[Fis] 10 Principles
Bruno Marchal
marchal at ulb.ac.be
Thu Jul 2 13:58:09 CEST 2020
Dear James,
> On 1 Jul 2020, at 17:00, Jaime Cardenas-Garcia <jfcardenasgarcia en gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Bruno,
>
> The fundamental problem of information may be characterized very simply as: How do we become what we become? A question that we can pose to our parents as well, and so on. At one point in time we were a single cell, now we are a multi-cell organism. More importantly, how did we become two cells? If you solve this problem, from a fundamental perspective, even using an Indexical Digital Mechanism explanation, then I believe you have solved the fundamental problem of information.
>
I would say that this problem has been solved by the second recursion theorem of Kleene, at least for the third person (3p) perspective. The basic idea is simple, and consists to apply a duplicator to a duplicator. Take the simple duplicator D. We have Dx = xx for all x. Then DD gives DD, so DD is a simple duplicator.
I guess you know this, and perhaps to allude to the question of the first person experience in such duplication. I illustrate it with some thought experience. Assuming Digital Mechanism, there is a level of description of my body such that I will survive with my body being substituted by a digital body, emulating the functional role of my part at that level. In that case I am duplicable at that level. I can be “read and cut” in Helsinki (say), and reconstituted in Moscow and Washington (where the information read in Helsinki has been sent).
What can I expect when I am in Helsinki, prior to the read-cut and copy?
Imagine that in Helsinki, I am told that, both in Washington and in Moscow, a cup of coffee will be offered to me. Then, in Helsinki I can (assuming that not only Mechanism is true, but I believe it to be true) predict with certainty that I will have a cup of coffee, as this happens in both continuations. For the same reason, I can predict in Helsinki that I will see only one city (Washington or Moscow but not both), as in both cities, any guy among those “owning” the reconstituted bodies will feel to live (1p view) to be in only city. So I can predict with certainty that I will get a cup of coffee in one city, but I cannot be sure of which one. If I predict Moscow, I know that the one in Washington will admit that he was wrong, for example. A prediction is considered as successful if it is verified in both cities (in all continuations of me, where me is the owner(s) of my personal memory (up to some point). This means also that when, after the reconstitution, I localise myself and discover in which city I feel to be, I get one (first person) bit of information (Shannon information).
So, self-duplication + the first-person/third person distinction explains where some information came from.
Now, what is not well known or taught (when taught at all), the arithmetical reality (the so called standard model of arithmetic, that is the mathematical structure (N, 0, s, +, *)) generates and executes all computations, including the infinitely many computations going through my (indexical) state. This is eventually what will explain where the “illusion” of a physical reality will come from: it emerges from the statistics on all computation going through my relative state. The math confirms this, as we get quantum logics for those first person indeterminacy.
> Have you ever wondered how you came to stand on the shoulder of giants, and become a giant yourself that uses the Indexical Digital Mechanism explanation? Some of us may stand on the shoulder of little people and we need a lot of little people to get to the level of giants standing on the shoulder of giants. But then again, what are we here to do anyway.
>
>
To assume Digital Mechanism, we need to assume a bit of elementary arithmetic, if only to define precisely what we mean by digital machine (that is, to accept the Church Turing thesis).
Now, we can prove that that elementary arithmetic cannot be derived from less. By elementary arithmetic I mean here classical logic + the axioms:
> My point is simply, we (living beings) are the ones that do all of this creation by means of a process of info-autopoiesis.
>
I am quite OK with this, if by “we” we mean all the universal numbers in arithmetic. We might say that they are not “living”, but they are the “point” through which a consciousness flux go, and can differentiate, leading the many information full histories.
> Whatever it is that we want to do or talk about, including an Indexical Digital Mechanism explanation, we do it by info-autopoiesis.
>
Yes. I said this to Varella, and I heard on that occasion that he knew about the work of Judson Webb (my own work can be sees as a continuation of the work of Webb, on the positive role that Gödel’s incompleteness theorem plays in Mechanist philosophy).
