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

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Marcus,



Nice to have you back in the conversation. There are some aspects of your
communication, however, to which one may feel encouraged to give a
dissenting opinion.



*Still, despite Pedro's November 17 summary 'some notes', and its
discussion, a firm synthesis of 'Information Science Principles' is not
seen.*

It depends on what you understand to be a ‘firm synthesis’. The model which
has been offered, presented, argued, touted, reintroduced, published, etc.
etc. might well hit the mark of being a comprehensive, consistent, logical,
easy to understand, and, yes, *firm synthesis* of matters relating to
information. This firm synthesis has been offered to FIS in many styles,
from epistemological to deictic, from technical to poetry.



*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. *

It depends on what you understand to be a basic definition. The basic
definition of information has been brought to your attention in the
following form:

*Information, definition of*

*a.: semantic*

The sentence

*It was Peter who did it*

is a statement and contains no information



The sentence

*It was Peter, from among {Peter, Paul, Susan, Mary}, who did it *

contains the information *{Paul, Susan, Mary} did not do it *



*b: formal*

The sentence

Let *x = ak*

is a statement and contains no information



The sentence

Let *x = ak* and *k **Î** {1,2,...,k,...,n}*

contains the information *k **Ï** {1,2,...,k-1,k+1,...,n}*





*2) too many voices [noisy, distracting, diluted focus], *

There is a popular folk song sometimes heard in relaxed society: “Oh,
Vienna would be so lovely without all the Viennese…”. Of course, each of
the participants in a chat room believes their contribution to be the
opposite of noisy, distracting, diluted focus.



*3) speaking too often from their own area(s) of interest [too narrow,
willful blindness], *

Is this as opposed to a better, or ideal, chat group, where people speak of
other people’s area(s) of interest?



*4) where no 'general' models/tools yet exist to guide one forward, akin to
Shannon entropy [to counteract #2 and #3], *

Please allow me to point out, that there is indeed a general model/tool to
guide one forward, akin to Shannon entropy. It has been referred to
variously as “tautomat”, “mombering system”, “the ultimate /idealised/
Rubik cube”, “the kaleidoscope” and more names, incl. “Karls model”, “the
moving-cycling system”, and lately as “a web of bondage”.



*5) while a firm sense of needed 'a priori' views is also missing [unable
to address #4],*

The main point, concept, basic principle of the model based on sequencing
and resequencing is that the web made up of cycles, strings, bondages -
<insert your preferred name for the model with an as yet unstable name> -
utilises, creates, recognises, unveils, discovers  *a priori relations *among
the concepts we use.



*6) and finally, the above makes the FIS venue [in current its form]
inappropriate for finding collaborative solutions.*

This observation may be very true. Unfortunately, in my previous profession
(psychologist) we have learnt that if you do not get understood, although
your audience should be able to understand you, it is your own fault. Not
the customer is an idiot because he will not understand you, you are an
idiot for not being able to explain yourself in such a way that he will
understand you. This distribution of responsibilities and blame is not
always pleasant. One still has to try to explain the answer to a question
that had not been asked. Even more so, if the customer goes around
lamenting that no one will help him understanding his complex problem, of
which he is not yet decided, how to formulate a coherent question, and
accusing the world that there are no people who can match him and help him
by collaboration.



*'How to proceed?' . . .*

*I put forth a DRAFT list of principles directly below -– Natural
Informatics. … 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. *

Thank you for presenting your basic structure. There are many points to
collaborate on. For ease of understanding, one may suggest to use such
words in the logical discourse which we conduct, that are clearly defined
with a public understanding of their meaning.



Before I continue discussing in detail on possible collaboration, let me
refresh your knowledge about the model called e.g. kaleidoscope.



*The basic principle* is that we regard the objects we imagine to remain
more particular than has been en vogue since Kant. We leave the last few
steps of abstraction into a Ding an sich undone, and remain with *objects
that have some basic properties*. The imagination is this way, with some
properties of objects remaining, also closer to everyday, common sense
observations and to lessons learnt during acculturation.

One will have friends, books, meals as *examples*. Each of the friends one
can grade on their ability to be entertaining and to be useful; each of the
books one can grade on their ability to be easy to transport and to be nice
to read; each of the meals one can grade on their ability to be fattening
and to be spicy. We shall use in the model the same number of somethings we
experiment on, say 6, 7, up to a grand dozen of somethings. Say, we have 7
friends, books and meals.

After having rated each of the friends, books and meals in their two
respective properties, we shall be able to line the friends, books, meals
on their property of being entertaining, transportable and fattening. We
are able to assign a symbol {A,B,C,D,E,F,G} to each of the objects.

Then we order – rank – our friends, books and meals on their property of
being useful, readable resp. spicy. We are able to assign a symbol
{a,b,c,d,e,f,g} to each of the objects.

We have now 7 objects – friends, books, meals – which have *two (2) *linear
positions. We draw two axes, X and y, which we grade A-G and a-g. We can
now place the friends, books, meals in a grid, where for each of them, its
single two-dimensional position depicts its two linear positions.

