[Fis] FW: Anticipatory Systems. Vicious Coherence

Francesco Rizzo 13francesco.rizzo at gmail.com
Thu Nov 1 15:40:37 CET 2018


Cari Joseph, Pedro e Tutti,
a conferma del messaggio inviatovi otto giorni fa, vale la pena di
ricordare che non v'ha conoscenza
scientifica che possa permettersi di (auto) definirsi assolutamente certa.
L'unica certezza che esiste
è quella dell'incertezza. La stessa matematica, anche a mio modesto
giudizio considerabile più una
logica-arte o un'arte logica che una scienza, è affetta da una certa
indecidibilità o indeterminazione:

"- teorema dell'incompletezza di K. Godel: 'qualunque sistema logico
abbastanza complesso da costituire
un'aritmetica deve contenere una proposizione intrinsecamente indecidibile';
- principio di indeterminazione di W. Heisenberg: 'è impossibile misurare
con precisione sia la posizione
 che la quantità di moto della stessa particella in moto, simultaneamente';
- teorema di A. Tarski: 'per le teorie semanticamente chiuse (vi è) la
necessità di limitare la potenza
espressiva delle teorie medesime, ammettendo che in esse sia possibile
definire un predicato di verità solo
PARZIALE, relativo cioè ad AMBITI DI DISCORSO per i quali le condizioni di
verità della proposizione non
coincidono esattamente con quanto da essa espresso'.
I suddetti teoremi dimostrano che il sapere scientifico dipende dalla mente
dell'osservatore e ha bisogno
 dell'inter-soggettività secondo una prospettiva non ontologica (tipica
della vecchia epistemologia positivistica
 o idealistica), ma onto-genetica dia-logica" reale (Rizzo F., "Valore e
valutazioni. La scienza dell'economia o
 l'economia della scienza", FrancoAngeli, Milano, 1-4 edizione, 1999- 2009,
pp. 265-272)..

Non per niente, di recente, ha visto la luce editoriale: Rizzo F., La
scienza non può non essere umana, civile,
sociale, ECONOMI(C)A , enigmatica, nobile, profetica" (Aracne editrice,
Roma, 2016).

E' un piacere dell'anima e della mente, frutto di una rilevante affinità
elettiva, leggere le considerazioni di Pedro,
Joseph, Terry Deacon ed altri, senza offesa per nessuno in quanto io sono
un "poverino esponenziale".
Grazie a Tutti.
Francesco.



Il giorno gio 1 nov 2018 alle ore 09:53 Joseph Brenner <
joe.brenner en bluewin.ch> ha scritto:

> Dear Pedro and All,
>
>
>
> Despite the promising start, I think we are indeed missing a central
> element and more importantly its function, which may not be to bring
> coherence as such but a proper view of the co-existence and co-operation of
> coherence and incoherence/decoherence, consistency and inconsistency,
> coincidence and decoincidence, certitude and incertitude. In a
> world/context where we are confronted daily with the vicious coherence of a
> quasi-fascist system, not taking it into account would make the FIS
> discussion worse than incorrect; it would make it irrelevant.
>
>
>
> The tools to formally capture at least the part of living cyclical
> processes that can be so ‘captured’ (binary concept, again) may look quite
> differently from those we are used to. I have suggested that the dances and
> rhythms – to use Pedro’s excellent image – can be not modelled but
> described by reference to a contradictorial dynamics of motion from
> actuality to potentiality and back plus a basis for emergence. As simply as
> I can put them, here are some further things I believe need to be addressed
> as a consequence:
>
>
>
> 1.     Simple references to cycles and cyclicity, ignoring the sinusoidal
> development of natural phenomena, which suggest a return to an identical
> point on the curve, should be avoided.
>
> 2.     It should be obvious to Karl and others that an alternative to
> “classical Wittgenstein logic” exists, namely Logic in Reality, but its
> explanatory capacity has simply been ignored. Why? My discussion of a logic
> for macroscopic processes can be found in a recent Physics *arXiv *
> article.
>
> 3.     Pedro’s point about ‘multi-time’ has also been addressed in my
> logical system, basically, by suggesting a more interactive relation
> between time and space than is possible in classical mechanics.
>
> 4.     Karl, your formulation, in my humble opinion, includes another
> error if my point of view is at least accepted for discussion: you have
> intuition and instinct on one side, and ‘science’ and certitude on the
> other. The statement of the problem in dichotomous terms is part of the
> problem.
>
> 5.     Unless the cases are constructed and limited, attempting to
> foretell the future is a Promethean objective which will bring its own
> punishment.
>
>
>
> I look forward, still, to some minimum exchange on the above. Cheers,
>
>
>
> Joseph (Epimetheus)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Pedro C.
> Marijuan
> *Sent:* mercredi, 31 octobre 2018 21:53
> *To:* fis en listas.unizar.es
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Anticipatory Systems
>
>
>
> Dear Karl and List,
>
> Sorry that I could not answer earlier (accumulation of other writing
> duties). I was flabbergasted by your Allegory. Chapeau! Apart from the high
> style and the charm and the elegant Martianus Capella background, it is a
> wise move presenting your "algebra" as cyclicity interactions. Good luck in
> this new explanatory direction! I think it can contribute to enlighten the
> "stories" intrinsic rhythmicity.
>
> Not being blessed by the Muses I must confine myself to the prosaic
> commentary... That Nature operates something does not mean that our
> disciplines can explain it coherently across logico-formal paths. How many
> procedimental simplifications are needed to traverse from quantum dynamics
> to, say, the atomic bond or the molecular structure? But I do not criticize
> those breaches, conversely they are a tribute to scientific ingenuity. And
> now traversing to the human information (or even to biological information)
> ... is it feasible without acknowledging the horrendous existing gaps? Even
> more, aren't we missing a central element that brings coherence to the
> overall dances and rhythms around biological/neuronal information? I mean,
> the life cycle.
>
> Let us remind Gibson's ecological perception theory. When we confront an
> environment we do not perceive it piece-meal, at least in the important
> motifs. We do not feel the ineffable tiger's sensory impressions as
> disconnected, but forming a well integrated whole that motivates an
> adaptive response--either freezing, or flying, or heroically fighting. The
> tiger, or better the rabbit, is an ecosystem's "affordance" that is
> important for our life, either to eat or to not be eaten. So, we demand
> perceptual/motor coherence, but with respect to what? Of course: to the
> maintenance of our life. I mean, the life cycle.
>
> Going back to stories, we may take them as genuine encapsulations (a
> better word of choice?) of the social "affordances" we are naturally
> immersed by living within our societies. It is our ecosystem, and we may
> see many different affordances, and we may craft many stories to
> interconnect them, to "mirror" them. Again, there should be a coherence:
> around what? Around our life cycle and the lives of our audience. The
> structure is far more complex now, but who said that solving the neuronal
> "binding problem" around our percepts was simple?
>
> Many thanks to Mark (coherently!!). Also I would like to be able to
> respond to other demands from Jerry, but here is my counter-demand: could
> you adventure tools to formally capture such a multi-time, multi-rhythm
> being as a life-cycle in progress?
>
> Best wishes to all,
> --Pedro
>
> El 29/10/2018 a las 16:32, Karl Javorszky escribió:
>
> *Anticipation*
>
>
>
> Learned Friends,
>
>
>
> We deal with the observation, that biologic organisms anticipate what will
> happen next. Some concentrate on the narrative of the anticipation, some on
> the phenomena that are anticipated. As a human faculty, anticipation can
> range from intuition, guess, instinct, to prediction and certitude. Science
> has more or less dealt with certitude (b follows from a) and has understood
> prediction (if a then p(b) ~ x). Now we work our way towards understanding
> instinctive prediction.
>
> The utility and efficacy of the narrative version of anticipation varies
> also greatly: we have the wish formulae, where faith and belief causes
> anticipating an effect (if I say “please” they will give that to me),
> magical incantations with powerful words, inputting arguments of an
> algorithm in the hope of receiving a result, and the classical case of the
> words of the narrative being one and inseparable from the facts that are
> the case (the DNA is a narrative of what will happen, and its predictions
> are in the closest possible way related to the facts of the matter the
> narrative talks about). (Interactive online reporting, where the narration
> is a part of the process.)
>
> We do have some difficulties with a running narration, because such a
> thing as telling the future has no place in classical, Wittgenstein logic
> and the corresponding narrative about the proceedings. That, what will come
> into existence is presently not the case. Whichever way we turn it, we are
> not supposed to talk about things that are not the case.
>
>
>
> Foretelling the future (anticipating correctly) is a task that humans can
> despair of. This problem being with us since the beginning of time, it has
> been addressed by many generations using diverse lexica. Bruno’s suggestion
> that we have no shy using words and concepts of theology is a wise one: Our
> forefathers expressed themselves in allegories involving divine figures.
> This has given me courage to present to you an Allegory on the Seduction of
> Arithmetica by Amor, with a bow to Martianus Capella. May your serene
> judgement of this non-polished draft be softened by magnanimous mercy
> extended against a beginner.
>
>
>
> -----------------------
>
> Seduction of Arithmetica by Amor (20181028)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Fis mailing list
>
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
>
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
>
> --
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Pedro C. Marijuán
>
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
>
>
>
> pcmarijuan.iacs en aragon.es
>
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
> Libre de virus. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
> <#m_-3410810720684326103_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20181101/6803c6c5/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Fis mailing list