[Fis] FW: Newsletter and Season Greetings. In Karl's own words

[Karl Javorszky]

The Invention  (20191228)



Dear Joseph,



thank you for your invitation to tell what needs to be said, in simple
words: not hiding behind, nor taking refuge in numbers. (There is an
excellent short story by Nelson Bond: “Socrates of the South Forty”. It
depicts a noble savage, who – on his own, by autodidactic means – has
developed an advanced system of natural philosophy.)



Concept versus algorithm

Consider Pythagoras. He had contemplated triangles long before
contemplating numbers. The intellectual achievement lies in the conscious
effort of handling and controlling, manipulating projection, the
neurological defence mechanism, which we are familiar with from using the
Rorschach tables. One actively looks a triangle unto the perception of a
map of a landscape, while preparing to calculate some distances. Imagine
Pythagoras as he developed his invention: over the optical perception one
needs to lay a mental picture of three lines, which create a triangle over
the perceived multitude: step 1. Then one has to look three squares unto
the sides of the triangle, step 2. Then one has to imagine that the joint
surface of the two smaller squares is equal to the surface of the biggest
square, step 3. This is an exercise in imagining, not in arithmetic. There
are no numbers involved in the steps that lead to the invention. The
numbers come later and make a concept to an algorithm. The imagination has
to be clear before one turns to the numbers.



The material contents of the imagination

In the present case, we are standing before the same task. We have to
overlay an optical picture with a newly created vision of a pattern of
relations. The optical picture is that of a few dozens of marbles. These
represent the map with Pythagoras. For the ease of visualisation, one may
suggest to imagine balls which are painted in two colors: green and blue.
Both green and blue can have *d *intensities. Each ball has an individual
combination of intensities of green & blue, but there are several which
share the intensity attribute. We have now the analogue to the triangle of
the Pythagoras model, by imagining the balls to be coloured. We have
overlaid the image of the balls with combinations of color intensities.



What is to be compared with what

We now invent the squares. These are conceptually different to the lines.
Pythagoras used the same line and the same distance. We use same distance,
but two different lines. We create planes like Pythagoras. While Pythagoras
said: look at how big this is, we say: look, where the ball is.



On improving the inner exactitude of the counting system by ~ 3.4EE-92 %

A historical excurse on how big and how many: the original idea of the
invention came from asking, how the copying (reading) and re-copying
(writing) the genetic information (from the DNA and into the DNA) could
take place, without the system growing out of bounds? The target must be at
least as big (have as many bytes capacity of the tape/hard disk/cpu) as the
source plus something for the meta-data. How do you copy and re-copy
something unto carriers without the target being bigger than the source?
This has led to oeis.org/A242615, which is the basis of all.



Places on planes

Back to planes and axes. The form of the symbol implicates its position on
an axis. A symbol has a position on a plane of two axes. The place is exact
and is an implication of the form of the symbol.

In the Pythagoras didactic, this was the step of establishment of the
squares that came from the lines that were laid over the points. In the
present didactic, the square has two different axes. On each of the axes,
there is an undisputed position for each of the symbols, they being ordered
by a principle *whatsoever1* which is the name of the axis *x*.
Perpendicular to this axis *x*, we pick a second axis *y*, which depicts
the sequence of the symbols ordered on a principle *whatsoever2. *These two
axes *x, y *create a plane of which the name is *xy*. That point on the
plane *xy* where the lines intersect which are parallel to the other axis
and originate at the linear position of a symbol on the linear sequences
imposed on the symbols by the principle *whatsoever1 *resp. *whatsoever2,*
is the planar position of that symbol. We have now the concept of the
thing, of which we want to compare some on a property. Pythagoras did it on
size, quantity, on the sum of two against a third. We have a case that is a
bit more complicated.



Planes and spaces

First of all, we stick axes together that fit together. If there is a
property *whatsoever3 *which orders the symbols in a comparable fashion
along an axis *z*, we shall create planes *xz,zy,yx. *On each of the three
planes, each symbol has an exact place.

Then we see that there are *two* versions of three axes being
perpendicular, creating impeccable Euclid, Descartes spaces. The two Euclid
spaces are almost perfectly symmetrical. Mention should be made of two more
planes that transcend the two Euclid spaces.