Now we start the procedure of resequencing. Using books, one will grab the
most transportable, A-rated, book and will place it unto linear position *k,
k:{**a,b,c,d,e,f,g}, *according to its rating with respect to readability.
We shall see, that (barring the cases: Aa, the most transportable book is
also the most readable, and A*k ↔ K*a, where two change directly place with
each other), there will appear *pushing events. *

The term *pushing event is of central importance* in the model.

Let us use the example {Ac,Bb,Cd,Dg,Ef,Fe,Ga}. Object denoted Bb refers to
a book that is second-most transportable and second-most readable. Its
position on a plane is and stays (2,2). The objects Ef and Fe exchange
places directly: the fifth-most transportable book is the sixth-most
readable, and the sixth-most transportable book is the fifth-most readable.
There is in the first case 0 push, in the second case, there is a push of
unit extent.

The books described by the notation Ac,Cd,Dg,Ga constitute a cycle. The
push value of this cycle is 4. Element Ac belongs now – as the result of
reordering the books according to their readability, no more according to
their transportability, has to move from position denoted A to the position
denoted c, that is from the first to the third place. This place being
presently occupied by element Cd, element Ac *pushes *element Cd away, push
No. 1. Element Cd has to find its place d, which is the 4th place. There,
however sits presently element Dg. Element Cd *pushes *element Dg away,
push No. 2.  Element Dg has to find its place g, which is the 7th place.
There, however sits presently element Ga. Element Dg *pushes *element Ga
away, push No. 3. Element Ga has to find its place a, which is the 1st
place. There, it is debatable whether to count an arrival to an empty place
as a push, if so, one meets push No. 4. (Otherwise, one counts *moves*, not
pushes.)

This example about friends, books and meals is sufficient to explain the
morale of the story. *Whatever assembly you reorder, there will be, aside
of extreme cases, a necessity to free up the place whereto a thing is to be
transferred, and usually, that thing will cause a further step of work by
necessitating the freeing up of the place whereto that thing is to go.*
Rearranging is a procedure that has its own laws.

This example about friends, books and meals is not sufficient to discuss
the implications of the morale of the story. The principle remains the
same, as we repeat the exercise in an exhaustive fashion, systematically.
Whatever properties the elements of an assembly are ranked on, a reorder
creates pushes and movements which are geometrically representable.



The general principle holds true, but it drowns us in relations, if we
generalise into any pairs of properties. It is more *practicable to filter
out* those of the push-movement-relations (aka cycles), which are subject
to further restrictions. We restrict in the following discussion our
universe of comparable subjects to those having properties which are
interval-scaled, that is: *additive*. While it is educative to draw one’s
own collection of pairs {(A,B,C,D,E,F,G),(a,b,c,d,e,f,g)}, the idea of
maximal regulation leads us to restrict our investigations to such
collections which are subject to *a+b=c. *We leave aside a great number of
relations and facts, which we may call non-additive or dark energy or
matter, but in understanding the I in FIS to mean information – as used in
the grupo bioinformatrico – being transferred in theoretical genetics, we
deal with assumptions that are ideal, where any and all restrictions may
apply.

In fact, we would not be able to express ourselves about dark matter in a
comprehensive, Wittgenstein-style fashion presently, because the words and
their relations among each other appear to be agrammatical to our present
understanding of the grammar of logical sentences.



Restricting ourselves to discussing only such assemblies on which each of
the combinations of properties appears exactly once, and which obey *a+b=c*,
allows on the other hand targeting the *ideally efficient method of
transmitting, storing and retrieving messages*. You bet Nature would not do
with the inefficient. In fact, experiments with friends, books and meals
have resulted in a model, in which a statement consist of three words which
are sequenced and each of the words can have one of four variants.



Please reconsider your impulse to leave this chat. The tools offered to you
will be useful in your continuing research.



Best regards:

Karl



Am So., 28. Juni 2020 um 08:34 Uhr schrieb 钟义信 <zyx en bupt.edu.cn>:

> 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 en 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 en aragon.es>; "KrassimirMarkov"<
> markov en foibg.com>; "钟义信"<zyx en bupt.edu.cn>; "Terrence W.DEACON"<
> deacon en berkeley.edu>;
> *抄送:* "fis"<fis en 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.
>
> FACETS:
> 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
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Marcus
> ================
>
> NATURAL INFORMATICS
>
> 1- DIRECTLY FUNCTIONING (PRIMARY, INTRINSIC) MATERIAL WORLD
>
> *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) . . .*
>
>
> 2- DISCRETELY ABSTRACT (SECONDARY, REFERENTIAL)  ENCODED WORLD
>
> *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  . . .*
>
>
> 3- DIFFUSE TEMPORAL (ENDURING, NORMATIVE) WORLD . . .
>
> *A. Principle of Knowledge Refinement (survival is central) . . .*
>
> *B. Principle of  . . .*
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200628/801dbc2b/attachment-0001.html>