[Fis] FIS discussions. Units

[Karl Javorszky]

Foundation of a Chapter, not named yet



The phase of harrumphing, giving the thumbs up, administering last
encouragements, declaring being prepared, readying for the taking off,
concluding preparatory motions, etc. etc. seems to have come to a slow and
predictable clause. Now we have two choices:



a) we keep telling each other how clever, learned, well-respected we are,
and how important our contributions to science and general welfare will
prove to be, and how elegantly we can keep on congratulating each other; or



b) we pony up and show the world that: what we have achieved is indeed new
and worth looking closely into. The central idea could be a *re-axiomatisation
of the term “unit”*. Once we have a clear picture of what a unit is, we can
imagine ways of how units interact among each other.



To point b) may be counted the proposition of the accountant here, and with
due respect, Joseph himself. Josef writes:

“Our units can be related to the *Ding-an-sich *and other entities that
have been discussed in the past, such as holons.”

It may be one of my scientific life’s tragedies, that the Guru I try to
follow, rejects me as a suitable disciple. Many years ago, in Liege, my
contribution followed directly on Joseph’s. It was amazing for me to
recognise that I kept repeating: what the preceding speaker has expressed
can be fully supported by numeric models.

That is indeed a supreme and rare acknowledgement from an accountant. I do
not know any other living person who advances an original idea which has
some esprit and spark-content while being understandable as a reasonably
built structure with the general idea of accountability and balance in the
background. Joseph thinks in a fully rational fashion, about concepts that
are – as yet – not fully understood in a rational fashion. Being an
accountant requires no courage, because one never leaves the subject of
*a=a*, therefore one cannot err, the infallibility comes with the trade.
(This may explain the effect of conversation-stopper of the frequent
interjections of the accountant.) Many artists create concepts of aliens
visiting Earth. Most of the imagined aliens could not exist because they
contradict some elementary laws of physics, etc. The mental creations
Joseph sketches appear to be able to be translated in possible interacting
organisms which generate a system. It all boils down, indeed, to units.



The connection to the Ding-an-sich being permissible, may the accountant
respectfully propose a slight improvement on the calculational usefulness
of multitudes of Ding-an-sich. Let us create a few differing
Dinger-an-sich, and have this branch off the main trunk of Philosophy to be
called the world of Einige Dinge an sich.

You will not believe, exclamates the accountant, jumping up and down, what
marvels are possible if one uses a few differing units as the basis of
counting! Some of the mysteries you pontificate about appear to turn out to
be accounting translations between types, places and extents, and maybe
some more funny names.



If we invent a new method of keeping count of the Ding an sich, we shall be
much more educated in matters relating to where things are and how many of
them, when. It does not need much, just urns, balls and colors, and, before
all else, an inquisitive mind (and a computer). The exercise of memorising
sutras, mantras relating to the basic nature of the Ding an sich and the
like was not yet necessary to learn, as each of the Dinger and sich was
just like any other of them. They – the Dinger an sich – could experience
no adventures, suffer no defeats or moments of glory, as the units were
traditionally not individuated. At court, one may not sing about the
heroics of slaves, as the slaves have no names and can not be
distinguished. There was no use heralding the Holy Tournament of Master
Sequencers in Nurnberg, because there were no Master Sequencers, actually
the only sequencers they employed used symbols that are arbitrary (the
department of transport assigns number plates the symbols of which are not
immanent to the vehicle’s inner being.) The idea is to treat the Ding an
sich as distinguishable to a few of its fellow Dinger an sich. This opens
up extraordinary bounties of possible explanations and gives work and
tenure to generations of taxonomists and nomologists.



Once one begins meditating on whether this element will be on that place on
that moment, one finds that matter, energy, place, predictability,
stability, information, force, attraction, repulsion, duplication,
selection, etc. etc. are no more daunting to grasp than to agree with other
scientists which arrow is named how.