Eternal truths

Excurse on timelessness and classical logic: all sentences that are
daughters of *a=a* are eternal, as they are outside of the temporal
dimension. They happen in the moment. The truth to be maintained
continuously has to follow from the form of the symbol imposing on it a
position in a linear order, unto the place of the symbol on a plane created
by two orders. The strict implication can, however, not be continued unto
the third dimension, because the plane ceases to exist in that moment as
the position changes from *xy **→ yz **→zx **→ xy **→ etc.* During the step
of the change of the plane of reference, the truth changes back to its
linear form: *pos(plane) **→ pos(sequence) → pos(plane) → etc. *The moment
of truth can best be visualised as always jumping from a place on a plane
craniocaudal-lateral unto a place on a plane lateral-sagittal unto a place
on a plane sagittal-craniocaudal, (vertical, horizontal, medial), never
stationary. The fact that patterns arising from resequencing symbols show,
that we have *two *of such spaces which coexist and create together that
Newton space which we are used to and in which we live in: this fact can be
an explanation for the manifold marvels and wonders Physics and Chemistry
investigate. Here, we speak of genetics and messages transmission, thus of
ideal circumstances, where the left and right subspaces cooperate in the
smoothest fashion imaginable.



Comparing this with that

Back to the task of comparing differing extents of properties of mental
images. With Pythagoras, it was extents of surfaces seen in two of them.
Here, the two mental impressions we compare are *changes* in patterns of
webs, woven over elements. We see two kinds of webs that connect elements
that have places on the surfaces of two 3D spaces. *Once* we perform a
reading of the symbols according to the spatial, axes-related coordinates.
We can theoretically establish a conceptual place for a symbol in *one*,
imagined, amalgamated 3D space, in which the two actually existing Euclid
subspaces coexist happily. *Then *we perform a different reading of the
symbols which is a reading of all of the rest. We split the properties of
the symbols into such which do have a relevance as a spatial coordinate,
and into such that do not have.



Duality

Now comes the step of addition. We state that the whole system that we
discuss *vibrates* like hell. Nothing can vibrate more than this concept.
In fact, we state that the whole system consists of a *fixed *and a *moving
*part. The fixed part is a standing wave of the vibrating system. The
moving part is that what happens while the fixed part is out of existence.
(Examples: a. Room full of Las Vegas one armed bandits. They can have
wheels with differing numbers of symbols. One story discusses the movement
of wheels during a bet, one story tells about the number and kinds of
winning constellations every run, observed at the end of the run. b.
Caravans doing logistics. One story tells of what is the inventory in the
oases, one story details what is under way.)

The term ‘existence’ has been defined as the truth of a statement that a
position of a form in a sequence implicates one of the coordinates of a
point on a surface and that the coordinates of a point on a surface
implicate at least one position of a form in a sequence. This allows for
continuity of the idea of existence along time and yet leaves open the
consequences that during the existence of the truth in the variant of a
position of a form in a sequence there is no word of a position of any
symbols on any planes: these do not exist as subjects of the discourse.

Pythagoras said: these two extents are equal to this third extent. Here,
the proposition is as follows:

The symbols have a *two-fold *existence. Firstly, they are subject to
a *positional
description*, arising from the properties of their forms, conferring places
to them on planes *xy,yz,zx*, therefore to *two *places in *two* 3D spaces,
one in one each, which appears to the spectator as *one *3D space which
contains some subspaces. Secondly, they are subject to any and all of *periodic
changes* that affect the assembly. In the ideal case, the influences of
Earth, Moon, Sun can be relevant and cause predictable, rhythmic,
resequencing among the elements (symbols).

In those moments, where the planar existence is not the case, while we
interpret the linear reading of the sentence *form **→ position, *the
spatial relations among the symbols are of relevance and there can be
degrees of fitting and less fitting matches of positions on two planes with
regard to the position on the third plane.

In those moments, where the *period → position *assignments are relevant,
the spatial axes do not exist, as we read the sentence backwards and say
that a *place on a plane* exists, from which the properties of the axes are
a consequence. We can state, that in respect of *whatsoever7 *and *whatsoever9
*the symbol has a position on a plane, irrespective of any regards to the
spatial coordinates. Such planes create all kinds of spaces too, but
whether these are geometrically realisable, is not a subject of the
discussion in this present reading of the sentence about axes, places and
planes.



Is in the optimal range

Split apart, the sentences that discuss spatial relationships and those
that discuss periodic relationships create domains in which sentences are
congruent, and such in which the truth in one of the logical sub-systems
restricts the possibilities in the other one.

To come to the point: the proposition is to sum up the *{same, different}*
extents when we let the symbols loose alternatively, one beat non-spatial,
one beat spatial. We establish a double sequence of alternate readings:

Step 1: establish measure for difference between ideal state and actual
state with respect of the positions of the symbols on the planes generating
two Euclid spaces *(Pos_t1); *

Step 2: establish measure for difference between ideal state and actual
state with respect of the positions of the symbols on the planes depicting
periodic processes *(Rhm_t1); *

Step 3: establish measure for difference between ideal state and actual
state with respect of the positions of the symbols on the planes generating
two Euclid spaces *(Pos_t2); *

Step 4: establish measure for difference between ideal state and actual
state with respect of the positions of the symbols on the planes depicting
periodic processes *(Rhm_t2); *

and so forth. One compares changes *(Pos_t1) **→ (Pos_t2) *vs *(Rhm_t1) **→
(Rhm_t2)* (Example: Game of Chess. Players move alternating. Player A
optimises situation with respect of strategic goal of approaching optimal
spatial arrangement, Player B optimises situation with respect of strategic
goal of approaching optimal position, as dictated by periodic requirement.)



