[Fis] 10 Principles

Thu Jul 2 15:28:04 CEST 2020

*Questions raised*

*Jaime:*

*The fundamental problem of information may be … 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. *

*Bruno:*

*… 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? *

*Homunculus 2.0, 21st century improved model with Artificial Intelligence*

Bruno’s assertion is, that an algorithm can be found that replicates
Individual B in such a fashion, that the replicate can be mistaken for a
person who drinks coffee, aside of acting just like Individual B. To soften
this up a bit, let us imagine that both Replicate_Moscow and
Replicate_Washington are able to exchange in meaningful conversation and
recognise Individual B’s favourite painters, poets and composers.
Homunculus 2.0 should at first have no bodily functions. That would
complicate the procedure too much.

The ability to construct Homunculus 2.0 is based on an extension to what
Bruno mentions quasi in an aside:

*… 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.*

There is an addition to be made to the *mathematical structure (N, 0, s, +,
*), *namely the comparison-fulfilment operation. Depending on the choice of
the users, symbols {<, ≠, →, ↔ or similar} can be used. The meaning of the
extension is that the elements have a-priori properties, which allow
sequencing among them. The permutations are implied in the *mathematical
structure (N, 0, s, +, *), *but the procedures of transforming –
resequencing – a permutation into a different permutation appear, to me, a
layman, not to be included in the *mathematical structure (N, 0, s, +, *).*

*Two versions of one and the same state of the world*

The automatic duplication of a Zusammenhang (web/set/collection of
relations) comes from the fact that *a+b=c *can be interpreted in *two *ways,
once from the viewpoint of *a=c-b, *and once from the viewpoint of *b=c-a*.
There is in both subspaces sufficient material to allow for independent
subvariants. Apparently, it is possible to evolve separately in two
fashions: once the world is described as a multitude of variants of *a=c-b*;
quasi as yellow garden peas, and once the world is described as a multitude
of variants of *b=c-a*; quasi as green garden peas.

The two versions appear in a geometrical form as cycles (webs of bondage,
strings, etc.) once one applies a soft tangential pressure to the natural
numbers (pairs of them) which causes them to resequence. One and the same
statement appears to be coming into existence twice, but for some special
cases.

*Pictures*

This was prepared for the Symmetry Festival in Sofia, which got reported to
2021

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342623466_STANDARD_PLANES_AND_SPACES_EMERGE_WHEN_SEQUENCING_PAIRS_OF_NATURAL_NUMBERS

and

https://www.academia.edu/43494958/STANDARD_PLANES_AND_SPACES_EMERGE_WHEN_SEQUENCING_PAIRS_OF_NATURAL_NUMBERS

I believe to understand what Bruno is trying to express on the difference
between the replicable part of the intelligence (which can be built in an
AI project) and the human-as-a-biologic-entity. As far as I understand what
he says, I see myself to support his ideas, in my language and using my
terms of reference (which are based on the axiomatic nature of finite
assemblies and periodic changes).

Best

Karl

Am Do., 2. Juli 2020 um 13:58 Uhr schrieb Bruno Marchal <marchal en ulb.ac.be>:

> 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> wrote:
>
>> Dear Jaime,
>>
>>
>> On 30 Jun 2020, at 17:33, Jaime Cardenas-Garcia <
>> 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)
>> <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> 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).
>>> 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> de la part de Loet
>>> Leydesdorff <loet en leydesdorff.net>
>>> *Envoyé :* lundi 29 juin 2020 08:14
>>> *À :* FIS <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 <loet en leydesdorff.net>
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, June 28, 2020 8:57 PM
>>> *To:* Krassimir Markov <markov en foibg.com> ; FIS <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 ; 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>
>>> To: "FIS" <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 ; 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
>>> 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
>>> ----------
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jaime F. Cárdenas-García, PhD, PE
>> JFCardenasGarcia en gmail.com
>> (240) 498-7556 (cell)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis en 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
>> ----------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> ----------
>>
>
>
> --
> Jaime F. Cárdenas-García, PhD, PE
> JFCardenasGarcia en gmail.com
> (240) 498-7556 (cell)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200702/300bd391/attachment-0001.html>