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

Thu Jul 9 21:29:44 CEST 2020

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?

STAN: Yes. I am satisfied that I understand your general approach, and that
I have elicited some pertinent responses to queries.

S

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 12:07 PM Joseph Brenner <joe.brenner en bluewin.ch>
wrote:

> 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 en 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 en 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 <joe.brenner en bluewin.ch>
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 08, 2020 4:38 PM
>
> *To:* fis <fis en 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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> [image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
> 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 en 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-personal-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 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/20200709/fd1351c6/attachment-0001.html>