[Fis] FIS discussions. Units
Jerry LR Chandler
jerry_lr_chandler at me.com
Sat Oct 26 20:29:49 CEST 2019
List:
This message seeks to address several recent posts, (Pedro, Joseph, Karl and the Entropo-phites) all related to the concept of units and the phenomenology of the natural sciences. That is, what are the unitary nature of informed science?
My overarching semantic hypothesis was previously stated is terms of a Tarski-type truth function for Lesniewski’s part-whole relational algebra’s for nature’s integers.
"The union of units unite the unity.”
Broardly interpreted, this sentence expresses the essence of the philosophy of the natural sciences and Organic Mathematics.
Natural communications (including human communication) use symbolic units to send and receive messages. Thus, I propose that the Foundations of Informational Sciences are scientific units.
Q1: How many different scientific forms of units are informational?
Q2: How are different forms of scientific units related to one another?
Pedro’s seeks to understand the nature of the inanimate and the animate, apparently in terms of information theory.
Q3: What are common units of the inanimate and the animate?
Hypothesis: The common units of all inanimate and animate objects are the atomic numbers.
Hypothesis: The inverse square “laws” of physics ground the relations and illations of nature’s integers.
Hypothesis: The organization of the atomic numbers determine whether an object is inanimate or animate.
Q4: Does an informed path exist which logically organizes the inanimate into the animate?
Q5: What are relationships between the inanimate objects and the animate objects?
Hypothesis: If two independent forms (parts) are copulated (linked, conjoined, connected, bound) together, a novel interdependent informed whole is formed.
Hypothesis: A set of atomic numbers can be composed into an animate object by copulating the set of parts into a natural sort or kind (an organized whole).
Pedro: Do these assertions add any light to you critical quation about possible relationships between units, the animate and the inanimate? Is any simpler scientific mathematics possible?
Next, Karl’s carefully written post.
Perhaps I misunderstand it, but, given Karl’s earlier posts, it appears almost as an epiphany.
But, I am confused about the mathematical meaning of the term “cut” in the context the examples given.
Two simple questions will clarify the meaning for me.
Q1: Can one count the number of binary cuts of the integer “ten”? What are they?
Q2: Can one count the number of ternary cuts of the integer “ten”? What are they?
(Binary cut? X:Y? Ternary cut? X:Y:Z)
Next, on the questions of units and the form of symbols, including entropic and quantum.
Joseph, (Oct 14) writes:
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.
As a philosophical assertion, this appears to be substantial progress in your position. However, is it, from the perspective of the foundations of the informational sciences, substantial, satisfactory and sufficient to ground the concept of the unity of units?
I offer a simpler scientific approach. A stationary symbol system can be the source of both epistemic and ontological scientific information.
For example the epistemology of the atomic numbers is well grounded in relation to both the ontologies (meanings) of both quantum theory (the Schrodinger equation) and thermodynamics, including the Law of Mass Action.
Moving on in the FIS concept space, what are the “real” units of entropy?
Does the notion of “entropy”, a term specifically created for physical/mathematical/thermodynamic purposes with exact quantitative relationships, have a singular meaning? Or does it have a multiple of meanings that depend on the context of the sentence (assertion, proposition, equation, information symbols, perplexity of the circumstances, philosophical agenda, etc?)
While numerous meaning of this term are used in the superficial philosophical literature, it has a very clear meaning in mechanical systems such as steam engines. In terms of the units of atomic numbers, it can be associated with the epistemology and ontology of the compositions of informed numbers in very exact and measurable terms, that is calories (e.g., calories as in fat contains 9 calories per gram). (See any introductory biophysics textbook for the mathematical details.).
Q1: Are the union of thermodynamic units necessary to express the logic of entropy in animate systems? If so, what informed units express necessity? What informed units express potential?
Q2: What is the nature of informational units that unitize entropy production in animate sorts and kinds? Are the informational units homopathic or heteropathic? (Homogenous or heterogenous?)
Annette has raised some deeper issue that I will seek to address after I have studied her papers.
Cheers
Jerry
> On Oct 14, 2019, at 2:23 AM, Joseph Brenner <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch> wrote:
>
> 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 at listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of annette.grathoff at is4si.org
> Sent: dimanche, 13 octobre 2019 23:05
> To: fis at 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 at is4si.org <mailto:Annette.grathoff at 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 at gmail.com <mailto:13francesco.rizzo at 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 at aragon.es <mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs at 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 at is4si.org> <mailto:annette.grathoff at is4si.org>) for those willing more specific information on IS4SI potentialities (http://is4si.org/ <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 at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at 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/>
>>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> -------------------------------------------------
>>>> Pedro C. Marijuán
>>>> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
>>>>
>>>> pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es <mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>
>>>> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ <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>
>>>> <x-msg://58/#m_1287049714397980687_m_563148362954468>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at 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/>
>>>> ----------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Fis mailing list
>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at 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/>
>>> ----------
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Professor Terrence W. Deacon
>> University of California, Berkeley
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACI�N SOBRE PROTECCI�N DE DATOS DE CAR�CTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la informaci�n 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 est� suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicaci�n 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/20191026/23365047/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list