> This email, an asynchronous communication process that we are engaging in, is an info-autopoietic process. Have you ever wondered what is to the left of to the right of the first diagram in Shannon’s A Mathematical Theory of Communication paper? It is a living being, that through a process of info-autopoiesis composes the syntactical message that gets composed or interpreted. So, how does that process of info-autopoiesis work?
>
>
I think that the universal machine (+ some inductive ability/axioms) already explains this through its canonical “theology”. The machine explains that she cannot explain where the universal machinery (like elementary arithmetic) comes from, but can explain where consciousness and qualia come from, and how the appearances of a physical reality comes from and why it remains relatively stable (the most complex thing here).
> Like Keynes once said, ‘in the long run, we are all dead’. This in reference to a moribund capitalist system in the midst of the Great Depression. This pandemic is bringing closure much closer than we would like to admit.
>
The problem does not come from “capitalism” (free-market), but from the absence of capitalism due to the money based on lies, which kill the competition and replace the free-market with an economy driven by the crime, once the liars get the power.
The problem is in the lies, in the mis-information, and that problem arise already in arithmetic: universal machine lies all the time, and arithmetic is full of lies, and it is unclear if that is not needed at some level for life and consciousness to develop/differentiate.
The second recursion theorem, and incompleteness warns us that there is no cure for that, and it is part of the game of life. The pandemics reminds us our fragility, and the interest in collaborating instead of making money on disease and catastrophe (like with prohibition).
We will not die. Dying is the nature authoritarian argument, and it is not valid (!). It is a local illusion, a sort of local and relative amnesia. We cannot die from the first person perspective, because there are infinitely many computations going through us, and we always feel like surviving. I guess the brain is more use to hide and filter information, than to create it.
Best,
Bruno
> Kind regards,
>
> Jaime
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 8:35 AM Bruno Marchal <marchal en ulb.ac.be <mailto:marchal en ulb.ac.be>> wrote:
> Dear Jaime,
>
>
>> On 30 Jun 2020, at 17:33, Jaime Cardenas-Garcia <jfcardenasgarcia en gmail.com <mailto:jfcardenasgarcia en gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Bruno and Christophe,
>>
>> Let me begin by defining ‘intrinsic’ from Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intrinsic>)
>>
>> <image.png>
>> I would venture to say that definitions 1a, 2a and 2b seem applicable. Also, organisms/living beings are not machines,
>>
> This depends on your (metaphysical, or cognitive-science-theoretical) assumption. I assume Indexical Digital Mechanism (which is already needed to make sense of Darwin). From this I have proven that we cannot assume more than elementary arithmetic in metaphysics (Pythagorus was right). From elementary arithmetic, we can derive the existence of the universal numbers, and explains why they necessarily develop belief in a “physical universe”. The proof is constructive and can bestsellers tested? It is enough to compare the physics “in the head of the universal machine/number” and what we observe. The physics “in the head of the machine” which has been derived from arithmetic is the quantum mechanics of Everett-Griffith-Omnès-Hartle-Gell’man, so, in that sense, nature has confirmed the immaterialist pythagorean-like consequence of the digital mechanist hypothesis, … until now.
>
> To grasp this, it is important to understand that the universal Turing machine is an arithmetical notion, entirely definable using only the symbol s (successor), + and * with the logical symbol. No physics is assumed here, and eventually, physics is explained by this.
>
>
>
>> since machines and other artificial things (including science, number theory, Gödel-Löb-Solovay self-reference logic, etc.) are created by living beings.
>>
> OK? I see that you assume some physical universe “out there”. I do not, and I can explain why this is impossible once we assume (weak) version of Mechanism.
>
>
>
>> The origin of organisms/living beings has not been ascertained, except that we are here and have ‘evolved’ from our earliest origins. So, this is the basis for what is described in the paper.
>>
>> It goes without saying that some believe that information is a third quantity of the Universe, and that information exists in the environment for the taking, such as information in the Genome.
>>
>
> I think we must distinguish the third person notion of information, for which we can develop theories (Shannon, Kolmogorov, quantum information theory, … (there are many such theories), and first person information, for which we can extract a phenomenology, and explain its qualitative (but non rationally justifiable) aspects.
