[Fis] Answer to the comments made by Joseph

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Joe,

 

a)     information is more than order; there is information in absence
(Deacon), in disorder, in incoherence as well as coherence;

 

The absent options provide the redundancy; that is, the complement of the
information to the maximal information [H(max)].

 

See also my recent communication (in Vienna) or at
http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.05251 

 

b)     information is not the same as matter-energy, but it is inseparable
from it and reflects its dualistic properties; 

 

Information is dimensionless. It is coupled to the physics of matter-energy
because S = k(B) * H. 

k(B) provides the dimensionality (Joule/Kelvin) and thus the physics. In
other domains of application (e.g., economics), this coupling [via k(B)] is
not meaningful.

 

c)     information is both energy and a carrier of meaning, which is not, in
my humble opinion, a hard physicalist approach; 

 

Meaning provides more options to the information and thus increases the
redundancy. In the case of reflexivity and further codification of meanings,
the generation of redundancy can auto-catalytically be reinforced
(Ulanowicz).

 

Best,

Loet

 

d) it remains to be shown that digitalism or computationalism is or could be
the natural language for the description of the non-digital world, that is,
of the complexity of the world that is of interest. Rafael Capurro has
talked about the 'digital casting' of the world that we (or most of us) use
in our daily lives, but this philosophical concept, with which I agree, is
not a scientific description of the physics of informational processes as
such. The best synthesis here of which I am aware is the
Informational-Computationalism of Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic and even that is a
framework, not an ontology.

e) it is possible to use probabilities to describe the evolution of real
processes, as well as as a mathematical language for describing acts;

f) your presentation of a parameter designated as 'freedom' is indeed
original, but it is a classificatory system, based on bits. It will miss the
non-algorithmic aspects of values. I am suspicious of things that have
infinite levels and represent 'pure' anything; 

g) I do not feel you have added value to human acts by designating them as
∞-free This may not be intended as doctrine but it looks like it.

h) your conclusions about informational value are correct from what I will
call a hard neo-capitalist ;-) standpoint, but I am sure you agree there are
other ones.

 

In trying to learn through association with this FIS group, I have come to
believe that Informational Science is unique in that it can capture some of
the complexity of nature, culture and society. It is not a 'hard
simplification' as you suggest some sciences are.  The concept of (its)
foundations is very broad, and it can and should include careful binary
analyses such as the one you have made. However, I am pleading for a more
directed positioning of your approach with respect to others. Is this an
acceptable basis for you for continuing the debate?

 

Thank you again,

 

Joseph

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Fernando Flores <mailto:fernando.flores at kultur.lu.se>  

To: fis at listas.unizar.es 

Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 3:58 PM

Subject: [Fis] Answer to the comments made by Joseph

 

Hello everybody:

 

I will answer to the comments made by Joseph and Luis will answer to the
comments made by Moisés.

 

Dear Joseph:

 

Thank you for your comments. We are not sure about the usefulness of
identifying “information” (order) with “mater”. In this sense we are
very carefully to avoid any hard physicalist approach. In this sense we
believe with Norbert Wiener: 

The mechanical brain does not secrete thought “as the liver does bile”, as
the earlier materialist claimed, nor does it put it out in the form of
energy, as the muscle puts out its activity. Information is information, not
matter nor energy. No materialism, which does not admit this, can survive at
the present day.

An informational description of the world must stand as a new branch of
science in which “digitalism” will be the natural language.  Of course as
any other science, it is a simplification of the complexity of
nature/society/culture. I believe that we are shown that we are very
conscious about the risks of a hard simplification, and that is why we
introduced that idea of freedom in a chain of acts and use probability as
mathematical language. We considered the vital acts as ∞-free.

 

 

 

Fernando Flores PhD

Associate Professor

History of Ideas and Sciences

Lund University

 


  _____  


_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis at listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20150726/1b176e13/attachment.html>