[Fis] Informatic Primitives: Logical vs. Material

[Marcus Abundis]

Lars-Göran’s (1 July post) 20-40 different ways of using `information’ (and
other words) is an excellent point. There are countless ways in which we
use any `word’. But, if we hope to frame `information science’ or `general
informational systems’ one must name *primitives* detailing base facets of
`information’. Exactness, primitively precise detail, is what affords
`science’ – where better detail makes better science. Thus, `information’
(or even `data') used as a core term is, in itself, of little use – in
fact, it is so vague and imprecise as to be confusing. We should speak
instead of detailed informatic primitives, only.

For example, science as physics/chemistry/biology/etc. is supported by firm
`measurable and repeatable’ *primitive elements*. Without primitives
(bosons, atoms, cells, etc.), no science exists, nor is science even
possible. Instead confusion prevails (as with FIS?). In comparison,
economics and psychology are so inexact in their primitives one barely
calls them science. Still, in the end this leads one to ask `What
*primitives* are required to enact information science as a formal
discipline?’

To answer this question, a difference between physical/hard science and
informatics is that *material primitives* support hard science (primitive
elements used in step-wise logical `levels’). But no material primitives
exist for informatics – or perhaps better said, an entire universe of
material primitives (from science and beyond) are available for
informatics. That informatic material (and abstract) vastness leads one to
ask `At which level should I begin my analysis?’ We thus see Pedro pointing
to biology, Loet seems to advocate for sociology(?), Yixin and Krassimir
point to agency, and so forth . . . the list is long and varied (as
Francesco and Pedro also point out  in 1 & 2 July posts; sincere apologies
if I mischaracterize your interests above).

As such, from that informatic abundance, the only way to proceed is to name
*logical primitives* in lieu of *material primitives*. Logical primitives
must cover ALL FOREGOING MATERIAL LEVELS, but as a primitive `meta
perspective’.

To my mind’s eye, FIS dialogue often bounces around `What one level might
be best used?' (Shannon, biology, consciousness, etc.) or `What
characteristic traits/dynamics should we focus on?' (Shannon, primary,
secondary, etc.) . . . but rarely (if ever?) do I see actual GENERAL
INFORMATIC PRIMITIVES being named (please tell me if I missed it). This
changed when I saw Yixin's March 2020 post mentioning subject object roles
– prompting me to re-surface on FIS. As such . . . I have already suggested
(via Yixin's 28 June post) informatic primitives as (O)bject and (S)ubject
roles with innate (V)ariability. I welcome/encourage further discussion of
actual named GENERAL INFORMATIC PRIMITIVES that afford an advance on a
science of information . . .


[image: --]
Marcus Abundis
[image: http://]about.me/marcus.abundis
<http://about.me/marcus.abundis?promo=email_sig>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20200709/28bc43ce/attachment.html>