[Fis] Informatic Primitives: Logical vs. Material

[Joseph Brenner]

A little bit like logic in reality, perhaps?

 

Joseph

 

 

 

  _____  

From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Marcus Abundis
Sent: jeudi, 9 juillet 2020 13:49
To: fis at listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] Informatic Primitives: Logical vs. Material

 

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 . . .


 


 <http://about.me/marcus.abundis?promo=email_sig> 


--

Marcus Abundis

http://about.me/marcus.abundis


  <http://d13pix9kaak6wt.cloudfront.net/signature/colorbar.png> 

  


 

 



-- 
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20200709/a08cfb6a/attachment-0001.html>