[Fis] 回复:FIS Session – Pedro's 10 Principles (Sep 2017)

钟义信 zyx at bupt.edu.cn
Sun Jun 28 08:32:56 CEST 2020

Dear Marcus and All,

Many thanks to Marcus for his deep thinking on the topics related to information studies.

To my understanding, the purpose of the discussions we are promoting currently is to encourage colleagues to freely express their interests and ideas on the topics that need to be concerned, rather than to limit our interests and ideas.

If this understanding is not wrong, I would like to say to Marcus: Good, Go on please.

Best wishes,

Yixin June 28, 2020 
------------------ 原始邮件 ------------------
发件人: "MarcusAbundis"<55mrcs at gmail.com>;
发送时间: 2020年6月28日(星期天) 中午11:35
收件人: "Pedro"<pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>; "KrassimirMarkov"<markov at foibg.com>; "钟义信"<zyx at bupt.edu.cn>; "Terrence W.DEACON"<deacon at berkeley.edu>; 
抄送: "fis"<fis at listas.unizar.es>; 
主题: FIS Session – Pedro's 10 Principles (Sep 2017)


Dear Pedro, Krassimir, Yixin, and Terry,

I recently reviewed many FIS posts made since I was last active in the group (late 2016). Of special interest is Pedro's September 2017 session '10 Principles of Information Science' with its two month discussion. I write to you to follow up on that session, much as Yixin's March 2020 post does (re 11-12 June email exchange).

The 2017 10 Principles discussion held many useful offerings from different corners. Also seen were a few genuine/crucial synthetic notes on key matters (in particular from Loet, Joe, Gordana, and yourselves). I found this encouraging. Still, despite Pedro's November 17 summary 'some notes', and its discussion, a firm synthesis of 'Information Science Principles' is not seen. This gap, and its resolution, is the thrust of my 11 June email to Yixin (on his March FIS post) and why I write to you now.

To enlarge on a possible 'gap resolution', I suggest this gap persists for several reasons: 
1) importantly, 'information' as a topic is so broad it covers too many areas of innate interest, such that [at *this* level of analysis] a basic definition of information is impossible. This leads to,
2) too many voices [noisy, distracting, diluted focus], 
3) speaking too often from their own area(s) of interest [too narrow, willful blindness], 
4) where no 'general' models/tools yet exist to guide one forward, akin to Shannon entropy [to counteract #2 and #3], 
5) while a firm sense of needed 'a priori' views is also missing [unable to address #4],
6) and finally, the above makes the FIS venue [in current its form] inappropriate for finding collaborative solutions.

In contrast, since last visiting FIS, my focus remains fully on addressing #4 and 5. I also shifted focus to artificial intelligence conference submissions. I feel I have made notable progress, but I also see much remains to be done. Especially, I see this 'project' as requiring firm critical thinking and the ensuing synergetic focus from select individuals. The immenseness of #1 mandates such a collaborative solution – but 'How to proceed?' . . .

Toward that end – I suggest we five(?) join in a narrow collaborative effort – outside of FIS. I see Krassimir already suggested this (via ITHEA) but it seems no one accepted his offer. In contrast to Krassimir's offer for a 'test bed,' I put forth a DRAFT list of principles directly below -– Natural Informatics. It partly reflects my own thinking (on #4 and 5) while also holding facets of your own views – those views being (I believe) essentially in agreement, but awaiting a useful synthesis. If you have interest in collaborating, adding to and refining this list of principles, please email me directly with your thoughts on how to press onward. 

Krassimir: direct and indirect, data and information, test bed, collaborative space
Deacon: multi-state analysis, intrinsic, referential, and normative, triad-ic in nature
Yixin: subjective and objective, ontology and epistemology facets
Pedro: named principles 





A. Principle of S-O Dualism (relational logic, meaning is central).
In all cases, information marks:

identifiable (O)bjects [fermions, matter, genes, agents, memes, crude ideas, etc. as ‘nouns’], 

inter-acting [bosons, fundamental forces, energy, interpretation, etc. as ‘verbs’] with other Os,

yielding topical (S)ubjects as ‘about-ness’, meaning, ‘how O interacts (S) with O’, innate computation, knowledge, etc.

For example, {1  2  3} as Os in a hypothetical void, versus ‘1 + 2 = 3’ implies ‘+’ and ‘=’ enact about-ness or meaning (S). Alternatively, ‘pure Os’ with no context as {x x x} are meaningless.

B. Principle of Identity (coincident O-S-O ontology/epistemology).
Ontology - Os interacting (S) with Os become identifiable. Conversely, unmatched Os are not identifiable (S): O and (S) are coincident [dual-material aspect, ontological a priori O-S-O]. 
Epistemology - An O-S-O ‘event’ in cause-and-effect full-ness is ‘the thing in itself’ (das Ding an sich): a Directly epistemic [no interpretation needed, materially self-evident] functional ‘primary event’.

C. Principle of S-O (V)ariability (dialectic logic, emergence).
In some cases, O-S-O events hold ‘emergent’ traits, beyond prior events [novelty, mutants, branching, etc.]. Emergence occurs due to (V)aried O and S roles in fermions and bosons, and beyond. S-O (V)ariants interact [interfere, constrain, impede, etc.] with each other, yielding new roles: O′ and S′, O″ and S″. . . As such, four fundamental forces become 16 accepted forms of energy, and more. At a lowest-level S-O (V)ariation evinces as ‘wave function collapses’; at higher-levels S-O-V seems unbounded [an expansive cosmos, incomplete science/nature/evolution, infinite ‘multi-verse’]. S-O-V before wave function collapses marks a type of quantum 'pure noise'.

D. Principle of S-O-V Levels (contiguous incommensurability).
S-O-V affords simple-to-complex ‘levels’ [context], using prior events to advance new roles. This serial ‘ratcheting of novelty’ marks a growing (V)ariant S-O continuum [‘tree’]. Further, emergent traits make one level incommensurate with another. Thus, to analyze or depict one level in terms of another level is often impractical. Instead, domain neutral terms (O-S-O/S-O-V) must frame contiguous incommensurate levels, before suitably naming primitive elements and adjacent emergent features.

E. Principle of Selective Fitness (patterns that connect, meta and meta-meta roles) . . .


A. Principle of Finite Abstraction (meta perspective).
Within Direct material-ity, In-Direct/encoded material functioning [pheromones, genomics, etc.] emerges as a new ‘class’: Discrete (meta) code. Discrete code incites [refers to] functioning rather than Directly enacting functioning (different from above). This class is often tied to Life/agency but its arrival is unexplained. Here, proto-functional (meta) principles enfold those already noted above, while also adding:

B. Principle of Data Apprehension  (sentience is central)
. . .

C. Principle of Data Management (storage, retrieval, . . .

D. Principle of Knowledge Apprehension . . .

E. Principle of  . . .


A. Principle of Knowledge Refinement (survival is central) . . .

B. Principle of  . . .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20200628/0503c30a/attachment.html>

More information about the Fis mailing list