[Fis] The 10 Principles--Replies

[Karl Javorszky]

Dear Colleagues



The discussion about the Ten Principles circles mostly around topics which
deal with the higher floors of an intellectual building. To the inner
architecture, furnishing, purpose and amenities of the higher levels of an
edifice someone who works on the fundaments of the building can hardly say
anything constructive. Yet, some of the last few contributions do touch on
matters where the opinions of the geometer and the static engineer can
meaningfully contribute.

*The biosphere and the building in it*

When working on erecting an (intellectual) edifice to house Information and
her extended relatives, friends and customers, it is surely useful to think
first about the environment and the landscape in which the house stands, a
house one wishes the tenant to be happy in. Information *resides *in
actual, physical, ontological things and facts. The *ontology* of walls,
staircases, bricks and mortar is different to the* metaphysical* habits and
preferences of the living tenant. As far as I understand leading voices,
e.g. Marcus, Pedro, Christopher et al, the task is to somehow merge the
soul and the body (to which subject Thomas Aquinas has already dedicated
many convincing words), the tenant Information doing her works on Level
Pedro, where biochemical processes are regulated, the daughter “Meaning” of
the tenant Information hiding in or behind inanimate objects on level
Marcus, the artist Information juggling terms in an artistic happening, *l’art
pour l’art*, on level Krassimir, and so forth. This is all very nice, that
that the prospective landlords have plans with the future tenant, but *we
are not yet there*. We have first to erect the fundaments, and before that,
we have to ask the geologists’ opinion about the ground and the site of the
building. We have to take a step back and consider the structure of the
building and its surroundings. The idea Information, like a Greek Goddess,
has to be able to live and do her manifold works in the building. The
building has to be structurally sound and placed on a solid fundament. The
solidity of the fundament can only be evaluated by looking at the
geological facts of the valley or hill the edifice will stand in.

*Structural Soundness of the Building*

It is definitely good practice to imagine oneself to be living in a space
that has three dimensions: up-down, right-left and front-back. The up-down
direction we instinctively know and recognise. (One wonders, what kind of
philosophy Aristoteles, Heraclitus, Aquinas would have evolved, if they had
been born and raised in a space-ship with no gravity.) On the *horizontal
plane*, things are less predictable. We already know, how strong the
pillars need to be to carry the weight of the edifice, to withstand *vertical
stress.* We now address the inequalities present below the surface of the
building site. Here, we have to deal with the concept of *lateral
flexibility*. (How many different – maybe adjacent – geological strata are
there: is it a rock, do we need sand to fill up, wooden legs, blocks of
concrete or a ponton are needed.)

It would be helpful, if we agreed that whatever we place in the
intellectual building, the building itself should have sound spatial
anchoring in space, in that space as we know it. Information takes place in
the space as we know it, so we better place the concept in a spatial
context.

*Sound Fundament*

It cannot be helped, the sad truth is that the fundaments of all edifices
with sound structure are themselves fundamented in *a=a*, mostly used in
its reading of *a+b=c. *One cannot avoid establishing the reference line
when building a house. Some customers may have built their houses without
levelling it first and fill their *chateaux *with unicorns: eventually each
of these will collapse, If trying to say something reasonable, one has the
first introductory duty to show that what one says relates to *a+b=c*.

*Geological Facts, Permafrost, Tides and Hurricanes*

It would be short-sighted to build a structurally sound house with sound
fundaments on a piece of land that thaws and refreezes each year. If the
customer wants to build a really fine *chateau* where he can observe
Information in her natural habitat, breeding and grooming, transferring
knowledge, this *chateau *should be adapted to the yearly seasons, gather
and discharge heat in harmony with the daily revolutions of the Earth, and
being biologically-minded, it should have a section which swings with the
Moon (Information works also in cahoots with the Moon, as some spawning
patterns of fish and the menstruation cycles evidence.)

It would be helpful, if the intellectual edifice would be prepared to
undergo periodic changes.

*No shit, Sherlock*

Your structural engineer has no business with what you plan to do in your
Habitat for Information. His contribution does not criticise or in any way
categorise the approaches of the builders to the prospective tenant. Yet,
he feels compelled to elaborate more on the structural engineering facts of
erecting such an intellectual cage, prison, taming ground, workhouse,
school, pleasure garden for Information.

In order to do the calculations, which lead to placing the tenant in a
well-built building which stands solidly in an environment that
periodically changes, it has proven a necessity to update on the methods of
structural engineering. That in itself would neither disturb nor interest
neither builder nor tenant, but it is imperative to know beforehand what
the necessary improvements in flexibility entail in consequences. To put it
short: you will not be able to use listening devices, because the doors
will always go cling-clong; you will not be able to measure temperatures,
because the window shades will keep going up and down, you will not be able
to level, because the floor may be tilting up or down, and so forth.

