[Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 61, Issue 6

Malcolm Dean malcolmdean at gmail.com
Sat Oct 5 08:47:43 CEST 2019

The format of this transmission is mangled, and an attachment did not
survive transmission.

Nevertheless, my attention was drawn to the following statement:

"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

Surely the exclusion of "religious, mythical or esoteric kinds of thoughts"
proof that any such approach is a biased view of a selected portion of the
A complete account of Information must include their origin and function.

I agree that the idea of "rational, logical, communicable lives" is a
but it is in danger of being popped at any moment.

Malcolm Dean
Editor: How Information Creates Its Observer (Lerner 2019)
Member, Higher Cognitive Affinity Group, BRI
Research Affiliate, Human Complex Systems, UCLA

> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 15:03:28 +0200
> From: Karl Javorszky <karl.javorszky at gmail.com>
> To: Joseph Brenner <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>
> Cc: fis <fis at listas.unizar.es>
> Subject: [Fis] Contains : Information
> Message-ID:
>         <CA+nf4CX++Lj=
> fbizzCa8y7wqQn5J1VNjikWwkT2n2Jpd6dgPZA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 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.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20191004/158402a1/attachment.html
> >

*Malcolm Dean*
Editor: How Information Creates Its Observer (Lerner 2019)
*Member*, Higher Cognitive Affinity Group, BRI
*Research Affiliate*, Human Complex Systems, UCLA
*Member*, SMPTE <https://www.smpte.org/>
*On Google Scholar

*So it is necessary for you to be abreast of everything; on the one hand,
the unshakable heart of well-rounded truth, and, on the other, the opinions
of mortals, in which there is no true conviction.* (Parmenides, Fragment 24)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20191004/bcfb40a0/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Fis mailing list