[Fis] Contains : Information

Tue Oct 22 13:39:01 CEST 2019

> On 4 Oct 2019, at 16:42, Joseph Brenner <joe.brenner en bluewin.ch> wrote:
> 
> This is my third note this week, but I think I’m OK under the new dispensation. I wish to clarify one point regarding ‘Logic’ as a category as used by Karl: my Logic in Reality has nothing whatsoever to do with the Logic of Numbers nor with sentences that may or may not be descendents of tautologies a = a. Karl is quite correct in using the term ‘tautomat’ to describe the Rubik Cube. It is very complicated to solve (I can’t), but it is an inert, binary system that is completely defined by its static structure. It is a tautological toy.
>  
> Logic in Reality has already extended the boundaries of classical logic, but the consequences have not been much studied. All I know is that if we stay in the ‘realm of sentences’, we are doomed.

Since the failure of logicism, we know that almost all mathematical theories extends the bounds of logic. We know that the universal machine (cf Church, Post, Turing, Kleene, …) can defeat all theories about them.
The universal machine has a rich and testable theology/psychology. 
Physics is a subbranch of it, if we assume Mechanism, so we can test Mechanism by comparing the physics “in the head of the universal machine” (extractible mathematically) and the empirical physics. I found the base of quantum mechanics in this way, not by pure logic, but by logic + elementary arithmetic, in the frame of the digital mechanist hypothesis in the cognitive science. Note that this entails the falsity of “digital physicalism” (the idea that the physical universe is a machine).

What many people seem to miss is that the notion of computation, or computer’s execution is a purely arithmetical notion, definable in term of 0, successors, addition and multiplication. Then physics emerges from the fact that we are supported by infinities of computation, structure by the logic of self-reference. This is not entirely obvious (I sum up more than 35 years of work, based on some results in mathematical logics which is not well taught, if taught at all).

Information is what the universal machines interpret. 

Bruno

> 
>  
> Joseph
> From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es>] On Behalf Of Karl Javorszky
> Sent: vendredi, 4 octobre 2019 15:03
> To: Joseph Brenner
> Cc: fis
> Subject: [Fis] Contains : Information
>  
> 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.
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>  <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>	
> L'absence de virus dans ce courrier electronique a ete verifiee par le logiciel antivirus Avast. 
> www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>  <x-msg://53/#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>_______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis en listas.unizar.es>
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis <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 <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 <http://listas.unizar.es/>
> ----------

------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20191022/7ced17c7/attachment-0001.html>