[Fis] June 2020 Posts

[Marcus Abundis]

Greetings all,

I followed the FIS posts over the last month and I have some questions.
These questions are mostly for my own edification, so please email me
directly, if you do not wish to spend 1-of-2 weekly FIS posts to answer me.
Thank you,
Marcus.

JAMIE (11 June)
– I investigated your recommendation of Why Information Grows: The
Evolution of Order, from Atoms to Economies, using thermodynamic entropy
(i.e., eventual entropic symmetry) as a philosophic base. Botlzmann’s model
stipulates a closed system (a priori) so how does it not collide with
larger physics based (open) models? Each of the four fundamental forces
(weak nuclear, strong nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravity) defeats
presumed entropic symmetry. I am skeptical about thermodynamic views as
*for me* they signal the author has not thought deeply about the problem.
Do you have thoughts to share on this, am I wrong?

YIXIN (5 June) [or Mark Burgin]
– I am still interested in your subject object (S-O) view, ESPECIALLY as it
might be jointly framed with Mark’s work. A disappointment in Mark’s GTI
work is that *to me* it misses a framework for `meaning‘. I see S-O
modeling as one way to address that lapse. I tried to find a copy of
Methodology of Information Ecology, which you suggested, and failed. I see
several similarly titled articles, but not the specific one that you name.
Can you please provide me a link for where I can download a PDF of this
article?
– Lastly, I too see the issue of `ecology‘ as an essential issue, a
critical `starting point‘ that seems missing in FIS many exchanges . . .
although I would label this an `a priori context’ instead of ecology.

KRASSIMIR (28 June, and beyond)
– As I read the first pages of your 2007 GIT paper, I feel our views
*initially* are in absolute alignment, except that I use the term `object’
(principle 1.A from Yixin’s 28 June post) instead of `entity’. Before
focusing on our differences, I ask (in a simplistic way) do you also see
fundamental agreement in our initial structural views, despite our
different terms?
– Like Loet (28 June), I too find it hard to follow the argument you post
on FIS. I agree, from the start one must see one things as primary and
secondary roles, but exactly how those 1st and 2nd roles are typified (by
you) is unclear for me (even in your 6 March post). Later in you GIT paper,
I have a similar reaction (as with your 1st 2nd FIS post) in that I feel
you introduce so many twists and turns that it becomes hard to see what
*essential thing* you are conveying. You seek to clarify 1st and 2nd using
Pedro’s 10 Principles, but his view is problematic in itself *for me* as I
do not even agree with his opening argument. As such, remaining arguments
based on this are hard for me to `buy into’. You then `throw the ball back’
to Pedro, but he never replies . . . so I am still VERY unclear about what
exactly you mean by primary and secondary. Alternatively, I state `my view’
of primary and secondary in principles 1 and 2 (from Yixin’s 28 post);
perhaps you can tell me what you see as missing from these views, in
contrast to what you have in mind?
– In a similar vein, I notice you choose to cite Pedro’s 2017 principles to
develop your explanation, instead of using the DRAFT principles shared in
Yixin’s 28 June post. Perhaps you can tell me what you find unsatisfactory
about the proposed draft, that you choose to use Pedro’s example instead?
– Lastly, I emailed you asking about your online ITHEA project (suggested
in your 9 March post). I have no reply from you, which I take to mean you
have abandoned the project. Still, to be clear, have you given up on your
on 9 March ITHEA idea? I explored the materials/links you offered but found
nothing that showed you were pursuing this in a meaningful manner. Still,
of all the other voices I see on FIS I think that *we* are perhaps equal in
our thinking and desire for making progress on this matter of
`information’, so I remain interested in any advance on this front . . .

LOET (30 June)
– I enjoyed your re-examination of Bateson’s `difference that makes a
difference’. I seem to recall him also saying `differences themselves must
be differentiated’. For my own purposes/thinking, I reframe this as
`differentiated(/ing) differences’ which then ties to `levels’, and `levels
of abstraction’ noted by Korzybski (although I have never see him
articulating those levels?). Still, a `difference that makes a difference‘
I believe points to specific `meta levels’, but where `differentiated
differences’ points to a meta-meta (general/universal/priamry) informatic
level. This meta versus meta-meta perspective is yet another way of viewing
(I believe) primary and secondary roles.

CHRISTOPHE and BRUNO (various dates)
– A quick note say that I enjoyed reading your posts, for the many months I
looked at. Thanks for your contributions.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20200702/d25f6ea0/attachment.html>