[Fis] Contains : Information

[Karl Javorszky]

1) Et resurrexit

Like an old warrior horse at a trumpet signal, one will awaken at the
recommence of FIS, now peacefully merged into IS4SI. Some of the right
honourable learned friends discuss organisational matters. Let me pick up
on the red thread, now in a colourful web of threads, namely the subject
matter of this long and interesting discussion: what is information?



2) Variations on a theme by Joseph Brenner

The title “Logic in Reality” is an enviably well chosen one. Let me offer
some variations on the general juxtaposition.



*Protagonist*

*Copula*

*Antagonist*

*Remarks*

Logic

in

Reality

Original Joe

Ideas

against

Experiences



Formal System

as opposed to

actual measurements

Math vs Physics

Clearly expressible

among

all concepts

Wittgenstein

Traditional

as opposed to

Innovative

FIS, IS4SI, etc



We see a system of thoughts which agrees to idealisations, simplifications,
schematisations, unification. This system of relations of concepts is
opposed to, actually included in, a confusing multitude of experiences,
which is less clear-cut, more complex, mostly opaque, partly and partially
understood, but lacking a cohesive explanatory framework. We suspect that
information is in that range which is presently outside the known,
well-expressible, coherent, logical idealised mental image which we call
Logic, Ideas, Formal Systems, which are clearly expressible and belong to
our set of things known. Outside of this is something built up of actually
existing, real, observable and generally well-measured surroundings, which
is the presently incomprehensible part of the world for us.



The working hypothesis is that we can extend the boundaries of what is
summed up under “Logic”, which leaves less in the remainder. If the world
is all that we can understand and do understand and that which we do not or
can not understand, there is a room for advancement in the field that we
can understand but do not, as yet, understand.



3) Epistemology

That, what we understand has been systematised in a conclusive manner by
Wittgenstein and his descendants (Boole, von Neumann, Shannon, etc.). The
Master had written about the grammar of clearly expressed true sentences.
This brought him immense enmity from his colleagues, co-philosophers.
Adorno summarised the rejection by pointing out that it is by no means the
job of a philosopher to spend time with sentences that are well understood,
clearly expressed and true. Rather, he should work on the barriers,
obstacles and borders which separate that what we understand from the
interesting; he should try to make the hardly or only partially understood
become better comprehensible. Wittgenstein has admitted the truth of the
argument and ceased to call his most important work a piece of real
philosophy. (Like Juan Gris, Picasso and Braque admitting that they created
no real paintings.)

If one excludes religious, mythical or esoteric kinds of thoughts, there is
no escaping the fact that the unknown can only be approached from the
inside of the bubble in which we live our rational, logical, communicable
lives. The tools of our thinking are with us inside the yellow submarine in
which we conduct lengthy discussions about what is outside.

We have to stay in the realm of sentences that are descendants of *a=a.*
The knowledge, that there exists a basic equivalence which allows us to
conclude that two separate mental contents are in some measures equivalent,
in the degree of the measure: identical, this instinctive, inborn archaic
axiom has to remain the basis of all rational thought systems.

We have, however, found some small print loophole-escape in the long-long
discourses about the consequences of *a=a.* This may appear to be pure
chuzpe, cheeky, pesky and impertinent, but we state that we have never
found in the contract stated that *pos(a) = pos(a). *This is a hitherto
neglected sub-chapter of the General Song About *a=a* and we intend to
present an invitation to the right honourable learned friends to see what
appears naturally if one does a walk along the path of *pos(a) { =, **≠ }
pos(a).*



4) How we approach the unknown

The tool we use is the next step in the succession kaleidoscope – Rubik’s
cube  :  tautomat. These toys investigate movement patterns and the results
of movement patterns. The tautomat leaves aside the random component of the
kaleidoscope and leaves aside the numeric restrictions of the cube, and can
be understood to be a succession of *n *urns in which *n *balls are placed,
where each ball is painted half by 1 of *d *colours, with the other half
being painted also with 1 of the same *d* colours. There are many ways to
line up the bi-coloured balls. If one is undecided, which is the right way
for the balls to be lined up, one turns the reordering knob and a resorting
takes place which is the spectacle to watch.

The task is to observe, which successions change in what way into a
different succession. In order to enjoy the tautomat, the user has to
unlearn some cultural conventions. The *a *we use in this *pos(a) { =, **≠
} pos(a) *spectacle is not just any *a* as implicitly understood in the
General Agreement on *a=a. *Here, each of the *a* is, by its being
bi-coloured, an individual, while being also one of a group of those which
share one of its colours. In the normal world, it makes no sense watching
reordering of elements, because all elements have been traditionally held
as being indistinguishable, of no specific property as such. The subject of
sequencing of objects is a terrain of cultural negligence in the field of
formal sciences, while social, political, economic and biological life runs
almost exclusively on the logic of preferences and sequencing. Having as *a
*such objects that are distinguishable, therefore sortable and in their
collective, orderable, as their birthright, a priori, creates endless
opportunities of watching them fight for priority and get along with each
other. There are strong hints from neurology and psychology that mental
processes are an interaction between position-based and quantity-based
algorithms. The quantitative side of *a=a *is an old bone chewed clean. The
new approach *pos(a) { =, **≠ } pos(a), *together with the idea of using
distinguishable *a *can give an energic jolt to the concepts among
professionals on basic relations between matter and place.



5) What we find

The numbers speak for themselves. The rigid logic of the numbers educates
one on which of his ideas are reasonable and which are a phantasy.

The patterns of the kaleidoscope use of the tautomat show two rectangular
spaces to exist concurrently, transcended by two planes. Of these, one
common space can be constructed which in our experience of reality actually
exists, although the numbers foretell many and varied conflicts in this
common space. A remarkable feature of this common space is an axis that
appears to picture the phenomenon known as gravity.

There are aspects of the numbers’ tale which show coexistence and regulated
succession which is translatable to effects in space. The most usable
transformational reorderings picture a logical statement to consist of
three logical places – these are in a strict succession – and on each of
the three places the possibility of 1 of 4 logical markers which influence
materially the properties of more-dimensional spaces. This arrangement
appears to agree to the basic syntax used by Nature in the transmission of
genetic information.
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20191004/158402a1/attachment-0001.html>