[Fis] R: Re: some notes - on the nature of science and communication
Bruno Marchal
marchal at ulb.ac.be
Mon Nov 20 18:37:04 CET 2017
Dear Gordana,
On 19 Nov 2017, at 00:28, Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic wrote:
>
> Dear All,
> In the discussion about the nature of science and the role of
> quantitative and qualitative methods I would like to add the
> following statement:
> Logic is the science of rational thinking or reasoning.
> http://www.math-inst.hu/~nemeti/whatislogic.html
> Logic is not a quantitative science.
I can't agree more. I would say that most of mathematics is not on
quantitative things, like topology is concerned with global invariant.
Some modal logic are meta-theories of things which are not
formalizable, or even not definable. Modal logics was invented for
complex metaphysical/theological issue (and is "redeemed", as Boolos
said, by the incompleteness phenomenon, also an hardly purely
quantitative result).
The logic has the sub-branch "model theory", which studies the
semantics of theories, and which are usually not purely syntactical
matter, not quantitative at all, I would say.
But now, I agree that even in "non quantitative field" the theories
should be testable. That is possible for the theories which are able
to connect their qualitative results to quantitative results.
Mathematical logic is the same as Metamathematics, and is basically
the mathematical study of the (classical, intuitionist, ...)
mathematicians.
Mathematicians are typically not quantitative things, ... even when
the computationalist and his digital surgeon saves his body and soul
on some hard disk, temporarily.
>
> This connects to ancient Greek science that sprung out of philosophy
> of nature (even Newton was still natural philosopher) which relied
> more on reason than on observation/experience. And where they indeed
> made quantitative predictions like Eratosthenes who calculated the
> circumference of the Earth, the central part of his prediction was
> based on logical reasoning.
>
> The main works of Aristotle were the Prior Analytics (Logic), the
> Physics, the Animal History, the Rhetorics, the Poetics, the
> Metaphysics, the Ethics, and the Politics. Today we consider Logic,
> Physics and Biology to be sciences, while Rhetorics, Poetics,
> Metaphysics, Ethics and Politics are not. How compulsory is it for
> something to be “science” in order to be a respectable form of
> knowledge?
> Perhaps it is useful at some point in the development of human
> knowledge to have a holistic view bridging across sciences and other
> fields? Rational, logical view.
Then I would suggest, even just as a toy, the theology of the
universal universal machine. Incompleteness makes Gödel beweisbar
arithmetical predicate into a form of rational justifiability, not
"knowledge", as Gödel saw in 1933. Indeed the non provable consistency
~Bf is the same as Bf -> f, so Bp -> p is not provable in general, as
it should be for being an operator of knowledge, but that is exactly
why we get, for the ideally sound machine, the equivalence between all
Theaetetus' variant of probability (they all "see" the same reality),
but obeying quite different logic:
p (true, the ONE)
Bp (Justifiable, the INTELLECT)
Bp & p (Knowable, the SOUL)
Bp & ~Bf (Observable, the INTELLIGIBLE MATTER)
Bp & ~Bf & p (Sensible, the SENSIBLE MATTER)
Note that by Tarski theorem, the machine cannot provide any
arithmetical representation of their first person self (the knower).
They would need a predicate Vp (Verity of p), and the diagonal lemma
soild lead to an epimenidian proposition k asserting k <-> ~Vk. So Bp
& p is not translatable into a Bp & Vp, and indeed that can be shown
necessary. The universal machine has a soul and she knows that this
soul is not a machine/number!
> Science itself is not everywhere quantitative in its various layers
> and branches. There are theoretical non-observables in quantum
> mechanics and other physical theories and they play important role
> in their construction and operation.
I agree.
>
> Regarding the other discussion point, the necessity to differentiate
> between "the difference that makes the difference" for a machine and
> for a living organism I would say that the difference exists but is
> becoming less and less clear-cut the more machines become cognitive
> and intelligent. It is not difficult to imagine a limit case where
> intelligent machine talks to other intelligent machine. Would that
> be then mixing Shannon with (bio)semiotics?
It would lead to interesting arithmetical interpretation of
biosemiotics.
Then the human themselves, in the long run, will get more and more
prosthetical parts. Some humans benefits already from electronical
implants, and some teams work hard on an artificial rat hypo-campus.
The question is not "is Mechanism true?", but the more ethico-
qualitative question "do you accept your daughter or your son marry
someone who already got a digital brain transplant"; etc.
>
> The notion of communication might be constructed in a useful way to
> cover different levels of organisation of phenomena.
> As growth of a crystal is different from a growth of a plant is
> different from a growth of a child – and yet it makes sense to talk
> about growth.
> So I see using the word “communication” to machines or why not
> simplest physical systems that interact with other physical systems
> causing "the difference that makes the difference” for the system
> itself.
> Definitions indeed are just the question of making good sense – they
> are matter of choice.
I agree.
Best Regards,
Bruno
>
> Gordana
>
>
> PS
> Mark Burgin and I have sent invitations to contribute to World
> Scientific books: http://is4si-2017.org/publications/
> Vol 1 Philosophy and Methodology of Information (G. Dodig-Crnkovic
> and M. Burgin, edts.)
> Part 1. Philosophy of information
> Part 2. Methodology of information
> Part 3. Philosophy of information studies
> Part 4. Methodology of information studies
>
> Vol 2 Theoretical Information Studies (M. Burgin and G. Dodig-
> Crnkovic, edts.)
> Part 1. Foundations of information
> Part 2. Information theory
> Part 3. Information as a natural phenomenon
> Part 4. Cognition and intelligence in natural and artificial systems
> Part 5. Social, economic and legal aspects of information
> Part 6. Technological aspects of information
>
> Please let us know as soon as possible if you intend (and even if
> you do not intend) to contribute, in order to help us keep the
> deadlines.