If we had a tautomat in working order (not only this back of the envelope
feasibility study that is presently available), we could make overhead
presentation of the accounting facts and ask you: now, do you want the
difference between here and here be called ‘force’ or ‘predictability’ or
what else? Do you wish to call the effects that are caused by – point to
table’s rows and columns and graph – weak or strong or pepi-type
transformation?



Once more, this person says that the thoughts of the preceding speaker can
well be made explicit, well-defined and generally understood, exactly
understood. Joseph writes:

such ‘units’ might be in the case of information/knowledge. What we
tentatively concluded, reframed here for discussion, is that two kinds
existed, one primarily epistemic, the other ontological (or ontic, if you
prefer). The latter carry energy, are not independent and are unstable,
that is, change. The former do not carry energy as such, are independent
and are stable. Different logics apply to the two types, as one might
expect.



These words await decisions. It is however, the users’, not the
accountants’ decision, how the numeric facts are named. Some call it a
loss, some call it costs of market entry. Once one employs units that come
in types, the immanent properties of the differences will be shown to
create an own class of logic. The vision described in Joseph’s sentences
above can be pointed to, and one may chew on the fine points of whether the
predictability of an element coming to a place or the certitude of an
element actually being on a place are more important, and by how much these
two contrasting logical concepts of units agree and disagree among each
other. The tautomat delivers the hidden mechanism, the underlying structure
to the appearances related to where, what, how many and when. To have a
skeleton with tissue, on which the dermatologists can base their rational
thoughts, to have a satellite image of the terrain, whatever the military
men are planning, to have a factual background, on which scientists can
point out their ideas, to have such an all-purpose accounting tool is to
have access to the next phase of rational thinking. Depicting the facts as
they are is a core, fundamental belief in the system of beliefs that is
accounting. The facts accounting delivers are very well suited as a common
background for every kind of pointing out relations among units or concepts
of agglomerations of units.



One third possible scenario is to gather crowd funding via venture capital.
Basic research does not sound really lucrative, but if the trade had not
come up from time to time with some rather juicily useful ideas, it would
have gone out of business centuries ago. The institute, where the first
laboratory version tautomat will be hosted, will have gotten a nice goose.
The golden eggs, about these the accountant is getting talkative. This
goose can lay such eggs that are if you want to read it this fashion,
matter, read otherwise, predictability and place. May it be suggested that
the right honourable learned friends think it through that expanding *a=a*
into *pos(a) {=,**≠} pos(a)* could contribute to a deeper understanding of
what *pos()* stands for, and this only at the cost of colouring some grand
dozen balls in two colors and watching how they reorder. If I was a young
man, I’d bet on this idea, says the accountant.

Am Mo., 14. Okt. 2019 um 09:23 Uhr schrieb Joseph Brenner <
joe.brenner en bluewin.ch>:

> Dear Friends and Colleagues,
>
>
>
> This (rich) note of Annette’s, plus the previous one of Terry, constitutes
> practically a new ‘Charter’ for FIS. I will only mention one bit here.
> Annette writes: Entities respectively matter (fermionic-, mass carrying)
> assemblies which can be moved (or move by themselves) as independent,
> stable units give science a really tough challenge for definition;
>
>
>
> In my paper in *Philosophies* with Andrei Igamberdiev earlier this year,
> we tried to identify what such ‘units’ might be in the case of
> information/knowledge. What we tentatively concluded, reframed here for
> discussion, is that two kinds existed, one primarily epistemic, the other
> ontological (or ontic, if you prefer). The latter carry energy, are not
> independent and are unstable, that is, change. The former do not carry
> energy as such, are independent and are stable. Different logics apply to
> the two types, as one might expect.
>
>
>
> I suggest the nature of information cannot be discussed without the
> indicated differentiation, and an acknowledgement of the co-existence of
> epistemic with ontological entities (in our brains). Our units can be
> related to the *Ding-an-sich *and other entities that have been discussed
> in the past, such as holons.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Joseph
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *
> annette.grathoff en is4si.org
> *Sent:* dimanche, 13 octobre 2019 23:05
> *To:* fis en listas.unizar.es
> *Subject:* [Fis] FIS discussions
>
>
>
> Dear FIS community,
>
> always listening to/ reading information study related considerations
> outside and inside this forum leads me to realize:
> (weak) Consensus on what was formulated as “(…) information is a
> difference which makes a difference.” (Gregory Bateson, Ecology of mind, p.
> 459) and
> strong dissent about what *a difference* is and what *making a difference*
> is.
> So I would like to inspire a start with what we have here:
>
> *Making a difference:* Entities respectively matter (fermionic-, mass
> carrying) assemblies which can be moved (or move by themselves) as
> independent, stable units give science a really tough challenge for
> definition; for centuries. Maybe to make some progress in explaining what *making
> a difference* is, we need to live with (axiomic) assumptions about matter
> as long as e.g. gravitational wave science, quantum mechanics and condensed
> matter physics will get the breakthrough-result.
>
> Matter obviously can be different and can react to influences making a
> difference on it. So the old idea that entities consist of (matter and
> matter and their relationship) dimension, possibly a fractal one can be
> used to describe what *makes a difference* to configurations of nested
> relationships. Concepts like property; transformation through absorption &
> emission; threshold levels; state; reflection or more generally: scattering
> of incoming impulses; topology and form depending on distribution; … are
> useful inside a broad variety of disciplines handling information study
> (being more or less aware) of it: Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Information
> Philosophy, Communication Theory,…
> I see that we have theories building on this “axiom” in FIS.
>
> The next huge difficulty (connected to the unclear status of matter) is to
> model the influence of *what makes a difference* on relationships which
> enable matter. Threshold levels are nice, but how can the quality of
> relationships be in-formed through the special quality (pattern) carried
> and transmitted by *a difference which makes a difference*? Philosophy
> helps us in understanding how meaningful communication can develop in
> contextual environments and Sociology hints to connections between
> meaningfulness and stability respectively cooperation and trust. But this
> both is observed in very highly developed systems and provides little help
> for understanding more basic dynamics. Regarding those, I bet on wave
> mechanics to promote our basic knowledge here (but you know that I got very
> involved in this in my project, so bias is not excluded).
>
> *A difference**:* Starting with inputs which surmount a threshold level
> of energy to trigger internal transformation of matter under dissipation
> and arriving at interference patterns in fields which can influence
> reflection (as in holography) as well as differential absorption and
> subsequent internal transformation, the field of existing research results
> concerning energy circulation and pattern transmission is really rich. I
> personally would not dare to think about patterns inside electromagnetic
> fields in context with complex frequencies in patterns read from brains,
> since this is very far from my field as chemical ecologist. But I share the
> experience that there is a lot of fascination in working on understanding
> memory formation and EEG (and similar) pattern interpretation! I have deep
> respect for science in that field. Nevertheless my feeling is that we need
