[Fis] Five Momenta

Moisés André Nisenbaum moises.nisenbaum at ifrj.edu.br
Thu Oct 29 10:45:32 CET 2015

Hi, Pedro.
Hi, FISers.

I understand that Pedro proposed a discussion about the discussions, and I
think it is very necessary.
There are more than contents in this list, the structure and directions of
the discussions are also important. After all, one of the main objectives
of Information Science is to analyze Scientific Communications (I consider
FIS messages informal scientific communications). So, I am very interested
in this "pause" to discuss discussions.

Permit to make an analogy. The term "momentum" is used in Physics to
express the amount of movement (*p* = m.*v*). Velocity (*v*) representing
not only speed but also direction and mass representing the inertia. To
change the momentum, you will need force (*F* = d*p*/dt), so it is to
change the momentum of a discussion. Depending on the inertia of
discussion, it can be difficult. As Pedro said, the momenta must be
"aligned": same direction --> more impulse --> we can go farther in less
So, Pedro classified the discussions in five momenta (categories or tags):
1) Philosophy
2) Biomolecular (primordials of life and cellular organization)
3) Organismic and the Neuronal (evolutionary outcomes)
4) Human Sociality (up to social complexity)
5) Communication and Information

Pedro is claiming that 4th and 5th momenta are weak in FIS discussions.
I am doing now a little essay tagging the messages of the last discussion
"Information and Locality". I will count them and see if this unbalanced
momenta is true.
Soon I will publish here the results.

All the best.

2015-10-20 13:31 GMT-02:00 Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>:

> Dear FISers,
> In response to the recent philosophical exchanges, and curiously waiting
> to see how Steven solves his final posts (Benjamin Peirce is such an
> unjustly forgotten figure, not to speak about his arch-famous son), let me
> try some new "tangent" on the ongoing debate... I see but five different
> and interrelated "momenta" that should be aligned for the hypothetical
> advancement of the common info field.  The first one corresponds to
> philosophy, as the critical playground where dissatisfaction with the
> existing views should conduce to attempting more congenial new ways of
> thinking. Unsolved problems of the sciences, when they are general and
> affect several disciplines, easily generate philosophical debate--which can
> be helpful to suggest new inroads. Saying clearly "nope" to some
> philosophical and para-philosophical schools is quite valuable although it
> easily generates irritation and obfuscation in the concerned parties (that
> ingredient of "piquancy" also enlivens the debates).
> The second momentum would correspond to the biomolecular (primordials of
> life and cellular organization). The third momentum would wrap around the
> organismic and the neuronal (the evolutionary outcomes of multicellular
> life up to advanced nervous systems). I think they are so obvious that do
> not deserve further comment.
> The fourth momentum involves the roots of human sociality, up to the
> historical development of social complexity. And the fifth momentum belongs
> to the contemporary revolution around communication, information, etc.
> These two social momenta are being egregiously forgotten in most of our
> debates (not any more with the planned discussion sessions!)
> Unfortunately, none of those momenta --even looking too far away-- should
> be left in the dark. Most of our discussions seem to deal with the
> instrumental aspect, the math theories, constructs, and other knowledge
> bodies that may help to characterize abstractly different structures and
> dynamics where some classes of information seem to be involved. It is not
> difficult to achieve some interesting results in those theoretical and
> para-theoretical realms... but without connecting with some of those big
> momenta, trying to ride on their impetus, it won't be significant.
> A new multidisciplinary itinerary is needed--neither the piece meal nor
> the continuous entanglement would work to achieve it. Personally I find
> that the goal is very difficult. Too many things in too very disperse
> realms have to be cohered... So the allure of this crazy story!
> All the best--Pedro
> --
> -------------------------------------------------
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
> pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Moisés André Nisenbaum
Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc.
Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ
Campus Maracanã
moises.nisenbaum at ifrj.edu.br
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20151029/dc19d9ee/attachment.html>

More information about the Fis mailing list