>
> If you take the Theaetetus theory of knowledge to define the soul (aka the first person), that is by “provability-and-truth”, the incompleteness theorem enforces that it will obey a S4 logic (the traditional theory of knowledge), but with more axioms, and with an explanation of why the machine, despite knowing that they have a soul, already knows that they cannot prove it, or even ascribe any third person description to it.
>
>
>
>> These beliefs are based on postulates and seem ingrained in the scientific belief system.
>>
>
> The big novelty with (digital) mechanism is that physics is no more the fundamental science, but is reduced to elementary arithmetic (aka computer science, aka information theory). This is usually hard to swallow, as we live in the christian (materialism) era.
> Most people have forgotten that the original doubt of the ancient thinker of antiquity was not about God (which is by definition the Reality), but about the physical universe. Is the physical universe what exist, or is the physical universe only the border or shadow of a bigger invisible reality? With Mechanism, the answer is that the physical reality is a first person plural construct coming from the way the arithmetical reality is seen from inside by its internal creatures (the universal numbers).
>
> The physical is but one mode of self-reference, among all those that incompleteness distinguishes.
>
> There are 8 main one:
>
> - p (Truth, the One, God, Reality, …)
> - []p (provability, belief, intellect, mind, …)
> - []p & p (Soul, first person, knowledge, …)
>
> - []p & <>t (intelligible Matter, quanta)
> - []p & <>t & p (sensible matter, qualia)
>
> Those are eight! (Three of those modes is still split in two by the incompleteness phenomenon).
>
>
>
>> There is also the general belief based on postulates that organisms/living beings are agents. This paper does not rely on any of these beliefs to argue its case.
>>
>> The fundamental problem of information is, to identify how a human organism, in a self-referential process, develops from a state in which its knowledge of the human-organism-in-its-environment is almost non-existent to a state in which the human organism not only recognizes the existence of the environment but also sees itself as part of the human-organism-in-its-environment system.
>>
>>
>
> Hmm… well, eventually this is a bit of an illusion (with the mechanist hypothesis).
>
>> Norbert Wiener states that ‘information is information, not matter or energy.’ So, information is not energy, but neither is it a third quantity of the Universe.
>>
> Indeed. With mechanism, energy itself is a first person plural way top classify first person information. The information itself comes from the arithmetical truth. It is important to understand that such an arithmetical truth is not definable, nor axiomatisable. Now, energy does share some quantitative aspect with information, and those notion remains related, but cannot be identified.
>
>
>
>> As Christophe implies ‘a difference which makes a difference’ might relate to an energy difference or variation, but it is an energy difference or variation to which the organisms/living beings learn to ascribe meaning to through a process of info-autopoiesis. Meaning is not imposed either by the environment or externally to the organisms/living beings.
>>
>> A fundamental approach may lead to high level characterizations.
>>
>>
>
> What you say might make sense in the mechanist theory, but eventually, with mechanism, we must derive the theory of matter from number self-reference (or from any Turing complete theory, I use number only because most people are familiar with them, … in my course I use the combinators of Shoenfinkel-Curry-Feys…).
>
> Of course, mechanism might be false, but I have not yet seen any evidence. I derived Quantum Mechanics when I was young, and proudly consider that I did refute Mechanism … until I realise that the physicists were already there.
>
> I think we must distinguish third person notion of information, and the subjective (meaningful) way the universal number/machine can classify the information, making it psychological, physical, theological etc. (which here are all phenomenologically extracted from incompleteness).
>
> This of course is closer to Plato than the current Aristotelian Paradigm and its material ontological commitment.
>
> Best,
>
> Bruno
>
>
>>
>> Jaime
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 9:28 AM Christophe Menant <christophe.menant en hotmail.fr <mailto:christophe.menant en hotmail.fr>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear All,
>> Different characterizations of information (like attributive vs subjective, or primary vs secondary) can indeed be introduced. But I’m afraid that these high-level characteristics keep us far away from the basic reason of being of information, and also far from a possible definition.