> to understand the quantitative -and recently more important- *qualitative*
> generation of density field differences in radiation-matter interaction
> from a basic level. Is differentiation between similar and less-similar
> possibly involved in absorption, reflection and transmission of
> (electromagnetic) waves by matter? With this we can progress through
> understanding the (evolutionary nested) onion to reach the level of
> information processing on the (now) ultimate layer of communication and
> information technologies (connected to brain dynamics). Fortunately we have
> started to make a start on any of those layers already long times ago and
> created scientific subjects for any of them. In Communication Theory we
> made progress in understanding channels, noise and bandwidth and in
> Philosophy we made amazing progress understanding the concept of meaning
> and contextual environments, already arriving at the point of recognizing
> our own epistemic contexts; not to mention all the other more-exterior
> lying layers of research on the onion and their results. So what we have
> before us is mainly a deepening of knowledge plus communication and
> organization of knowledge.
>
> Let us use our funds, to invest into a homepage which can attract more
> specialists in the different fields, which organizes and presents our
> Berkeley- (and further) research reports and let us connect this to the FIS
> forum to invite active discussion! This generates an environment where the
> study of information can flourish.
>
> Let me know of any organizational work which the secretariat can do for
> you under Annette.grathoff en is4si.org (and if you wish to discuss
> evolution of information processing systems or any information study
> related topics with me, I would be very happy for a mail to this address,
> too! 😄).
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Annette Grathoff
>
>
>
> Terrence W. DEACON wrote on 07.10.2019 19:41 (GMT +02:00):
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> I am glad to see that there is interest in discussing the complex concept
> of information as it applies to living phenomena more fundamental than
> language (e.g. memory and molecular genetics). Language is a very late to
> evolve, highly idiosyncratic, species-specific mode of communicating
> between organisms (humans). It is useful to confine our discussions to this
> context so long as we recognize that it is both highly specialized and
> based upon many more basic levels of non-linguistic non-symbolic forms of
> information production and interpretation. Some of these are neurological
> and others are molecular. As a neuroscientist and evolutionary biologist
> these levels of analysis are of special interest to me. But to approach our
> subject with the recognition of this complexity, we need to be far more
> humble about having provided a complete "general theory of information" and
> carefully pre-specify the level of system that we are considering. For
> example, the concept of memory involves far more than the influence of RNA
> or protein effects on neurons and synapses, and the terms 'meaning' and
> 'semantics' are well-suited for discussing information-related functions in
> linguistic terms, but poorly suited for use in neurological and molecular
> informational contexts. We can best progress by recognizing these
> complexities, acknowledging the limitations of overgeneralization, and
> specifying the contexts in which our comments apply. And of course, a bit
> of humility in the face of this complexity will provide helpful lubrication.
>
>
>
> — Terry
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 6:23 AM Francesco Rizzo <
> 13francesco.rizzo en gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Caro Pedro e Cari Tutti,
>
> è comprensibile che un parto sia caratterizzato dal travaglio, ma non deve
> tardare a venire, proprio mentre i matematici
>
> continuano a parlare con Dio e la fisica resta (non si arresta) quale
> regina della scienza. Pur essendo consapevole
>
>  dell'informazione dell'economia o della economia dell'informazione, sento
> il timore di non aver, neanch'io, titolo per
>
>  affrontare-dipanare la problematica e la problem(e)tica sollevate da
> questo inizio giovanile e infuocato della discussione Fis.
>
> Quindi invito, coloro che sono più esperti di me, a porre la questione del
> "paradosso dell'informazione" nell'ambito
>
> della letteratura sui "buchi neri", onde trarne qualche opportuno
> insegnamento. Infine, parlare con Dio significa,
>
> come a Papa Francesco ed a me, forse prima, è capitato di fare,
> evidenziare l'economia del Vangelo o il Vangelo
>
>  dell'economia. Beninteso, non v'ha nessun riferimento in questo mio
> scrivere pesante e leggero o leggero e pesante
>
>  alcuna strumentale o finalistica intenzione di introdurre nel
> nostro-Vostro dibattito l'economia della fede o la fede
>
> dell'economia, volgarmente intesa o scambiata come la coscienza-obbedienza
> religiosa o religiosa-obbedienza della coscienza.
>
> Grazie e un abbraccio.
>
> Francesco.
>
>
>
>
>
