[Fis] A Priori Models and the logical synthesis of animate forms.

[Jerry LR Chandler]

Marcus, List:

Unfortunately, my work load has limited my participation in this discussion, but I do feel I should make a comment before departing for Europe.  The comments concern my philosophy of applied mathematics in relation to the a priori  in recent posts by Marcus, Pedro and the earlier posts from the Integral Biomathics narrators.

My comment addresses one facet of your agenda.  I have no substantial quibbles about the artificiality of the your terminology you develop. It isolated your mathematical philosophy of the meaning of Boolean algebra from other ways of looking at the mathematics of information.

More precisely, it separates the concept of information as an algebraic form / formula / formation / formal logic   from the Shannon model.  

Thus, I find the term “a priori” to be rather mis-leading relative to other usages.  

This usage of the term  “a priori” does not encompass the deep practical problems of the application of “information theory” to the real world.

This usage of the term, it appears to me, excludes all aspects of encoding the natural messages into binary bit strings.

Metaphorically, one might say that your artificial terminology only concerns the punctuation of an Shannon- informed sentence.  

From this perspective, I find myself closely aligned with certain of Pedro’s views with respect to the organization of life relative to the organization of bit strings within a Boolean algebra, except that the dynamics are more perplex than he implies.

Logically, I can form my overview of the biological information with a single sentence, substantially extended  from it’s published version about a decade ago. 

"The organization of organisms organizes information into organic units by encoding organic information into generative self-organizing electrical fields under the arithmetic of the atomic numbers.”

As an aside, I would add, from my perspective, a comment about the “Integral Biomathics” hypothesis. In my opinion, it is deeply flawed far beyond any potential theoretical repair because the proponents (including Lou K.) ignore the role of electric fields in creating, from sub-atomic physics, the essential information necessary for life.  The physical “a priori” is missing from “Integral Biomathics” and hence the failure to envision logical paths between the inanimate and the animate.  Nevertheless, I admire the originality of the Biomathics narrators, despite the absence of a compelling physical radix.

The open question remains, How do living systems acquire form, logically, physically, geometrically and algebraically?   A priori.

Cheers

Jerry





> On Jul 7, 2016, at 6:31 AM, Marcus Abundis <55mrcs at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Loet,
>     Thank you for your Fri Jul 1 post: 
> > to define information as “a difference which makes a <
> > difference”. . both differences have to be specified.<
> > Differences(1) can make a difference(2) for a system of <
> > reference (receiver). <
> • This is surely correct! This also aligns with what the video presents – that “differences themselves must be differentiated” (also Bateson), framed via metadata (data about data). But the video enlarges this view by naming four minimal needed differences (delta O [object], delta S [subject], delta Q [expansion],and delta x [reduction]) to infer a universal (evolving) model of information. But then I am struck by your post’s last line:
> 
> >The idea that one can reconcile two analytical different <
> > concept in a “universal” theory is mistaken.<
> • I am unsure of what you mean here. Do you assert that an UTI is *per se* impossible? Or do you mean *at least* two distinct analytic concepts must be presented beside each other, in a complementary manner? The “impossible view” I disagree with, and I claim this is a psychological problem in how one frames their model (type theory is the answer). A “two concept” view I agree with, which I show as natural material duality (dual aspect: delta O & delta S) . . . but then one must go further to accommodate evolution – hence, four minimal modeled differences.
> 
> • Again, I wonder *just how much* we agree and disagree – of course, as you say, there is no “cosmic commandment” saying that we must agree. Still, I hope to understand the details of any specific differences (pun wholly intended) that do arise.
> 
> 
> Dear Pedro,
>     Your 29 June post notes an old session on Mechanics. I examined the archives (http://fis-mail.sciforum.net <http://fis-mail.sciforum.net/>) for such a session and all I found was four brief entries that begin with:
> > Re: mechanics vs. info Erdi Peter (Tue 23 Feb 1999) <
> • Those entries did not offer much detail. Did you have another session in mind? Also, you close your last post:
> 
> > sorry if this was a disruption, but your discussion <
> > invites [one] to transgress the boundaries. <
> • To an extent, this is true. But I also note, and briefly typify, this “difficulty” (e.g., order vs. disorder) in the introductory text. Further, a “UTI impossible” view noted in my reply to Loet seems plausible only when emphasizing “higher-order” roles. Thus, I stress an *a priori* model – which emphasizes a more-simplified view.
> 
> • I say a bit more – a priori views demand something “well informed” individuals may find hard. A “beginners mind” is needed (from meditation), or an “intellectual innocence,” even if we never truly “forget what we know.” A *humble* view denies the detailed expertise most of us are trained in. “Expertise” also hinders true trans-disciplinary views. This is all part of the Cultural Legacy that we inherit and that I pointed to in my earlier post re Shannon’s usage of “information.” I will say a bit more on this in another post.
> 
> Regardless, Loet and Pedro, I sincerely thank you both for your thoughts.
> 
> Marcus
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160707/92d9ea57/attachment.html>