>> Let me recall some basics already addressed in our discussions:
>> * Information exists only by and for agents that manage the meaning associated to it. Without its associated meaning, information has no reason to exist.
>> * Information can be defined as an energy variation that conveys meaning or participates to meaning generation for an agent (the meaning leading to an action by the agent brings us close to the definition “a difference that makes a difference”). Such definition can be used for humans, animals and artificial agents, assuming we explicit what is a meaning and what is meaning generation (2020 short paper at https://philpapers.org/archive/MENITA-7.pdf <https://philpapers.org/archive/MENITA-7.pdf>).
>> Can these basics be used to look at high levels like attributive, subjective, primary or secondary?
>> Why not?
>> Best
>> Christophe
>> __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> De : Fis <fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es>> de la part de Loet Leydesdorff <loet en leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet en leydesdorff.net>>
>> Envoyé : lundi 29 juin 2020 08:14
>> À : FIS <fis en listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis en listas.unizar.es>>
>> Objet : Re: [Fis] Fwd: 10 Principles
>>
>> Dear Krassimir
>>
>>> These two points correspond to the different paradigms about concept information.
>>> The first one is based on understanding that the information exists independently of consciousness and it is everywhere. This is so called “Attributive paradigm”.
>>> The second one is the “Subjective paradigm” which is based on understanding that information is a result from consciousness processing and exists only in its memory.
>>> So, it is clear, I belong to the second paradigm.
>> The issue is, in my opinion, the specification of the relation. Concepts are specified and entertained in discourses to which we have reflexive access to different extends. "Objective knowledge" is based on coding the communication.
>>
>>>
>>> Why “data” instead of information?
>>> The “Data“ and “Information” are dialectically interconnected.
>>> The same reflection is Data or Information depending of the subjective interconnections between internal mental models and it.
>>>
>>> What is reflected by whom? The reflection for the Subject is what is activated on its receptors. So, the subject, or INFOS, reflects states of its external and internal sensors.
>>>
>> There is a model of agency in the background of these formulations. The "states" cannot communicate.
>>
>>>
>>> The measurement is not clear. Yes! What is happen in the consciousness is still not known. But for practical needs we already used differed structures and distances. There is nice work of Deza and Deza called “Encyclopedia of distances” published by Springer. In addition you may see the ITHEA book “Mathematics of distances” http://foibg.com/ibs_isc/ibs-25/ibs-25.htm <> .
>>>
>> Why not use information theory for the measurement? (Theil, 1972)
>>
>> Best,
>> Loet
>>
>>>
>>> You are welcome for further questions and remarks!
>>>
>>> Friendly greetings
>>> Krassimir
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Loet Leydesdorff <mailto:loet en leydesdorff.net>
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 8:57 PM
>>> To: Krassimir Markov <mailto:markov en foibg.com> ; FIS <mailto:fis en listas.unizar.es>
>>> Subject: Re: [Fis] 10 Principles
>>>
>>> Dear Krassimir,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I find it difficult to follow. I added some comments and questions?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Loet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Information is a primary concept
>>>
>>> 2. Information is a secondary concept
>>>
>>> 1. Information can be considered as information, neither matter nor energy.
>>>
>>> Matter is expressed as mass (e.g. kilograms). Energy in Watts; information in dimensionless bits.
>>>
>>> 1. Information is a class of reflections in material entities. Not every reflection is information. Only subjectively comprehended reflections are information. Not comprehended reflections are data.
>>>
>>> Why subjectively? Why “data” instead of information.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems that there can be mutual information between information and reflections? -:)
>>>
>>> 2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns, messages, or flows. What do you mean with “comprehended”? Who is comprehending?
>>>
>>> 2. Reflections may be comprehended as structures, patterns, messages, flows, etc.
>>>
>>> What is reflected by whom
>>>
>>> Or is this universally the case?
>>>
>>> 3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can be processed (either computationally or non-computationally).
>>>
>>> 3. Reflections can be recognized, can be measured—what is the dimensionality? How can it be measured? , and can be processed (either computationally or non-computationally).