>
>
>
> https://www.chalmers.se/en/staff/Pages/gordana-dodig-crnkovic.aspx
>
>
>
> From: Fis <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es> on behalf of "tozziarturo at libero.it
> " <tozziarturo at libero.it>
> Reply-To: "tozziarturo at libero.it" <tozziarturo at libero.it>
> Date: Friday, 17 November 2017 at 17:44
> To: Sungchul Ji <sji at pharmacy.rutgers.edu>, "fis at listas.unizar.es" <fis at listas.unizar.es
> >
> Subject: [Fis] R: Re: some notes
>
>
> Dear Sungchul,
> I do not have anything against you, therefore sorry for my words,
> but your propositions gave me the opportunity to demonstrate the
> weirdness of such approaches for science.
>
> YOU find it convenient to define communication as an irreducibly
> triadic process (physical, chemical, biological, physiological, or
> mental). YOU identify such a triadic process with the Peircean
> semiosis (or the sign process) often represented as the following
> diagram which is isomorphic with the commutative triangle of the
> category theory. Thus, to YOU, communication is a category.
>
> I do not agree at all: therefore, could your proposition be kept as
> science?
> All the scientists agree on the definition (even if operational) of
> an atom, or agree that E=mc^2. If we are talking of something
> qualitative, that one agrees and another do not, we are not in front
> of Science.
>
> Sorry,
> Nothing personal.
>
>
> Arturo Tozzi
>
> AA Professor Physics, University North Texas
>
> Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy
>
> Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba
>
> http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/
>
>
>> ----Messaggio originale----
>> Da: "Sungchul Ji" <sji at pharmacy.rutgers.edu>
>> Data: 17/11/2017 17.12
>> A: "Pedro C. Marijuan"<pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>, "fis"<fis at listas.unizar.es
>> >, "Loet Leydesdorff"<loet at leydesdorff.net>
>> Ogg: Re: [Fis] some notes
>>
>> Hi FISers,
>>
>> I find it convenient to define communication as an irreducibly
>> triadic process (physical, chemical, biological, physiological, or
>> mental). I identify such a triadic process with the Peircean
>> semiosis (or the sign process) often represented as the following
>> diagram which is isomorphic with the commutative triangle of the
>> category theory. Thus, to me, communication is a category:
>>
>> f g
>> A ------> B -------> C
>> | ^
>> | |
>> |______________|
>> h
>>
>> Figure 1. A diagrammatic representation of semiosis, sign process,
>> or communication. The names of the nodes and edges can vary
>> depending on the communication system under consideration, which
>> can be chemical reaction systems, gene expression mechanisms, human
>> communication using symbols, computer systems using electrical
>> signals. If applied to the Shannon communication system, A =
>> source, B = signals, C = receiver, f = encoding, g = decoding, and
>> h = information transfer/flow. When applied to human symbolic
>> communicatioin, A = object, B = sign, C = interpretant, f = sign
>> production, g = interpretation, and h = information flow.
>>
>> One usefulness of Figure 1 is its ability to distinguish between
>> "interactions" (see Steps f and g) and "communication" (see Steps
>> f, g and h); the former is dyadic and the latter triadic.
>>
>> All the best.
>>
>> Sung
>>
>>
>> From: Fis <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Loet
>> Leydesdorff <loet at leydesdorff.net>
>> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 8:06 AM
>> To: Pedro C. Marijuan; fis
>> Subject: Re: [Fis] some notes
>>
>> Dear Pedro and colleagues,
>>
>>> 2. Eigenvectors of communication. Taking the motif from Loet, and
>>> continuing with the above, could we say that the life cycle itself
>>> establishes the eigenvectors of communication? It is intriguing
>>> that maintenance, persistence, self-propagation are the essential
>>> motives of communication for whatever life entities (from bacteria
>>> to ourselves). With the complexity increase there appear new, more
>>> sophisticated directions, but the basic ones probably remain
>>> intact. What could be these essential directions of communication?
>> I am not so convinced that there is an a priori relation between
>> life and communication. Communication is not alive. Non-living
>> systems (e.g., computers, robots) also communicate. Perhaps, it
>> matters for the communication whether the communicators are living
>> systems; but this needs to be specified.
>>
>> Communication studies is not biology. Perhaps, there is a specific
>> biological communication as Maturana claims: when molecules are
>> exchanged, one can expect life. Can one have life without
>> communication? It seems to me that one can have communication
>> without life. Communication would then be the broader category and
>> life a special case.
>>
>> Best,
>> Loet
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 3. About logics in the pre-science, Joseph is quite right
>>> demanding that discussion to accompany principles or basic
>>> problems. Actually principles, rules, theories, etc. are
>>> interconnected or should be by a logic (or several logics?) in
>>> order to give validity and coherence to the different combinations
>>> of elements. For instance, in the biomolecular realm there is a
>>> fascinating interplay of activation and inhibition among the
>>> participating molecular partners (enzymes and proteins) as active
>>> elements. I am not aware that classical ideas from Jacob (La
>>> Logique du vivant) have been sufficiently continued; it is not
>>> about Crick's Central Dogma but about the logic of pathways,
>>> circuits, modules, etc. Probably both Torday and Ji have their own
>>> ideas about that-- I would be curious to hear from them.
>>>
>>> 4. I loved Michel's response to Arturo's challenge. I think that
>>> the two "zeros" I mentioned days ago (the unsolved themes around
>>> the cycle and around the observer) imply both multidisciplinary
>>> thinking and philosophical speculation...
>>>
>>> Best wishes--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 0
>>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20171120/e2485286/attachment.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list