The proposition is that there is a meta-measure governing the relation
between stability and change. The symbols are connected by bonds of birth,
a priori, to two other symbols, together with which they create a slice of
space. These bonds are inalterable and will hold symbols of specific form
variants together; as long as the form of a symbol is a given, it is an
implication, with which other forms it creates geometrically interpretable
statements. As opposed to this, then again, they are connected, from time
to time, by common, but possibly only transient, interest to some of many
other symbols, too. Among these, *presently* relevant are those, which the
rhythm of the periodicities plays momentarily to the forefront. Within that
opportunistic alliance of the shared goal, specific bonds are established
with such other symbols, with which the symbol shares membership in a
corpus of a cycle, (is co-constituent in a procedure of successive
push-away events: in the steps of cycles symbols get pushed away from
places inherited by a different symbol, the effect being the
concretisation, realisation of the coming into existence of the new order).



Measure of continuity

Among healthy humans, it is an observed fact, that there exists an ideal
coefficient for the relation between *{same, different}, *apparently
somewhere around 3:1 ~ 4:1*. *(We translate the observation ‘*varietas
delectat’ *into a hypothesis of a range for the value* V *of *varietas*. We
state *‘V_monotony <= V_optimal <= V_too-much-change’.) *The ideal
circumstances for a system of processing data and information demonstrating
the existence of an optimal range for a coefficient, theory should be able
to find it. Self-regulation could mean the adjustment of predictabilities
in one of the subsystems such that predictable outcomes are achieved in the
other subsystem. If the periodic processes interact in such a fashion with
the spatial properties of the elements, that the resulting movement
patterns are realisable, the system is accommodated to its surroundings.
Then, the basic tautology is satisfied, by finding appropriate arguments
for the sentence *form **→ position ↔ rhythm → position. *Then, rhythm
becomes form, which would mean that on Earth such life forms can evolve
which can evolve on Earth.

Here ends the simple words presentation of the invention.



Am Fr., 27. Dez. 2019 um 19:22 Uhr schrieb Joseph Brenner <
joe.brenner en bluewin.ch>:

> Dear Karl,
>
>
>
> In order to have a discussion of a quality that all the members of this
> group deserve, I would greatly appreciate your saying, in your own words,
> what the boundaries of your approach are: to what real phenomena it does
> NOT apply or is irrelevant. If you believe it applies to everything, I
> would only ask if this includes your preference for – and my resistance to
> - a theory grounded in numbers or numerical relations.
>
>
>
> I can state what the boundaries of *my *approach are: it does not apply
> to logical objects based on standard notions of semantic truth or its
> mathematical equivalent.
>
>
>
> I further state that an ontology based on exclusion is *ipso facto *not a
> natural philosophy, although it is possible to include it (*sic*), and
> other idealized systems, in philosophy *tout court.*
>
>
>
> The real world includes, together with their positive counterparts, the
> variable, the uncertain, the contradictory, and the weak.
>
>
>
> It also includes ‘intertwining’ of real processes as well as of
> mathematical functions.
>
>
>
> Information gathering is more than a process of eliminating false
> assumptions, it is a process of understanding them, in particular those in
> one’s own work . . .
>
>
>
> Information exists and does not exist ‘on its own’: figure *and *ground;
> shadow *and* reality; what is *and *what is not the case.
>
>
>
> Best seasons’ greetings,
>
>
>
> Joseph
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Karl
> Javorszky
> *Sent:* vendredi, 27 décembre 2019 02:03
> *To:* Stanley N Salthe
> *Cc:* fis
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Newsletter and Season Greetings
>
>
>
> Dear Michel,
>
>
>
> As to more funding being available for posing/framing information as a
> part of a Shannon-related application - why not?
>
>
>
> The math behind genetics and computers processing data is the same.
> Symbols have forms and positions. Shannon uses two forms (0,1) and
> writes/reads the positions sequentially. Nature makes use of a pattern of
> positions (4 forms on 3 positions), embedded in a sequence of maximal
> length of 128 segments. Nature uses the intertwining of two functions which
> describe the upper limit each of the capacity to transmit messages by means
> of symbols on objects.  One of the functions is used by Shannon and is
> excellent and fine. This describes the throughput capacity of n objects
> when written/read sequentially. Applications of this principle are indeed
> more advantageous than the alternative, up until one does not use for
> transmission of messages collections of objects that number more than 32.
> Then, the alternative way of transmitting messages by symbols on objects
> gets more advantageous. It is more efficient to place different symbols on
> objects and write/read them while regarding the whole lot as a structure,
> if the lot consists of 66 +/- 30 objects.  One can play funny tricks with
> such a minor inexactitude between two functions. Nature does so. Please
> look up oeis.org/A242615.
>
>
>
> Learning is built on memory. Memory is the field of writing/reading.
> Intelligence comes with the comparison of ex_memory with ex_perception on
> similarity. To discover similarity, things must be able to be different.
> The not similar is then not the case. So 1. we can't discuss it, hence the
> difficulties with the term information, 2. we need to foresee an
> alternative to our current, linear, understanding of what is the case. In
> our current system of truths, alternatives are not contained: there is but
> one truth.  We now unveil further details of logical objects: in dependence
> of their form, their position is a corollary in a particular order. The
> non-existence of that order or the existence of a different order creates a
> class of form-position links which is not the case. Yet we can deal with
> it, because it can (again) be the case. This mental construct can be called
> both potential and information. Their collection can serve as a built in
> collection of alternatives.
>
>
>
> It doesn't take long to find the space building patterns. There, the
> discussion diverges. Structures can or can not be linearised, sequences can
> or can not delineate structures. The translations, actually restrictions,
> Nature uses in genetics can also be utilized in artificial intelligence. In
> both approaches, ideal circumstances are assumed. That Nature uses
> exclusion rather than pointing out, underlines that information gathering
> is a process of eliminating false assumptions. Focusing means leaving aside
> the irrelevant.
>
>
>
> No problem framing the system of two different versions of logical
> deductions of truths creating lots of interference in such a way which
> raises the appetite of people in artificial intelligence.
>
>
>
> Karl
>
>
>
> Karl Javorszky <karl.javorszky en gmail.com> schrieb am Do., 26. Dez. 2019,
> 20:57:
>
> Information does not exist on its own. It is the background, to which that
> what exists, relates.  It is a shadow, characterized by the form and
> position of that object which we discuss.
>
> Information is the description of that what is not the case. Information
> is the collection of the remaining alternatives.
>
>
>
>
>
> Stanley N Salthe <ssalthe en binghamton.edu> schrieb am Do., 26. Dez. 2019,
> 16:41:
>
> FIS'ers -- The domain of information is like that of spilled milk (or
> wine) on an empty table.
>
>
>
> STAN
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 6:17 AM Michel Petitjean <
> petitjean.chiral en gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Xueshan, dear All, dear FISers,
>
> This is a really important question: what are the relations between
> information science and computer science?
> At least the word "information" is common two both fields.
> Also, in my opinion, Shannon information should be considered to be
> part of both fields.
> However, more funding seems available via computer science.
>
> Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
>
> Michel.
>
> Michel Petitjean
> Université de Paris, BFA, CNRS UMR 8251, INSERM ERL U1133, F-75013 Paris,
> France
> Phone: +331 5727 8434; Fax: +331 5727 8372
> E-mail: petitjean.chiral en gmail.com (preferred),
>         michel.petitjean en univ-paris-diderot.fr
> http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html
>
> Le jeu. 26 déc. 2019 à 02:31, Xueshan Yan <yxs en pku.edu.cn> a écrit :
> >
> > Dear Marcin,
> >
> > I agree with your fundraising is an urgent issue in IS4SI, but I only
> give a few lines on your point 5. You have touched the tenderest area
> around us: Is computer science an information science? If is, what is the
> relationship between it and the information science that we are pursuing
> here? If not, why?
> >
> > Higher education of information in Japan has some good cases for us.
> Tohoku University, Tokyo University, etc. have treated technical
> information and human information separately successfully. In a sense, they
> are ahead of us.
> >
> > Another question pressing us enough headache is: Is genetics an
> information science? Same: Is neuroscience an information science? The
> fundamental concept in both of these two disciplines is Information.
> Another subject in which information becomes more and more basic in biology
> is endocrinology.
> >
> > Understanding of information science as a much broader domain of study
> just is the pursuit of IS4SI, we only have the form but without the content
> of it now, what could we propagate to related colleagues? So, not only a
> big task is it, but a despairing task is it too. Beyond computer science,
> biology, physics, and chemistry, etc. are the basic characteristics of FIS,
> but this burden has been more and more beyond our ability and is becoming
> its characteristics.
> >
> > Merry Christmas & Happy New Year to all colleagues!
> >
> > Xueshan
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIN SOBRE PROTECCIN DE DATOS DE CARCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la informacin sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
> siguiente enlace:
> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si est suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicacin en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
> siguiente enlace:
> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
> siguiente enlace:
> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20191230/6abf80a2/attachment-0001.html>