>>>
>>> The measurement is not clear.
>>>
>>> 4. Information (it seems to me that these are entropy and energy flows) flows are essential organizers of life's self-production processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up (vague) with the accompanying energy flows.
>>>
>>> 4. Reflection flows are essential organizers of life's self-production processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying energy flows.
>>>
>>> 5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all scales.Perhaps even beyond biology.
>>>
>>> 5. Communication is based on special kind of reflections created by one entity and reflected by a second one. This way, the reflections comprehended as information by the first entity may be secondary reflected by the second one. Such information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all scales.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Loet Leydesdorff
>>>
>>> Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
>>> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
>>>
>>> loet en leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet en leydesdorff.net>; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ <https://eur06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leydesdorff.net%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9ed9231ac5754f5cc60708d81bf3c63d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637290081095218079&sdata=KBxwc%2FM03zZsF04WqLwUgPMrH%2Bu4KJDx%2BuAB3XewEvY%3D&reserved=0>
>>> Associate Faculty, SPRU, <https://eur06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sussex.ac.uk%2Fspru%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9ed9231ac5754f5cc60708d81bf3c63d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637290081095218079&sdata=vgSNs2pJulrxagvcntFEjzVOdo7j%2FZMpHjJ1L%2FTP56M%3D&reserved=0>University of Sussex;
>>>
>>> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <https://eur06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zju.edu.cn%2Fenglish%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9ed9231ac5754f5cc60708d81bf3c63d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637290081095228108&sdata=erHrvOA7CTnZsU3%2Ft6BaJ96LHUm4Dga5BRA3CKl0qgU%3D&reserved=0>, Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, <https://eur06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.istic.ac.cn%2FEng%2Fbrief_en.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9ed9231ac5754f5cc60708d81bf3c63d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637290081095228108&sdata=qJLY458Y4JHe%2FPcYQi0nFW1%2BzjvBrsMefoELWQkyTFs%3D&reserved=0>Beijing;
>>>
>>> Visiting Fellow, Birkbeck <https://eur06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbk.ac.uk%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9ed9231ac5754f5cc60708d81bf3c63d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637290081095238071&sdata=4qwmKIUY2aMDe16BU%2FDBOFb188A%2FeNwrIEtm%2Byz8GhU%3D&reserved=0>, University of London;
>>>
>>> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en <https://eur06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fcitations%3Fuser%3Dych9gNYAAAAJ%26hl%3Den&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9ed9231ac5754f5cc60708d81bf3c63d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637290081095238071&sdata=lMH3PC0YZ1%2Fg8NfK3Ct0NMnAek6pe3%2BpiVMr%2B3tvwqE%3D&reserved=0>
>>> ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7835-3098 <https://eur06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%2F0000-0002-7835-3098&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9ed9231ac5754f5cc60708d81bf3c63d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637290081095248062&sdata=X1Lr%2Bw6I7Q1cPCW%2FhbsDLXFY5q7PmAiq6lD2mPsYNec%3D&reserved=0>;
>>>
>>> ------ Original Message ------
>>> From: "Krassimir Markov" <markov en foibg.com <mailto:markov en foibg.com>>
>>> To: "FIS" <fis en listas.unizar.es <mailto:fis en listas.unizar.es>>
>>> Sent: 6/28/2020 3:46:22 PM
>>> Subject: [Fis] 10 Principles
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Marcus and FIS Colleagues,
>>>> From my point of view the main choice which has to be made in the very beginning is between two opposite cases:
>>>> 1. Information is a primary concept
>>>> 2. Information is a secondary concept
>>>> This is fundamental choice which cause all further work.
>>>>
>>>> As I already had pointed, if information is a primary concept than no theories about information can be created. One may create many other theories for EVERYTHING but not for information. Only infinite variety of examples may be created but not fruitful theory and discussions. For instance, the religious approach belong to this class.
>>>>
>>>> The second case gives us possibility to create theories ABOUT information starting from one or more other primary concepts.
