[Fis] Please, be more realistic!

Sat Oct 5 11:02:45 CEST 2019

Dear Malcolm,
"religious, mythical or esoteric kinds of thoughts" belong to the class of believing.
Believing is nice psychological condition but not constructive and useful.
For instance, I believe that I am a rich man, but unfortunately in real I am not!
Because of this I could not take part in very interesting FIS and IS4IS conferences!
Please, be more realistic!
Friendly greetings
Krassimir

From: Malcolm Dean 
Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2019 9:47 AM
To: fis at listas.unizar.es 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Fis Digest, Vol 61, Issue 6

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

lives."

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

I agree that the idea of "rational, logical, communicable lives" is a bubble,
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
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)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis at listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
----------
INFORMACISN SOBRE PROTECCISN DE DATOS DE CARACTER PERSONAL

Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
Puede encontrar toda la informacisn 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 esta suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicacisn en el momento en que lo desee.
http://listas.unizar.es
----------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20191005/288a68aa/attachment-0001.html>