[Fis] Five Momenta

Moisés André Nisenbaum moises.nisenbaum at ifrj.edu.br
Fri Oct 30 19:40:03 CET 2015


Dear Francesco.
It was a misunderstanding.
The word "weak" in frase " 4th and 5th momenta are weak in FIS
discussions." has a quantitative (not qualitative) meaning.
In statistical context "weak" means "few times".
It is not my intention to qualify the discussions, I want to count them. :-)

You will see when I publish the results.

All the best.
Moisés


2015-10-29 11:52 GMT-02:00 Francesco Rizzo <13francesco.rizzo at gmail.com>:

> Caro Moises Andrè e Cari Tutti,
> resto sorpreso del fatto che si ritenga debole la discussione sulle
> scienze sociali. Soprattutto in questi ultimi anni ho comunicato di avere
> inventato una "Nuova economia" basata proprio sulla terna semiotica della
> significazione, dell'informazione e della comunicazione. Addirittura il Fis
> dibattito serrato  e avvincente sul processo di tras-informazione o sul
> triangolo dei tre surplus (neg-entropia naturale e termodinamica,
> ecobiologica e semiotico-semantica) si ritrova su Internet(google). Mentre
> una dozzina di volte, se non di più, ho dichiarato che la mia teoria del
> valore si fonda sulla legge dell'informazione. Per non parlare dei miei
> numerosissimi libri che ho citato. L'unica attenuante nei confronti di chi
> esprime giudizi così ingiusti è che io uso la lingua italiana. Ma di questo
> non mi vergogno nè mi vanto;. è sempre goliardico il mio modo di
> partecipare alla discussione cercando di tener conto delle altre scienze e
> del loro linguaggio per quanto m'è possibile e riconoscendo la dignità
> scientifica di molti dei Vostri interventi.
> Saluti.
> Francesco Rizzo.
>
> 2015-10-29 10:45 GMT+01:00 Moisés André Nisenbaum <
> moises.nisenbaum at ifrj.edu.br>:
>
>> 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
>> time.
>> 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.
>> Moisés
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20151030/e312910a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Fis mailing list