> Il giorno lun 7 ott 2019 alle ore 13:58 Pedro C. Marijuan <
> pcmarijuan.iacs en aragon.es> ha scritto:
>
> Dear Emanuel and Colleagues,
>
>
>
> You do not need to apologize, and you do not need to suppose that
> memory-synaptic themes are undiscussable in this list either. Conversely,
> it looks an intriguing matter that perhaps you can prepare yourself a
> little bit longer and we can have a discussion session on it (you are
> kindly invited to chair it, or to suggest a chair). I have often insisted
> in the necessity to maintain a high standard of scholarly discussion,
> particularly in this new time of tight cooperation with IS4SI. We must
> count to 10, to 100, or better wait to the next day in order to produce
> seasoned responses to themes or opinions we strongly disagree. But those
> "fast and furious" exchanges may also leave interesting points. In this
> case I gather three at least: the qualitative limits of reason, the
> quantitative limits of "acting" reason, and the informational approach to
> the religious phenomenon. In due time, we can have ad hoc discussion
> sessions, chaired ones, on that. Personally I find more productive the
> chaired format, although having periods like the present one of spontaneous
> free-wheeling is also OK.
>
>
>
> And now to your substantive request. Looking at the board structure of
> IS4SI, I think that candidates to be IS4SI (& FIS) Ambassadors --or
> delegates or representatives-- could write to Tadashi Takenochi (in charge
> of regional Chapters) or Xueshan Yan (Institutional Membership) and of
> course to the current President (Marcin Schroeder) in order to receive the
> OK and start organization work. Or for more simplicity, I write here the
> address of the IS4SI Secretariat (Annette Grathoff
> <annette.grathoff en is4si.org> <annette.grathoff en is4si.org>) for those
> willing more specific information on IS4SI potentialities (
> http://is4si.org/);  I can also help. Given the parties currently in the
> list, I venture we could have at least half dozen new Sections or Chapters.
> Why not to have them before the end of this year?
>
>
>
> Best wishes
>
> --Pedro
>
>
>
> El 07/10/2019 a las 8:27, Emanuel Diamant escribió:
>
> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>
>
>
> As usually, I apologize for interfering with the ongoing discussion on the
> future chapters arrangement. The subject is important and great, but (as
> usual) the discussion quickly degrades to self-promoting advertisements and
> old ideas revitalization. This is a dead-ended passageway.
>
>
>
> In the current (Oct 04, 2019) *Science* issue, Vol. 366, pp. 83-89, a
> paper of the UT Southwestern team is published, where the scientists
> describe how they have implanted memories into the birds brains to guide
> the learning of their songs. The guys do not ask “what is memory?” They
> even do not need an answer – they are busy with medical implementations of
> their findings. It is self-understood that answering such a question has to
> be our duty. But again, we are not ready to keep up with this challenge.
>
>
>
> A similar case happened a year ago – In the ENEURO journal, published on
> May 14, 2018, an UCLA research group reported a successful memory transfer
> from one marine snail to another. I have immediately informed my FIS
> colleagues about this achievement, but the news left them indifferent.
>
>
>
> (As usual, not to make my FIS colleagues angry, I had not mentioned that
> the UCLA experiment reliably confirms my assumption that Information (and
> all its derivatives – thoughts, feelings, memories) are material entities,
> that is, are strings of nucleotides comprising the text of an information
> message. As such, they can be processed, manipulated, and even relocated.
> Memories are not more arrangements of adjustable synapses, as the brain
> researchers traditionally view them. Memories are real linguistic
> descriptions of observed structures that we retain and recycle in our
> brains and our neuronal arrangements. As said, I did not mention the
> above details, and my note passed unnoticed).
>
>
>
> Never mind, I am usual that from the heights of “Data and Information”
> masterpiece (Krassimir and the other FIS bessere Menschen) problems of
> memory (information) transposition and rearrangement are irrelevant and
> inappropriate. Never mind, I am usual that such subjects are undiscussable
> in FIS community.
>
>
>
> So, what happens with the New Chapters proposal? Really, a good and a
> timely idea.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Emanuel.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
> ----------
>
>
>
> --
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> 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_5476936674633028889_m_1287049714397980687_m_563148362954468>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> ----------
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Professor Terrence W. Deacon
> University of California, Berkeley
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20191015/c61e3d75/attachment-0001.html>