[Fis] Symbolic Logics and Interconnected life cycles.

[Jerry LR Chandler]

List, Pedro, Bob U., Koichiro:

Once again, Pedro, you bring creative usage of words to address an issue, but in doing so, the crucial issues that are fundamental to the conceptualization of information are obscured by focusing your message on language as utterances within a grammar.  The deficiency shows is the absence of associative premises and / or conclusions that lie at the forma linguistic heart of scientific communication - the symbolic logic of differentiae and propria. 

Your terminology: 
>  the need to disentangle the two phenomena, biotic communication vs. particulate "excommunication”.
is both picturesque and penetrating.  

Yet, it glosses over the distinction between utterances with the information content almost entirely in the connotations and nearly devoid of denotations. 

Your conjecture:
> As some FISers have suggested, maybe a revised conceptualization of the generative phenomena in the quantum could turn out to approach and even to equate the two phenomena.

is problematic, in my opinion.  
Bob U. conjecture of “circular forces” is equally problematic in my opinion, in part for the same reason and in part for a different reason.

My discomforts lie on foundational differentiation between utterances (spoken sounds) and scientific notations (written artifacts of individual scientific disciplines.)

Scientific information is expressed in Synthetic Symbol Systems (SSS) (such as the System of Units that determine physical logic) or the official IUPAC Units for Chemical Notation or the System of Units used for naming genes).  These symbol systems categorize differentiae and propria of nature.

The symbolic logics of each of these Synthetic Symbol Systems are well differentiated in the pragmatic practices of science, scientific research and scientific communication, entangled with mathematical symbolisms.

The truth-denoting usage of these symbol systems are well-established traditions in these three disciplines.  In all three cases, the symbolization of utterances depends on the corresponding mappings between facts and symbols.  And these mappings refer to different meanings of number symbols associated with the facts and utterances.  (Charles Saunders Peirce recognized this in the 19 th Century!)

Bob U., how is your usage of the concept of force related to these synthetic symbol systems?  Is it merely a conjecture about a possible connotation of certain scientific facts or is it more than that? Can you associate it with the denotations of ecological differentiae or propria? 

In your conceptualization of “interconnected life cycle”, Pedro, what is the nature of the interconnection? Can you give an exposition of the meaning in terms of symbol logics of scientific communications? 

Now a personal comment to my long-time friend and colleague, Koichiro. Koichiro’s response to my inquiry into the role of symbolic logics in communication theory skirts the basic  issue of the role of notation in the sciences. After studying his response, I can only conclude that it appears that his well-articulated positions invoke a novel form of utterance, "Koichiro-speak.”    :-)  

Several responders addressed the notion of “communication” between sub-sub atomic particles as mathematical entities.  The question is, can these assertions and conclusions be shifted outside of mathematical/physical symbol systems and into the common vocabulary of utterances about information by comparing them to Shannon information?

Cheers

Jerry 







> On Jan 28, 2016, at 10:21 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es> wrote:
> 
> Dear Howard and colleagues,
> 
> Once settled most of the dust, the balance seems to favor the need to disentangle the two phenomena, biotic communication vs. particulate "excommunication". As some FISers have suggested, maybe a revised conceptualization of the generative phenomena in the quantum could turn out to approach and even to equate the two phenomena.
> 
> Is it of any importance clearly tying communication to life, to the advancement of the life cycle? I think so. On the one side, we naturalize freewheeling approaches to meaning and to some other informational concepts (signals, adaptation, value, intelligence). On the other side, quite many events of human life (social info flows) either of the technological realm, or economic, legal or political, would receive a more rational grounding or a higher level framework to conceptually adjust. It is the primacy of life, at all levels.
> 
> Even the Lucifer Principle, the leit motif of this New Year Lecture, may be formulated with improved cogency in that way. Both super-organisms and pecking order are direct products of communication phenomena among life cycles, within increasing layers of complexity but surviving the self-maintenance ethos of life and its communication retinue. Memes are different--I think the term is catchy but unproductive (too long to discuss now). By the way, Howard, to insist: the LP needs a balance, lets call it Archangel or Angelic Principle. It is when their balance, the symmetry between them gets broken and none of the restoration mechanisms may get hold, that the human beast gets free... Our political and social systems, at least in most democratic countries, are wisely full of "checks and balances"--not a bad term.
> 
> 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