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

[Karl Javorszky]

Well, I do my best to draw attention to some implications of
oeis.org/A242615.

Like Mendel was drawing attention to some statistics related to the color
of peas.

Not an easy business.

Do you know of any arguments disproving that what oeis.org/A242615 states?

My opinion is that the relationships pictured there are of manifold
consequences.

Thanks for the mail.
Karl


Marcus Abundis <55mrcs en gmail.com> schrieb am So., 28. Juni 2020, 14:23:

> Hi Karl,
>
> >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.<
> Thank you for your note – you mention a firm synthesis has been published,
> etc. Can you please point me to a specific document that has been published
> and is generally accepted by FIS? As I have been away for a while I may
> have missed it. I am aware of some offerings (not all to be sure), but none
> that I know of that are truly 'generally accepted' *a priori* views.
>
> I refer you to Terry's Fri Mar 6 20:18:43 CET 2020 post on 'defining
> information' and his being 'constantly surprised' (as am I). What you point
> to here (above) sounds more like a meandering collection of thoughts,
> reflections, and notions, rather than of a single firm synthesis – that
> might afford an actual *science* of information, with genuine a priori
> terms.
> Your thoughts on this one point are appreciated!
>
> Marcus
>
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 1:15 PM Karl Javorszky <karl.javorszky en gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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/20200628/7b7d9e48/attachment-0001.html>