[Fis] Various Recent Notes

Marcus Abundis 55mrcs at gmail.com
Sat Oct 17 08:14:23 CEST 2020

Mark’s & Joe’s Wed 23 Sep. posts:
– re notes on energy and processes . . . I agree this is the only likely
way to look at information, in *general* terms, regardless of level. The
problem is that there are *four fundamental forces* in physics, that
interact to produce 16 *accepted forms of energy* (yes, the number varies).
There is no one central concept of Force-Energy as with an imagined Unified
Field Theory (UFT). Without a singular UFT one cannot map matching
‘material primitives’ as usual suspects to exemplify a scientific *general*
informatic model. Further, any effort to replace a missing UFT with
thermodynamics as a base is equally problematic (it being just 1 of 16). It
is for this reason I resort to logical primitives (S-O) in my own analysis
. . . but which must be transcribed (back?) to material primitives to
arrive at a final model. This skirts the missing UFT problem – an admitted
kludge, but I see no way around this if one is to speak of a *general*
informatic model.
Lastly, earlier notes on representing *process* by using the terms (Joe)
‘informationing’ or (Loet) ‘informing’ I do not see as helpful, where
‘functioning’ equally represents basic processes. Neologisims tend to cloud
matters when simpler terms may do just as well.

Loet’s 30 Sep. post:
> emerging control mechanisms and their interactions.<
This is entirely true, and revisits a missing UFT in an alternate form,
*emergence* being the key term. Emergence occurs (at least) in the
interference of one Force/Energy upon another Force/Energy. Force/Energy
impedance is nowhere mapped in a precise manner in physics (no UFT),
leaving us with countless explanatory gaps. I *think* I disagree with
Koichiro’s 1 Oct. follow up. For one, I am not sure this captures the
actual nature of ‘emergence’ and I am also unsure of what exactly he means.
Still, I note it here as this area – Force/Energy/Process > Emergence – is
of intense interest for me.

Terry’s 8 Oct. post:
> Endless Circles <
Well, yes . . . despite Karl’s flowery endorsement of FIS ‘results’ I
disagree. But I find it hard to disagree in a firm/committed manner. For I
also agree with Terry:
> Of course none of these are illegitimate definitions, depending on
So *context* is the key. To discuss information in ‘a context’ is quite
different from discussing information as a ‘general concept’ – yet both
deserve support. I already point to this in my above note (material vs.
logical primitives). Still, things get problematic when one insists THEIR
context or ‘level’ is the only true/correct context (i.e., Life) . . . it
would be nice to see more circumspect notes around ‘context’ versus
‘generality’. Xueshan’s 12 Oct. note quite nicely reflects such thinking –
in addition two later notes on ‘physical information’ . . . which, in turn,
also differs from a ‘general concept’ .

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20201017/bdb2cf36/attachment.html>

More information about the Fis mailing list