[Fis] a simple question. A simple (?) answer.

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear List,

Responding to the last exchanges, first, it is always a pleasure reading 
Karl's texts, irrespective that one can agree, disagree or partially 
coincide with the conceptual edifice he is elegantly describing.
About Joseph's below, thanks for clarifying Krassimir's question--am 
glad you are upholding the 1st Principle. But following your thought, my 
mention to the life cycle as a complementary zeroth principle seems 
unnecessary, or even counterproductive--what would you think?

Regarding Stan's comment, on the basic characteristics of life, apart of 
their general interest, I tend to disagree with his " information must 
make a difference to the promotion of any dissipative structure. (Here 
we arrive in physics!)" Would you say the same when talking about the 
basic processing structure of a computer digital info? Do you need 
physics for the Turing Machine or for the von Neumann architecture? I 
connect the disagreement with a relatively similar statement from Bruno: 
"eventually Nature itself is a pattern emerging from the relation 
between universal numbers; some playing the role of environment for 
others." You take as (relatively?) solved one the biggest physical enigmas.

And to continue the disagreements, Loet's: "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." I 
think you misunderstood my comment and are shooting at a straw-man.
When I wrote "sharing a life-cycle (& its experiential load--a culture 
for instance) as a powerful level-playing field in social and biological 
communication" can be excellently clarified by a recent movie of Denis 
Villeneuve (2016) "ARRIVAL".  An enormous spacial ship arrives, the 
occupants of which are finally visualized as enormous octopus within a 
gigantic tank. How could humans communicate with them when everything 
about their respective forms of life (my "life cycle & experiential 
load")  is completely unknown for each other??? The development of the 
movie is great from the communication point of view... It is a problem 
not so distant from the frequent uncommunication between human cultures 
and even between practitioners of different scientific disciplines 
(ehem). In any case, anyone reading the 10 info principles could hardly 
raise the shibboleth of reductionism. These principles visit a 
succession of the main  information halls and just try to open a few 
strategic doors between them.

Putting it differently: the 10 info principles would minimally describe 
the foundations of the bizarre difference between our planet and the 
other known planets. The inner workings of the incredible biosphere & 
sociosphere herein, which seem to be grounded on multiple new kinds of 
communicative relationships. Whether the common "physical stuff" on 
which all existence depends is also involved in playing info games 
appears beyond my personal expertise (but am not against this kind of 
quest!).

All the best
--Pedro

El 21/09/2020 a las 17:48, Joseph Brenner escribió:
>
> Dear Krassimir, Dear All,
>
> 1. Perhaps somewhat unexpectedly, I have concluded that this is a very 
> good question, to which I propose the following tentative answer. In 
> the real world, information is co-emergent with the universe. Today, 
> no real informational event, that is, no event, takes place without 
> reference to an earlier state. For those who, like me, do not believe 
> that our current universe is expanding from a singularity, the problem 
> of the apparent disparity in the size of the universe at the end of an 
> expansion cycle and the start of a contraction cycle is solved in the 
> Cyclic Conformal Cosmology of Penrose. Even if the simplistic ‘Big 
> Bang’ model of the universe is retained, which, I repeat, I think it 
> should not be, the start of Krassimir’s series is not information (0) 
> but information (n), where n is an obviously very large but 
> transfinite, not infinite, number.
>
> In other words, the concept of an information (0) is, to all intents 
> and purposes, a completely idealized construction. It has the value, 
> for the purposes of this discussion, of being a further demonstration 
> of the failure of classical arguments, scientific or philosophical, 
> based on an infinite logical regress to a limit, 0, 1, or ‘infinity’, 
> as the case may be.
>
> Therefore, we may retain Pedro’s First Principle with the 
> understanding that the movement is always between n and n+1, since n 
> (0) is inaccessible.
>
> 2. The second point I would like to raise relates to the requirement, 
> which I have accepted without thinking about it that information 
> refers to a distinction on an /adjacent /difference.
>
> Why adjacent? Any difference of which I become conscious has become 
> ‘adjacent’, otherwise I could not make a distinction on it. In other 
> words, any relations I may have to non-adjacent differences are purely 
> epistemological. Is this correct? Is there a direct relation between 
> information (n) and information (n+2)? I conclude there is not, and 
> Pedro’s Principle stands as written. QED.
>
> Thank you and best wishes,
>
> Joseph
>
>
> I still do not agree with the first principle.
>
> Joseph had written and Pedro had confirmed that :
>
> “information (2) is produced in MAKING a distinction on an adjacent 
> difference = information (1)
>
> In other words, information (n) is created from information (n-1).
>
> This is simple series which we may write as follow:
>
> information (0) –> information (1) –> ... –> information (n-1) –> 
> information (n) –> ....
>
> A Simple Question:
>
> Who creates information (0) ?
>
> Friendly greetings
>
> Krassimir
>
> *From:*Joseph Brenner <mailto:joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>
>
> *Sent:*Friday, September 18, 2020 11:19 PM
>
> *To:*'Krassimir Markov' <mailto:markov at foibg.com>
>
> *Cc:*fis <mailto:fis at listas.unizar.es>
>
> *Subject:*RE: [Fis] Fwd: The 10 Principles. Information as Process
>
> Dear Pedro, Dear Krassimir,
>
> For me, the problem is clearly a result of using a common noun, 
> information, to describe a complex process rather than a participle 
> form – informationing. Then, “information IS a distinction” should be 
> replaced by “information (2) is produced in MAKING a distinction on an 
> adjacent difference = information (1). Then, of course the 1^st 
> principle is recursive, but correctly so!
>
> Best,
>
> Joseph
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group

pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------



-- 
El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20200922/9361134e/attachment-0001.html>