The structural engineer respectfully asks, whether that tenant Information,
who drains and levels, distinguishes and contrasts, regulates and creates
puzzles, is she, the prospective tenant, is she not like a nice old
traditional countryside English ghost? A well-built building which is
flexible enough for all kinds of seasons in all kinds of spatial and
material circumstances, is quite possible to build, but it will by its own
flexibility create all kinds of spectacles, including entropy, flooding by
hormones, electric discharges and sequenced amino acids. A building such
well designed for all eventualities how Information might be residing and
doing whatever she pleases, will by itself do, by itself cause, quite a lot
of interdependent actions, of varied kinds and appearances. Maybe we are
standing already before a building Nature has built, which is by its
structural nature – necessities of structural engineering – creating all
kinds of hullabaloo.

*Additions to the established code*

We had to update basic number theory, better: the epistemology behind basic
number theory. The current version of the catechism states that

a line (1 line) exists, in three rectangular directions;

there can be an endless number of steps be gone on the flat Earth in one
direction;

an egg is like any other egg;

there is 1 thing which is no more subdivisible;

it is impossible to predict the future, although we can predict the
movement of the stars

These points we have expanded by stating that

The vertical direction be called *a+b, *the two horizontal directions be
called *b-2a, a-2b;*

We only deal with walks that are closed;

We color eggs with 1 of *d *colors;

We assemble pairs of eggs, each coloured in 1 of *d *colors, the basic unit
here consists of *two *kinds of even more basic units.

Further additions to the codex:

always look at the whole collection of *d*(d+1)/2* eggs;

subject the collection to periodic changes (which alter their linear
sequence);

register which eggs create cycles with which other eggs during a periodic
change.

*Reasoning behind expanding the codex*

Particular: Leave space for heat expansion when building steel structures.
General: Keep flexibility when anticipating periodic changes. Flexibility
means there are alternatives (too short, too long) to the target value
contained in the vector of alternatives. Keep thinking in terms of a closed
set of alternatives. Flexibility is needed when there are periodic changes.
Keep thinking in terms of resequencing (=adapting to periodic changes).

Particular: There are *Two *strings of genetic information which say the
same, in different syntax. General: Nature would save on the redundant copy
if it was not absolutely necessary. The message has to be necessarily
expressed in two coherent forms, which can be deviating, but if they say
the same, they must agree. The description of what is the case happens in *two
*languages, which can say the same if it is relevant, that is: true for
both. One needs a *pair *of basic units.

Particular: Information that X has died in a road accident causes emotional
distress. General: Information either translates into a material entity or
is a material entity (pointer to a record in the database, or the record
itself). If it is a material entity, then the material entity has to
contain something which is its information content.

Particular: Afternoon in Autumn, waxing Moon dimly visible. General: We
live in a world subject to periodic changes. Our counting system has to
adapt to our observations. We have to count in terms of periodic
recurrences. Requirements towards the individual change if a general
optimisation takes place due to effects of periodic changes. Let us
investigate at first the conflict solving mechanisms arising from *two
*different
requirements (which is the right place now?)

*Workability of the extended toolset of structural engineering*

The proposal is to erect the edifice in accordance with the remarks of the
structural engineer. These are:

Think in terms of change, one snapshot does not tell the story;

Use *pairs *of logical units as members of a *cohort *of logical units;
(the cohorts are named colloquially ‘logical primitives’, name © Marcus,
and are defined in oeis.org/A235647 deictically);

Subject the cohort to periodic changes;

Register the cycles each individual logical primitive will enter into, in
dependence of two different requirements that circumstances may pose during
periodic changes;

Extract the information content from each of the cycles;

Keep not neglecting that slack, flexibility, reserve which is the
information content of each of the cycles.

*Explanation: *The information content of a cycle is the deviation between
expectation and what is the case. The deviation is an artefact coming out
of doing *two *kinds of counting: how *uniform *is the cycle and how *diverse
*it is. Relative to how many uniform planar steps the primitives of the
cycle do, they are *{not enough, fine, too much*} diverse. Relative to how
many degrees of diversity is there among the primitives, they do *{not
enough, fine, too much}* equally spaced steps. These are numeric values
which are subject to the rules of addition.

*Adjacent*

Learned friends may find the information useful, that there exists a kind
of adjacency which has not been widely discussed yet. It could be that this
understanding of the term ‘adjacent’ is helpful in their deliberations,
whether Information will exercise her charms only on adjacent subjects of
her powers.

Let me give an example: the nice young couple *(Diana, Frederick) *live
among other noble logical primitives. They are used to being neighboured
once to *(Conny, whoever)* and *(Emily, whoever)*, when they line up
according to her preferences, and once to *(whoever, Esteban)* and *(whoever,
Gregory)*, if the line-up is done on the succession of the male names.
(These two, officially recognised, line-ups are believed to be something
with a totemistic strength, although they are by no means more valuable or
prominent than any other sequences resulting from a series of comparisons.)
The happy folk in the village of Informia – a cohort of logical primitives
and no one else - are also well versed in the techniques of lining up
according to changes necessitated by the season, the lunar phase and the
time of the day. Furthermore, they are also well prepared for reactions
needed in times of Plagues. They have Task Groups in which they execute
reorganising, from the present order to the order required by the current
Plague. Our friends team up with (build cycles, of which are members) *(Adele,
Cesar)*, *(Emily, Hugo), (Barbara, Otto), etc.* in times of a Plague of
Locusts, and they team up with *(Barbara, Martin), (Helene, Isaac),
(Barbara, Jonathan), etc*. in times of a Plague of Frogs. There is an
accidental camaraderie among the primitives. It is potentially always
there, a property of the primitive. Whether and when the capacity of
linkage will be actuated, depends on the periodic and at times aperiodic
changes.

