soon as one does not merely measure signals but asks what is to count as information, one is in the second order, and a complete “closure by rules” is logically unattainable. The limit is not a lack of data, but the structure of observation itself.

==== Boundary-Drawing ====
The most productive presentation is neither naive equation nor total separation, but:

* First order: information as a signal-like control variable is legitimate and extremely powerful, so long as one does not covertly smuggle meaning into it.
* Second order: information as selection is indispensable as soon as meaning, validity, observation, and responsibility are in play.
* Coupling: energy and information are structurally coupled, but only insofar as the construction of the observed system’s “reality” is assumed to be complete.
* Boundary: where distinctions thematise their own validity, the limit must be explicitly marked (Luhmann, Niklas, 1988, pp. 23-24).<ref name=":2" />

== References ==

2025-12-28T11:47:30Z

Frederik J. Schmidt:

== Information vs. Energy ==
{{Proposal
|Was created on date=2025-12-28
|Belongs to clarus=Understanding Complexity
|Has author=Frederik Jasper Schmidt (Frederik J. Schmidt)
|Has publication status=glossaLAB:Open
}}
[[:en:IESC:ENERGY|Energy]] and [[information]] are frequently juxtaposed, yet they do not belong to the same conceptual category.

Energy refers to the capacity to produce physical change and operates causally. Information, by contrast, does not cause change but selects among possible changes.

Energy enables processes to occur; information determines which processes occur. Energy is indifferent to meaning and relevance, whereas information exists only relative to a system that processes differences (Foerster 2002: 189; (Luhmann 1997, Bd. 2: 94f.)

Confusing energy and information leads to category errors: energy without information produces undirected change, while information without energy remains ineffective. They are therefore complementary, but not comparable.

Literature

Foerster, Heinz v. 2002. Understanding Understanding. Essays on Cybernetics and Cognition. Springer New York.

Luhmann, N. (1997). ''Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft'', Bd. 2. Suhrkamp Frankfurt a. M

Draft:Information vs Energy

2025-12-28T11:37:14Z

Frederik J. Schmidt: added a citation

2025-12-22T12:02:23Z

Frederik J. Schmidt: Created page with "{{Proposal |Was created on date=2025-12-22 |Belongs to clarus=Sistemas e información |Has author=Frederik Jasper Schmidt (Frederik J. Schmidt) |Has publication status=glossaLAB:Open }}"

{{Proposal
|Was created on date=2025-12-22
|Belongs to clarus=Sistemas e información
|Has author=Frederik Jasper Schmidt (Frederik J. Schmidt)
|Has publication status=glossaLAB:Open
}}

User:Frederik J. Schmidt

2025-11-07T23:43:26Z

Frederik J. Schmidt:

File:IMG 20251107 204559.jpg

2025-11-07T23:41:35Z

Frederik J. Schmidt:

Draft:Link

2025-11-06T16:57:21Z

Frederik J. Schmidt: there where nothing before. describing the changed feels like dividing with 0.

The connection between the two poles of a digital exchange process.

{{Proposal
|Belongs to clarus=Draft:Understanding Complexity
|Was created on date=2025-11-06
|Has author=Frederik Jasper Schmidt (Frederik J. Schmidt)
|Has publication status=glossaLAB:Open
}}

Draft:Link

2025-11-06T16:40:05Z

Frederik J. Schmidt: Created page with "{{Proposal |Belongs to clarus=Draft:Understanding Complexity |Was created on date=2025-11-06 |Has author=Frederik Jasper Schmidt (Frederik J. Schmidt) |Has publication status=glossaLAB:Open }}"

{{Proposal
|Belongs to clarus=Draft:Understanding Complexity
|Was created on date=2025-11-06
|Has author=Frederik Jasper Schmidt (Frederik J. Schmidt)
|Has publication status=glossaLAB:Open
}}

User:Frederik J. Schmidt

2025-11-06T16:27:22Z

Frederik J. Schmidt:

{{Person
|Given name=Frederik Jasper
|Family name=Schmidt
|Sex=Male
|Country=Germany
|Institution=Hochschule München (HM) – University of Applied Sciences
|Professional category=Elementary occupations / Unskilled workers
|Academic degree=High School Diploma (secondary)
|Current academic institution=Hochschule München (HM) – University of Applied Sciences
|Current academic level=Bachelor’s Degree
|Current academic degree=Social Work
|input language=EN (English)
}}
[[Category:Person]]

User:Frederik J. Schmidt

2025-11-06T13:48:20Z

Frederik J. Schmidt:

{{Person
|Given name=Frederik Jasper
|Family name=Schmidt
|Sex=Male
|Country=Germany
|Academic degree=High School Diploma (secondary)
|Current academic institution=Hochschule München (HM) – University of Applied Sciences
|Current academic level=Bachelor’s Degree
|Current academic degree=Social Work
|input language=EN (English)
}}
[[Category:Person]]

User:Frederik J. Schmidt

2025-10-25T14:50:18Z

Frederik J. Schmidt: create user page

{{Person}}[[Category:Person]]