[Fis] [External Email] A little methodical remark. A parsing of it

Thu Jul 9 18:07:14 CEST 2020

Stan and Krassimir – your comments go directly to the heart of the ‘dynamic
opposition’ which Lupasco postulated. Each part of your statements is
capable of an alternative interpretation which does not ‘prove’ but keeps
open my picture. I will start with Krassimir’s ‘language’. 

1.	We do indeed need a ‘third concept’, but it can be a process concept
rather than a state concept, for which the term ‘digit’ is fine.
2.	However, the result is not a ‘dialectical unity’, which for me is
another inert abstraction. One needs a process term that includes the entire
world-line of the emergence.
3.	The terms ‘reflection’ and ‘mental models’ can be collapsed into the
actual and potential aspects of the information process. These are part of
or inhere in the process Stan calls ‘unfolding’, but the new entity that
emerges is not cut off from its precursors. In a complex process it is
present (actual) together with the potential for further emergence. 
4.	I would never say, and have never said, that ALL information or
other processes operate via an unfolding – resistance to unfolding pattern.
This is neither correct nor NECESSARY. This does not happen or have to
happen ALWAYS. Please just consider with me, if you would, those complex,
non-algorithmic processes where it DOES.   
5.	The two approaches can go happily off into the sunset together, but
not alone.

Cheers,

Joseph 

  _____  

From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Stanley N
Salthe
Sent: mercredi, 8 juillet 2020 21:00
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] [External Email] A little methodical remark

Joseph -- What you have added here, as I understand it, is the idea of
‘resistance’ to an unfolding of a physical potential in an interaction
involving (or maybe only triggered by) it. I’m unsure of whether there is
ALWAYS resistance (implied by you via Lupasco), and to what extent that
resistance could modify or even nullify the potential via the interaction,
thus leading to an emergence where the potential has been effectively
screened out.

STAN

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 1:35 PM Krassimir Markov <markov at foibg.com> wrote:

Dear Joseph and FIS Colleagues,

Thank you very much for the nice posts!

Please excuse me for the delay of my current post!

During the last weeks I had been occupied with organizing the ITHEA® ITA
2020 International Scientific Events, including the GIT 2020 Int.
conference. 

Now, I want to make a little methodical remark.

If we take 0 and 1 as phenomena which we want to investigate we have to make
choice.

To take 0 as primary concept and to try to explain 1 by it or vice versa.

In both cases, we couldn’t do any reasonable conclusion. 

Our two concepts – 0 and 1 – are concepts at the same level.

We need a third concept to be accepted as a primary and to explain our
concepts by it.

In mathematics this problem had been solved centuries ago. 
Here I want to remember it.

The third concept can be the concept “Digit”. 

This way, 0 and 1 may be explained easily as concrete states of Digit.

The same problem was pointed by Stan. The dialectical unity of two opposite
states.

Following the reasons given above, we can solve the problem with dualism of
concept “Information” by taking an other concept as primary.

Such concept for me is the concept “Reflection”.

As I already had written, the information and data are kinds of reflection
which differ only on the basis of subject’s or agent’s possibility to
connect the reflection to other his/her mental models.

Friendly greetings

Krassimir

From: Joseph Brenner <mailto:joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>  

Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2020 4:38 PM

To: fis <mailto:fis at listas.unizar.es>  

Subject: Re: [Fis] Krassimir's question about information

Dear Friends,

A short dialogue:

Stan: Krassimir: “Is information primary or derived/secondary?” My (Stan’s)
restatement is:  "Is information, as physical form, potential? -- or
emergent upon having an effect? This formulation shows that there is no
difference between these concepts.”

Joseph: HOW is it both? What does it mean “to be both” at the same time? 

Stan: My “potential” refers to ‘in itself’, which (at any moment) is
timeless, and is Krassimir’s “primary information”. While my “having an
effect” refers to a particular moment when a primary physical form is
acting, or being acted upon, when its form may have consequences, or become
consequential. In this event its form generates “derived/secondary
information". 

Joseph: This is what requires explication and where I think Lupasco had
something to offer, in his basic principle of dynamic opposition (Stan:
generating “derived/secondary information). This is no more and no less than
that a falling object instantiates kinetic and potential energy at the same
time (Stan: That is, its primary form still exists, even if deformed),
except that real complex processes do not “fall to the bottom” (no 0 nor 1).

Stan:  Effects necessarily emerge from potentials (IF they emerge at all).
But are both potential and emergent 'at the same time' only while the
potential is unfolding: a physical situation embodies a potential, which can
inform. When/if that potential unfolds the potential is realized, and
emerges in its effects.

Joseph: I agree, but in my view your correct expression, “while the
potential is unfolding” has two significant consequences: the process is
neither instantaneous nor spontaneous. In the Lupasco view of dynamics, a
potential ‘unfolds’ against some actual resistance to that unfolding, and
the effects, in almost the same language, emerge, actualized, as a
consequence of that opposition. The word “only” to modify “at the same time”
is justified for simple processes which do go to an ideal limit of 0 or 1,
not for complex, informational processes. Is there an ‘end’ to this
dialogue?! And is information not present throughout it?

Cheers,

Joseph

  _____  

 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> Avast logo

L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le
logiciel antivirus Avast. 
www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>  

  _____  

_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis at listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
----------
INFORMACISN SOBRE PROTECCISN DE DATOS DE CARACTER PERSONAL

Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
la Universidad de Zaragoza.
Puede encontrar toda la informacisn sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
siguiente enlace:
https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-pe
rsonal-en-listas
Recuerde que si esta suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja
desde la propia aplicacisn en el momento en que lo desee.
http://listas.unizar.es
----------

_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis at 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-pe
rsonal-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
----------

-- 
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/20200709/77e2534a/attachment-0001.html>