>>>> I prefer the second case. The primary concepts I have used are Entity and Relationship (http://www.foibg.com/ijita/vol14/ijita14-1-p01.pdf <https://eur06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foibg.com%2Fijita%2Fvol14%2Fijita14-1-p01.pdf&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9ed9231ac5754f5cc60708d81bf3c63d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637290081095248062&sdata=CeXWCgoqHNTUcDRzwkcjL8Dc4KOtJ2VwnX5U4r27kOo%3D&reserved=0>), and Reflection as a result of interaction between entities.
>>>>
>>>> To illustrate the difference between two cases, let see the first 5 principles of Pedro in the two variants:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. Information is a primary concept
>>>>
>>>> 2. Information is a secondary concept
>>>>
>>>> 1. Information is information, neither matter nor energy.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Information is a class of reflections in material entities. Not every reflection is information. Only subjectively comprehended reflections are information. Not comprehended reflections are data.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Information is comprehended into structures, patterns, messages, or flows.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Reflections may be comprehended as structures, patterns, messages, flows, etc.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Information can be recognized, can be measured, and can be processed (either computationally or non-computationally).
>>>>
>>>> 3. Reflections can be recognized, can be measured, and can be processed (either computationally or non-computationally).
>>>>
>>>> 4. Information flows are essential organizers of life's self-production processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying energy flows.
>>>>
>>>> 4. Reflection flows are essential organizers of life's self-production processes--anticipating, shaping, and mixing up with the accompanying energy flows.
>>>>
>>>> 5. Communication/information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all scales.
>>>>
>>>> 5. Communication is based on special kind of reflections created by one entity and reflected by a second one. This way, the reflections comprehended as information by the first entity may be secondary reflected by the second one. Such information exchanges among adaptive life-cycles underlie the complexity of biological organizations at all scales.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am afraid that many of FIS members prefer the first case.
>>>> I do not know who prefer the second one beside me. If such ones exist, please write to me and we will continue the productive common work.
>>>>
>>>> Friendly greetings
>>>> Krassimir
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Loet Leydesdorff
>>>
>>> Professor, University of Amsterdam
>>> Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
>>> Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam.
>>> Tel. +31-20-525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
>>>
>>> loet en leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet en leydesdorff.net>; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ <https://eur06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leydesdorff.net%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9ed9231ac5754f5cc60708d81bf3c63d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637290081095248062&sdata=aipvWtpDLFWYeuuZQj%2BzPwjJzA0qeVpd08kTNFb%2BKI0%3D&reserved=0>
>>> Visiting Professor, ISTIC, <https://eur06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.istic.ac.cn%2FEng%2Fbrief_en.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9ed9231ac5754f5cc60708d81bf3c63d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637290081095258055&sdata=et0L30pNzbUr%2BCPRV7eAJ3ElkRtsvJwxEtDEelw9M3E%3D&reserved=0>Beijing; Honorary Professor, SPRU, <https://eur06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sussex.ac.uk%2Fspru%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9ed9231ac5754f5cc60708d81bf3c63d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637290081095258055&sdata=6b4wlkoi5HtndqagmaxGnCQASM3UHkDAjDTEFlkHSSM%3D&reserved=0>University of Sussex;http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en <https://eur06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fcitations%3Fuser%3Dych9gNYAAAAJ%26hl%3Den&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9ed9231ac5754f5cc60708d81bf3c63d%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637290081095268049&sdata=%2FYt9%2BAyGNRg6leU215b84P%2BIAU3CKjhIPpbJxYk11Kc%3D&reserved=0>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/>
>> ----------
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jaime F. Cárdenas-García, PhD, PE
>> JFCardenasGarcia en gmail.com <mailto:JFCardenasGarcia en gmail.com>
>> (240) 498-7556 (cell)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>> ----------
>> 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 <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 <http://listas.unizar.es/>
>> ----------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/>
> ----------
>
>
> --
> Jaime F. Cárdenas-García, PhD, PE
> JFCardenasGarcia en gmail.com <mailto:JFCardenasGarcia en gmail.com>
> (240) 498-7556 (cell)
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20200702/6eaec531/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list