‘Adjacent’ can very well refer to a neighbourhood relation in a cycle. The
index pointing to a member of a cycle enumerates as well the *sequential
number* of the element among the members of the cycle and as well carries
the *commutative symbol* of that element belonging to this cycle, being in
a fashion aggregated or aggregatable in that context.

*The general idea* is, that a choice in the methods of counting reveals
Information to be an artefact of counting. By counting consistently in *two
*algorithms, both based in *N*, we can actually entrap her. We have
actually already entrapped her material extent, therefore some scent of her
presence. The building will be full of life.

Am So., 20. Sept. 2020 um 16:08 Uhr schrieb Xueshan Yan <yxs en pku.edu.cn>:

> Dear Dai,
>
>
>
> I read most of your posts in the past decades and agree with your views
> about the investigation of information. Fortunately, we can share the
> different ideas by FIS currently and this channel was not partitioned by
> the mentioned firewall temporarily.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Xueshan
>
>
>
> *From:* fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es <fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es> *On
> Behalf Of *Dai Griffiths
> *Sent:* Sunday, September 20, 2020 8:58 PM
> *To:* fis en listas.unizar.es
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] The 10 Principles--Replies
>
>
>
> I am entirely in agreement with Loet that
>
> "As you know, I am against this program. Reducing society to a
> meta-biology reduces the social sciences to a commentary. They can be *sui
> generis. *The application of biological systems theory to society
> (sociobiology) to be resisted. ... The rule of law cannot be reduced to
> biology."
>
> Nevertheless, I am still tempted to think that there are patterns that
> connect across different fields. For example, since the introduction of
> social media something has happened to patterns of communication, to shared
> meaning making, and to politics. I would think that, in addition to the
> social phenomena which lead people to behave in one way or another in a
> particular culture or society, there are also relevant rules that we can
> discover about the dynamics of communication which are applicable in a
> wider context. For example the ideas of variety management, amplification
> and attenuation help in understanding the control structures which
> different societies create (whether this is a team of Facebook moderators,
> or the Great Firewall of China). If this is not the case, then we are
> forced to believe that these social changes are unrelated to the
> development of mobile computing, which I don't find credible.
>
> Mapping these kinds of connections was the ambition behind the development
> of those involved in cybernetics and their fellow travelers. To me, this is
> a more acceptable program than "Reducing society to a meta-biology".
>
> Dai
>
> On 20/09/2020 09:41, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:
>
> *This may be the case for biological evolution, but communication
> technologies enable us to include non-adjacent distinctions. *
>
> --Nope. As said above, we may only imply that those media or techno info
> are non-local only AFTER THEIR CARRIERS HAVE "TOUCHED" OUR RECEPTORS and we
> have built thousands and thousands of micro-distinctions flowing bottom-up
> and top-down that produce a meaning and finally they make us say, "oh, yes,
> this is non-local info about the US politics". It may take barely an
> instant, and all of those processes are transparent for us.
>
> Dear Pedro,
>
>
>
> It seems to me that you reason most about information carriers, but not
> about information. The carriers can also transform the information. For
> example, the receptors can be expected to filter.
>
> [...]
>
> By the way, curiously "channel" in the Shanonian scheme represents also
> that which brings information to the adjacency of the receiver.
>
> The commonality exhibits, in my opinion, the mathematical character. Once
> one abstracts from materiality, a mathematical definition becomes
> unavoidable. Only math (and logic) can be used across domains. Do you have
> such a definition, equivalent to the Shannon H?
>
> --Interesting, but do you think the Shannonian metrics is the only thing
> in common?
>
> There is a number of these measures. Shannon-type is relatively simple and
> elaborate. *Essentia non sint multiplicanda.  *The alternatives are not
> essentially different.
>
>
>
> But my point revolves about a better understanding of sharing a life-cycle
> (& its experiential load--a culture for instance) as a powerful
> level-playing field in social and biological communication. It dissolves
> eons of complexity.
>
> As you know, I am against this program. Reducing society to a meta-biology
> reduces the social sciences to a commentary. They can be *sui generis. *The
> application of biological systems theory to society (sociobiology) to be
> resisted. For example, we don't wish the strongest to be the fittest. The
> rule of law cannot be reduced to biology.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Loet
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
> ----------
>
> --
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Professor David (Dai) Griffiths
>
>
>
> SKYPE: daigriffiths
>
>
>
> Phones (please don't leave voice mail)
>
>    UK Mobile +44 (0)7491151559
>
>    Spanish Mobile: + 34 687955912
>
>
>
> email
>
>    dai.griffiths.1 en gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200920/fd64f2a3/attachment-0001.html>